The reverse auction process is a competitive strategy being deployed by many procurement organizations as an advanced procurement tool allowing purchasing staff to shift from administering the procurement process to managing tools that automate many steps in the manually intensive sourcing process.[1] It is a process of “selling in reverse,” meaning the buyer and seller reverse positions; it is the buyer who drives the event.[2] A reverse auction operates similar to an on-line auction website: a state department advertises a need to purchase a certain good or service and interested qualified vendors have the opportunity to bid and re-bid on the contract to provide the good or service. At the end of the specific time limit, the lowest bidder would get the contract.
Numerous studies and research data have shown that savings of 5 percent to 15 percent, and in some cases even higher, can be achieved over prices previously paid.[3] Yet another report indicated that a properly executed reverse auction has the potential to yield an additional 8 percent to 20 percent savings for an organization below its current price.[4] William Brandel, research director for e-business at Aberdeen Group in Boston, notes that on-line reverse auctions can reduce the time it takes to purchase goods and services from months to a few days. In addition, buyers and procurement agents are able to make their requests for service known to a much wider audience.[5]
Reverse auctions should be a component of any well developed procurement sourcing strategy. They allow companies to minimize the cost of goods and services purchased while maximizing the value received.[6] In addition, reverse auctions provide an unbiased method that avoids the intent and appearance of unethical or compromising practices in relationships, actions and communications.[7]
| Buyer Benefits | Vendor Benefits |
|---|---|
|
|
The Reason Public Policy Institute and the Performance Institute stated that the U.S. Postal Service has achieved cost savings totaling more than $100 million on purchases of supplies and services using the reverse auctioning method. Reverse Auctions are most efficient for high dollar, large quantity, clearly defined purchases.
Reverse auction case studies for personal computers and carpeting show a reduction of costs for personal computers of 34 percent and for carpeting, 22 percent.[11]
(dollars in thousands)
| Fiscal Year | Savings | Costs | Net Savings (Costs) | Change in PYs |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2004–05 | $17,100 | $0 | $17,100 | 0 |
| 2005–06 | $22,800 | $0 | $22,800 | 0 |
| 2006–07 | $28,500 | $0 | $28,500 | 0 |
| 2007–08 | $34,200 | $0 | $34,200 | 0 |
| 2008–09 | $39,900 | $0 | $39,900 | 0 |
(dollars in thousands)
| Fiscal Year | Savings | Costs | Net Savings (Costs) | Change in PYs |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2004–05 | $17,100 | $0 | $17,100 | 0 |
| 2005–06 | $22,800 | $0 | $22,800 | 0 |
| 2006–07 | $28,500 | $0 | $28,500 | 0 |
| 2007–08 | $34,200 | $0 | $34,200 | 0 |
| 2008–09 | $39,900 | $0 | $39,900 | 0 |
[2] Stoddard, J.K., Associate Raine Consulting, Inc., “Strategies for Reverse Auction Survival.”
[3] BottomLine, “What is a Reverse Auction?”
[4] Wes Guillemaud, Ted Farris and Dan Hooper, “Lowering Total Costs Through Reverse-Auctions,” Sorcity.com, Inc., May 2002.
[5] Article by Stephanie Sanborn, “Reverse Auctions Make a Bid for the Business World,” “Infoworld, “March 16, 2001.
[6] A Purchase Pro Inc., a White Paper, “Strategic Sourcing Through Reverse Auctions.”
[7] Wes Guillemaud, Ted Farris and Dan Hooper, “Lowering Total Costs Through Reverse-Auctions,” Sorcity.com, Inc., May 2002.
[8] Reiner, Kai, University of Melborne, Week 4 Presentation, “Strategic Sourcing and Ordering,” August 19, 2003.
[9] Department of the Treasury, Reverse Auctioning Presentation, http://www.treas.gov (last visited June 8, 2004).
[10] U.S. General Services Administration, Reverse Auctions, http://www.gsa.gov (last visited June 8, 2004).
[11] Hedgehog Reverse Auction Software and E-Procurement Services, Case Studies, http://hedgehog.com/case_study/case7.htm, and http://hedgehog.com/case_study/case3.htm (last visited June 8, 2004).
[12] Interview with Michelle Ogata, Mary Kuwamotto, Earl Santee, Scott Norton, Bob Riola, George Hortin and Janice King, Procurement Division, Department of General Services (April 20, 2004).