A Multiattribute Sealed-Bid Procurement Auction with Multiple Budgets for Government Vendor Selection

References

• Beil D., Wein L. An inverse-optimization-based auction mechanism to support a multiattribute RFQ process. Management Sci. (2003) 49(11):1529–1545Link, Google Scholar
• Blondal J. R., Kamensky J. M., Morales A. International experience using outsourcing, public-private partnerships, and vouchers. Competition, Choice, and Incentives in Government Programs (2006) (Rowman & Littlefield, Lanham, MD) 121–159Google Scholar
• Buede D. M., Bresnick T. A. Applications of decision analysis to the military systems acquisition process. Interfaces (1999) 22(6):110–125Link, Google Scholar
• Che Y. Design competition through multidimensional auctions. RAND J. Econom. (1993) 24(4):668–680Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dyer J. S., Sarin R. K. Measurable multiattribute value functions. Oper. Res. (1979) 27(4):810–822Link, Google Scholar
• Dyer J. S., Sarin R. K. Relative risk aversion. Management Sci. (1982) 28(8):875–886Link, Google Scholar
• General Services Administration Code of Federal Regulations: Title 48, Chapter 1. (2005) . Accessed January 4, 2011, https://www.acquisition.gov/far/html/Subpart14_5.htmlGoogle Scholar
• Hitch C., McKean R.The Economics of Defense in the Nuclear Age (1967) (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA) Google Scholar
• Jordan K. The NMCI experience and lessons learned: The consolidation of networks by outsourcing. (2007) . Case Studies in National Security Transformation, No. 12, Center for Technology and National Security Policy, National Defense University, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
• Keeney R. L.Value-Focused Thinking: A Path to Creative Decisionmaking (1992) (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA) Google Scholar
• Keeney R. L. Making better decision makers. Decision Anal. (2004) 1(4):193–204Link, Google Scholar
• Keeney R. L., Raiffa H.Decisions with Multiple Objectives: Preferences and Value Trade-Offs (1976) (John Wiley & Sons, New York) Google Scholar
• Kennedy B. R. Historical realities of C-17 program pose challenge for future acquisitions. Program Manager (1999) 28(6):70–78Google Scholar
• Kirkwood C.Strategic Decision Making (1997) (Duxbury Press, New York) Google Scholar
• Kirkwood C. W., Sarin R. K. Preference conditions for multiattribute value functions. Oper. Res. (1980) 28(1):225–232Link, Google Scholar
• Larsen R. F. The evolution of the Pentagon's strategic warfighting resources and risk process. (2007) . Land Warfare Paper 64, Institute of Land Warfare, Arlington, VAGoogle Scholar
• Loerch A. G., Koury R. R., Maxwell D. T. Value added analysis for army equipment modernization. Naval Res. Logist. (1999) 46(3):233–253Crossref, Google Scholar
• Matheson J. E., Abbas A. E. Utility transversality: A value-based approach. J. Multi-Criteria Decision Anal. (2005) 13(5-6):229–238Crossref, Google Scholar
• McAfee R. P., McMillan J. Auctions and bidding. J. Econom. Lit. (1987) 25(2):699–738Google Scholar
• Merrick J. R. W., Parnell G. S., Barnett J., Garcia M. A multiple-objective decision analysis of stakeholder values to identify watershed improvement needs. Decision Anal. (2005) 2(1):44–57Link, Google Scholar
• Michael R. T., Becker G. S. On the new theory of consumer behavior. Swedish J. Econom. (1973) 75(4):378–396Crossref, Google Scholar
• Mild P., Salo A. Combining a multiattribute value function with an optimization model: An application to dynamic resource allocation for infrastructure maintenance. Decision Anal. (2009) 6(3):139–152Link, Google Scholar
• Milgrom P. Auctions and bidding: A primer. J. Econom. Perspect. (1989) 3(3):3–22Crossref, Google Scholar
• Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller)National Defense Budget Estimates for FY2012–2016 (2011) (Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller), Washington, DC) Google Scholar
• Parkes D., Kalagnanam J. Models for iterative multiattribute procurement auctions. Management Sci. (2005) 51(3):435–451Link, Google Scholar
• Parnell G. S., Loerch A., Rainey L. Value-focused thinking using multiple objective decision analysis. Methods for Conducting Military Operational Analysis: Best Practices in Use Throughout the Department of Defense (2007) (Military Operations Research Society, Alexandria, VA) 619–656Google Scholar
• Pratt J. W., Raiffa H., Schlaifer R. The foundations of decision under uncertainty: An elementary exposition. J. Amer. Statist. Assoc. (1964) 59(306):353–375Crossref, Google Scholar
• Quade E. S., Carter G. M.Analysis for Public Decisions (1989) 3rd ed.(North-Holland, New York) Google Scholar
• Sproles N. Coming to grips with measures of effectiveness. Systems Engrg. (2000) 3(1):50–58Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sullivan M. Written testimony of M. Sullivan, Government Accountability Office, before the Committee on the Budget. (2009) House of Representatives, 111th CongressMarch 18Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
• Wilson L. E. NMCI: The silver lining. (2006) . EWS contemporary issue paper, Expeditionary Warfare School, Marine Corps Command and Staff College, Quantico, VAGoogle Scholar
• Wise R., Morrison D. Beyond the exchange—The future of B2B. Harvard Bus. Rev. (2000) 78(6):86–96Google Scholar