Choose Your Battles Wisely: The Consequences of Protesting Government Procurement Contracts

References

• Acemoglu D, Johnson S, Kermani A, Kwak J, Mitton T (2016) The value of connections in turbulent times: Evidence from the United States. J. Financial Econom. 121(2):368–391.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Agapos A, Dunlap P (1970) The theory of price determination in government-industry relationships. Quart. J. Econom. 84(1):85–99.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Arena MV, Persons B, Blickstein I, Chenoweth ME, Lee GT, Luckey D, Schendt A (2018) Assessing Bid Protests of U.S. Department of Defense Procurements: Identifying Issues, Trends, and Drivers (RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, CA).Google Scholar
• Attanasi E, Johnson S (1975) An empirical note on firm performance in government contract markets. J. Indust. Econom. 23(4):313–320.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Belo F, Gala V, Li J (2013) Government spending, political cycles, and the cross-section of stock returns. J. Financial Econom. 107(2):305–324.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Billett M, King Dolly King T-H, Mauer D (2007) Growth opportunities and the choice of leverage, debt maturity, and covenants. J. Finance 62(2):697–730.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Blanes I Vidal J, Draca M, Fons-Rosen C (2012) Revolving door lobbyists. Amer. Econom. Rev. 102(7):3731–3748.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Brogaard J, Denes M, Duchin R (2020) Political influence and the renegotiation of government contracts. Rev. Financial Stud. 34(6):3095–3137. Crossref, Google Scholar
• Burns N, Kedia S (2006) The impact of performance‐based compensation on misreporting. J. Financial Econom. 79(1):35–67.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Chaigneau P, Edmans A, Gottlieb D (2019) The informativeness principle without the first-order approach. Games Econom. Behav. 113:743–755.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Chaigneau P, Edmans A, Gottlieb D (2021) How should performance signals affect contracts? Rev. Financial Stud. 35(1):168–206.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cohen L, Malloy C (2016) Firms on welfare: Corporations as government dependents. Preprint, submitted April 4, http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2758835.Google Scholar
• Cohen L, Coval J, Malloy C (2011) Do powerful politicians cause corporate downsizing? J. Political Econom. 119(6):1015–1060.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cohen L, Diether K, Malloy C (2013) Legislating stock prices. J. Financial Econom. 110(3):574–595.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cooper M, Gulen H, Ovtchinnikov A (2010) Corporate political contributions and stock returns. J. Finance 65(2):687–724.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dinç IS (2005) Politicians and banks: Political influences on government-owned banks in emerging markets. J. Financial Econom. 77(2):453–479.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Duchin R, Sosyura D (2012) The politics of government investment. J. Financial Econom. 106(1):24–48.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Duchin R, Gao Z, Shu H (2020) The role of government in firm outcomes. Rev. Financial Stud. 33(12):5555–5593.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dyck A, Morse A, Zingales L (2010) Who blows the whistle on corporate fraud? J. Finance 65(6):2213–2253.Google Scholar
• Edmans A, Gabaix X (2011) Tractability in incentive contracting. Rev. Financial Stud. 24(9):2865–2894.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Edmans A, Gabaix X, Sadzik T, Sannikov Y (2012) Dynamic CEO compensation. J. Finance 67(5):1603–1647.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Efendi J, Srivastava A, Swanson E (2007) Why do corporate managers misstate financial statements? J. Financial Econom. 85(3):667–708.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Faccio M (2006) Politically connected firms. Amer. Econom. Rev. 96(1):369–386.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Faccio M, Parsley DC (2009) Sudden deaths: Taking stock of geographic ties. J. Financial Quant. Anal. 33(3):683–718.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fisman R (2001) Estimating the value of political connections. Amer. Econom. Rev. 91(4):1095–1102.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fisman D, Fisman R, Galef J, Khurana R, Wang Y (2012) Estimating the value of connections to Vice-President Cheney. B.E. J. Econom. Anal. Policy 13(3).Google Scholar
• Fudenberg D, Tirole J (1984) The fat-cat effect, the puppy-dog ploy, and the lean and hungry look. Amer. Econom. Rev. 74(2):361–366.Google Scholar
• Goldman E, Rocholl J, So J (2009) Do politically connected boards affect firm value? Rev. Financial Stud. 22(6):2331–2360.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Goldman E, Rocholl J, So J (2013) Political connections and the allocation of procurement contracts. Rev. Finance 13(5):1617–1648.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gordon DI (2013) Bid protests: The costs are real, but the benefits outweigh them. Public Contract Law J. 42(3):489–516.Google Scholar
• Greenstein S (1993) Procedural rules and procurement regulations: Complexity creates trade-offs. J. Law Econom. Organ. 9(1):159–180.Google Scholar
• Hawkins TG, Yoder C, Gravier MJ (2016) Federal bid protests: Is the tail wagging the dog? J. Public Procurement 16(2):152–190.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Holmström B (1979) Moral hazard and observability. Bell J. Econom. 10(1):74–91.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Karpoff J, Lee DS, Martin GS (2008a) The costs to firms of cooking the books. J. Financial Quant. Anal. 43(3):581–612.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Karpoff J, Lee DS, Martin GS (2008b) The consequences to managers for cooking the books. J. Financial Econom. 88(2):193–215.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Khoury PF, Walsh PB, Ward GS (2017) A data-driven look at the GAO protest system. Pratt’s Government Contracting Law Rep. 3(3):83–91.Google Scholar
• Kim CF, Pantzalis C, Park JC (2012) Political geography and stock returns: The value and risk implications of proximity to political power. J. Financial Econom. 106(1):196–228.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Knack S, Biletska N, Kacker K (2017) Deterring kickbacks and encouraging entry in public procurement markets: Evidence from firm surveys in 88 developing countries. Policy Research Working Paper 8078, World Bank Group, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
• Konkel F (2019) Federal contract spending increased for the third straight year. NextGov/FCW (August 1), https://www.nextgov.com/digital-government/2019/08/governments-contract-spending-approaches-600b-highest-2010/158880/.Google Scholar
• Kovacic WE (1995) Procurement reform and the choice of forum in bid protest disputes. Admin. Law J. Amer. Univ. 9:461–513.Google Scholar
• La Porta R, Lopez‐de‐Silanes F, Shleifer A (2006) What works in securities laws? J. Finance 61(1):1–32.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lee DS, McCrary J, Moreira MJ, Porter JR (2022) Valid t-ratio inference for IV. Amer. Econom. Rev. 112(10):3260–3290.Google Scholar
• Levy B, Spiller PT (1994) The institutional foundations of regulatory commitment: A comparative analysis of telecommunications regulation. J. Law Econom. Organ. 10(2):201–246.Google Scholar
• Lichtenberg F (1988) The private R&D investment response to federal design and technical competitions. Amer. Econom. Rev. 78(3):550–559.Google Scholar
• Light PC (2017) The true size of government: Tracking Washington’s blended workforce, 1984–2015. The Volcker Alliance, New York. https://www.volckeralliance.org/sites/default/files/attachments/Issue%20Paper_True%20Size%20of%20Government.pdf.Google Scholar
• Marshall RC, Michael JM, Jean-François R (1994) Curbing agency problems in the procurement process by protest oversight. RAND J. Econom. 25(2):297–318. Crossref, Google Scholar
• Maser SM, Thompson GF (2010) Understanding and mitigating protests of Department of Defense Acquisition contracts. Center for Governance and Public Policy Research. Research supported by the Acquisitions Research Program, Naval Postgraduate School (Grant No. N00244-09-1-0019).Google Scholar
• Nguyen J (2019) The U.S. government is becoming more dependent on contract workers. Marketplace (January 17), https://www.marketplace.org/2019/01/17/rise-federal-contractors/.Google Scholar
• Roberts BE (1990) A dead senator tells no lies: Seniority and the distribution of federal benefits. Amer. J. Political Sci. 34(1):31–58.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Roberts M (2015) The role of dynamic renegotiation and asymmetric information in financial contracting. J. Financial Econom. 116(1):61–81.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Saunders RS, Butler P (2010) A timely reform: Impose timeliness rules for filing bid protests at the Court of Federal Claims. Public Contract Law J. 39(3):539–581.Google Scholar
• Schaengold MJ, Guiffre M, Gill EM (2009) Choice of forum for federal government contract bid protests. Federal Circuit Bar J. 18(2):243–276.Google Scholar
• Schoenherr D (2019) Political connections and allocative distortions. J. Finance 74(2):543–586.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Shleifer A, Vishny RW (1993) Corruption. Quart. J. Econom. 108(3):599–617.Google Scholar
• Shleifer A, Vishny R (1994) Politicians and firms. Quart. J. Econom. 109(4):995–1025.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Spiller PT (1996a) A positive political theory of regulatory instruments: Contracts, administrative law or regulatory specificity? Southern California Law Rev. 69:477–515.Google Scholar
• Spiller PT (1996b) Institutions and commitment. Indust. Corporate Change 5(2):421–452.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Spiller PT (2008) An institutional theory of public contracts: Regulatory implications. NBER Working Paper No. 14152, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
• Staiger D, Stock J (1997) Instrumental variables regression with weak instruments. Econometrica 65(3):557–586.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Stigler G (1971) The theory of economic regulation. Bell J. Econom. 2(1):3–21.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Stock D, Yogo JH (2005) Testing for Weak Instruments in Linear IV Regression, Identification and Inference for Econometric Models. (Cambridge University Press, New York), 80–108.Google Scholar
• Tahoun A (2014) The role of stock ownership by US members of congress on the market for political favors. J. Financial Econom. 111(1):86–110.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Williamson O (2002) The lens of contract: Private ordering. Amer. Econom. Rev. 92(2):438–443.Crossref, Google Scholar