Administrative vs Ordinary Purchases

Overview

This analysis compares administrative purchases (urgency without judicial sanctions) to ordinary purchases, excluding litigated purchases entirely. The sample includes items with both administrative and ordinary purchase types (196,988 observations; 168,814 winners).

Key Results (Preferred Specification: Item + Year + PBU FE)

Outcome	Coefficient	% Effect	Significance
Reference Price	-0.095	-9.1%	*
Quantity	+0.457	+57.9%	n.s.
Neg. Price (Total)	-0.062	-6.0%	n.s.
Neg. Price (Direct)	+0.109	+11.5%	n.s.
Firms (Total)	-0.027	-2.6%	n.s.
Firms (Direct)	-0.037	-3.6%	*
Success (Total)	+0.009	+0.9 pp	n.s.
Success (Direct)	+0.001	+0.1 pp	n.s.

Interpretation

Administrative purchases carry lower reference prices than ordinary purchases (-9.1%, p < 0.10), a striking contrast with litigated purchases which carry +7.6% higher prices. Most other effects are imprecisely estimated. This confirms that administrative purchases occupy an intermediate position: they share urgency constraints but lack the price-inflating effects of judicial sanctions.

Coefficient Plot

Preferred specification (Item + Year + PBU FE). Thick bars = 90% CI; thin bars = 95% CI. SE clustered at PBU level.

Comparison Across All Groups

Outcome	Urgent vs Ord	Litigated vs Ord	Admin vs Ord	UTG (Admin vs Lit)
Ref. Price	+2.7%*	+7.6%**	-9.1%*	-27.3%***
Neg. Price (Total)	+5.4%***	+9.1%***	-6.0%	-30.0%**
Firms (Total)	-5.5%***	-7.9%***	-2.6%	n.s.
Success	+2.1pp***	+2.4pp***	+0.9pp	n.s.

Key Takeaway

The gradient of effects across comparison groups—largest for litigated vs ordinary, moderate for urgent (pooled), and reversed for admin vs ordinary—confirms that judicial sanctions, not urgency per se, drive the procurement cost premium.