Forward vs. Reverse Auctions

In a nutshell, there are really only two categories of auctions — forward and reverse auctions. There may be variations with these based on a number of factors, including the progress of the auction and the criteria for determining the “winner” of the auction.

Forward auctions take the form of a single seller offering an item for sale, with buyers competing to secure the item by bidding the price upward. Forward auctions are far-better understood by the public at large than reverse auctions as to how they operate, due primarily to the fact that they are widely used at the consumer level. They are also widely used when the goal is for the seller to receive the most money possible for the item being offered at auction. Thus, a forward auction should be utilized for sales of goods and services of all types, whether conducted online, offline or a hybrid of the two.

Reverse auctions are the other major form of auctions. In a reverse auction, a single buyer makes potential sellers aware of their intent to buy a specified good or service. During the course of the actual reverse auction event, the sellers bid against one another to secure the buyer’s business, driving the price to be paid for the item downward. Thus, the winning bidder is the seller who offers the lowest price. Reverse auctions are most typically used for procurement by private companies, public sector agencies and nonprofit organizations.

Reverse auctions are not a short-term tactic for procurement operations, but are, in fact, a proven method for long-term management of indirect spend — delivering significant savings and process efficiency. For more information on reverse auctions and the procurement process, visit Reverse Auction Research online at www.reverseauctionresearch.org.

Source: Reverse Auction Research (www.reverseauctionresearch.org)

This article originally appeared in the College Planning & Management September 2013 issue of Spaces4Learning.

Featured

  • Spaces4Learning Trends & Predictions for Educational Facilities in 2026: Part II

    As education leaders look toward 2026, the design of K–12 and higher education facilities is being reshaped by powerful, converging forces. Survey respondents point to the rapid growth of Career and Technical Education, deeper alignment with workforce and industry needs, and the accelerating influence of AI and emerging technologies.

  • LAN, Inc. Opens Office in College Station, Texas

    Lockwood, Andrews & Newnam, Inc. (LAN) recently announced the opening of a new office in College Station, Texas, to support its regional client base, according to a news release. The organization provides engineering, design, and program management services for water, wastewater, transportation, stormwater, and education clients in the Brazos Valley.

  • UNL Kiewit Hall

    Designing for Engineering Excellence: Integrating Sustainability and Wellness at UNLs Kiewit Hall

    Kiewit Hall at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln exemplifies how academic institutions can integrate sustainability and wellness into modern learning environments. With an integrated and collaborative team approach, Kiewit Hall addresses enhanced learning and creativity, physical health, and mental wellness, and fosters a sense of community through innovative design, operations, and policy solutions.

  • El Paso District Breaks Ground on New Elementary School

    The Canutillo Independent School District in El Paso, Texas, recently announced that construction has begun on a 119,000-square-foot elementary school, according to a news release. The district partnered with Pfluger Architects, Carl Daniel Architects, and LDCM Solutions on the new Davenport Elementary School, which has an expected completion date of 2027.

Digital Edition