How to apply penalties to avoid delays in projects

Bergantiños, Gustavo and Lorenzo, Leticia (2019): How to apply penalties to avoid delays in projects. Published in: European Journal of Operational Research No. 275 (2019): pp. 608-620.

Abstract

A planner wants to carry out a project involving several firms. In many cases the planner, for instance the Spanish Administration, includes in the contract a penalty clause that imposes a payment per day if the firms do not complete their activities or the project on time. We discuss two ways of including such penalty clauses in contracts. In the first the penalty applies only when the whole project is delayed. In the second the penalty applies to each firm that incurs a delay even if the project is completed on time. We compare the two penalty systems and find that the optimal penalty (for the planner) is larger in the second method, the utility of the planner is always at least as large or larger in the second case and the utility of the firms is always at least as large or larger in the first. Surprisingly, the final delay in the project is unrelated to which penalty system is chosen.

• Item Type: MPRA Paper
• Language: English
• Keywords: game theory; PERT; delays; penalties
• Subjects: C - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods > C7 - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory > C72 - Noncooperative Games

References

Al-Tabtabai, H., Quadumi, N., Al-Khaiat, H., Alex, A.P. (1998). Delay penalty formulation four housing projects in Kuwait. International Journal of Housing Science and its Applications 22, 109-124.

Aumann, R.J., Maschler, M. (1985) Game theoretic analysis of a bankruptcy problem from the Talmud. Journal of Economic Theory 36, 195-213.

Bergantiños, G., Sánchez, E. (2002). How to distribute costs associated with a delayed project. Annals of Operations Research 109, 159-174.

Branzêi, R., Ferrari, G., Fragnelli, V., Tijs, S. (2002). Two approaches to the problem of sharing delay costs in joint projects. Annals of Operations Research 109, 359-374.

D'alpaos, C., Moretto, M., Valbonesi, P., Vergalli, S. (2009). It is never too late: Optimal penalty for investment delay in Italian public procurement contracts. Nota di Lavoro 78.2009. Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei, Institutions and markets series.

Dagan, N., Serrano, R., Volij, O. (1997). A non-cooperative view of consistent bankruptcy rules. Games and Economic Behavior 18, 55-72.

Estévez-Fernández, A. (2012). A game theoretical approach to sharing penalties and rewards in projects. European Journal of Operational Research 216, 647-657.

Estévez-Fernández, A., Borm, P., Hamers, H. (2007). Project games. International Journal of Game Theory 36, 149-176.

Hart, S., Mas-Coell, A. (1996). Bargaining and value. Econometrica 64, 357-380.

Louzolo-Kimbembe, P., Mbani, E. (2013). New approach of delay penalties formulation: Application to the case of construction projects in the Republic of Congo. Journal of Civil Engineering and Construction Technology 4(1), 6-22.

Moder, J.J., Phillips, C.A. (1970). Project Management with CPM and PERT. Van Nostrand.

Moulin, H., Shenker, S. (1992). Serial cost sharing, Econometrica 60, 1009-1037.

O'Neill, B. (1982). A problem of rights arbitration from the Talmud. Mathematical Social Sciences 2, 345-371.

Pérez-Castrillo, D., Wettstein, D. (2001). Bidding for the surplus: a non-cooperative approach to the Shapley value. Journal of Economic Theory 100, 274-294.

Perry, M., Reny, P. (1994). A Non-Cooperative View of Coalition Formation and the Core. Econometrica 62, 795-817.

Shapley, L. (1953). A value for n-person games, in: Contributions to the Theory of Games, eds. H.W. Kuhn and W. Tucker, Annals of Mathematics Studies, Vol. 28 (Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ).

Thomson, W. (2003). Axiomatic and game-theoretic analysis of bankruptcy and taxation problems: a survey. Mathematical Social Sciences 45, 249-297.