Timothy J. Bartik, an economist at the Upjohn Institute in Michigan, said that the approach would most likely result in higher costs for government agencies, because companies bidding on contracts would probably raise prices to help finance the jobs they pledged to create. But he said it was plausible that the economic benefits would exceed the costs, and that the manufacturing jobs would probably provide some social benefit, too.

The New Flyer bid laid out the number of full-time-equivalent jobs the company planned to create and tallied the dollar value of the wages and benefits the workers in those jobs would receive over the contract’s life. L.A. Metro then applied an economic multiplier to estimate the overall value of the jobs: nearly $18 million.

The agency deducted the amount from the price when evaluating the company’s proposal, which widened its advantage over the next lowest bidder.

In its complaint, Jobs to Move America contends that New Flyer submitted at least two types of false information to L.A. Metro.

The company stated in its proposal that more than 90 percent of its new jobs in California would pay at least $18.35 an hour. But in quarterly progress reports to L.A. Metro in 2014, New Flyer said that most workers were earning $17 an hour or less.

In the same reports, the company said that the workers’ benefits were worth $11.75 an hour, or about $2,000 a month. But pay stubs and other documents obtained by Jobs to Move America and reviewed by The New York Times show that the benefits were typically worth half that at best. (The group does not accuse the company of falling short on the number of jobs it created.)

Lindy Norris, a New Flyer spokeswoman, said that the company believed it had “fulfilled the terms and conditions” of its employment commitments. She declined to comment on pending litigation but said that the company would “vigorously defend this action.”