Short Reads

Belgian Competition Authority publishes Guidelines on how to identify and avoid bid-rigging

Belgian Competition Authority publishes Guidelines on how to identify

Belgian Competition Authority publishes Guidelines on how to identify and avoid bid-rigging

01.03.2017 NL law

The Belgian Competition Authority ("BCA") published Guidelines, addressed to procurement officials, with a view to preventing and detecting "bid-rigging". The Guidelines find their inspiration in texts such as the OECD Guidelines for Fighting bid rigging. They provide an overview (i) of indications that bid-rigging practices occur, (ii) of market circumstances that facilitate bid-rigging, and (iii) of best practices to prevent bid-rigging.

First, after identifying the different forms of bid-rigging schemes (cover bidding, bid suppression, bid rotation and market allocation) and concomitant compensation schemes within a cartel (e.g. through sub-contracting to competitors), the Guidelines list several indicators that may hint at the existence of a bid-rigging cartel including:

  • the bids being submitted: e.g. when a company suddenly and unexpectedly withdraws its bid, or when the same companies appear to be winning the tenders within certain regions;
  • the documents submitted by the tenderers: e.g. where bids by competitors feature identical language or calculation errors;
  • pricing practices: e.g. where a tenderer charges a much higher price than expected;
  • in the declarations of the companies concerned: e.g. where it is suggested that a certain region 'belongs' to a particular supplier; or
  • in their behaviour.

Second, the document identifies market circumstances that can facilitate bid-rigging. These circumstances include:

  • the supplier(s): bid-rigging cartels are easier to establish where there are only few market participants and entry barriers are high, or when suppliers meet on a regular basis in the context of a trade association;
  • the product/service itself: products or services that are not easily substitutable, or that are not subject to technological changes or innovation more easily lend themselves to bid-rigging;
  • the procurement agency: bid-rigging is facilitated where there is a constant demand, and similar contracts are tendered on a recurrent basis. Interestingly, in spite of the emphasis on transparency in public procurement law, the Guidelines warn that transparency (e.g. regarding the names of the tenderers) may increase the risk that competitors join hands and rig the procurement process.

Third, the Guidelines spell out steps that procurement officials may take to prevent bid-rigging:

  • good preparation and understanding of the market (in terms of potential candidates for the contract, average pricing, etc.);
  • enable as many companies as possible (including smaller companies and companies from other regions or countries) to participate, and make sure that the number of tender lots is lower than the number of expected tenderers;
  • do not share too much information with (possible) tenderers and avoid publicly accessible information meetings during which competitors could meet;
  • include anti-cartel clauses in the tender documents (e.g. requiring tenderers to notify any suspicious behaviour to the competition authorities); and
  • train procurement officials and introduce an audit system.

In the end, if procurement officials suspect bid-rigging they are urged to contact the BCA with a view to further investigations (without notifying the companies concerned) and to keep a record of all relevant information.

This article was published in the Competition Law Newsletter of March 2017. Other articles in this newsletter:

1. European Commission opens three investigations in the e-commerce sector
2. European Commission approves German measure to support electric charging infrastructure for green vehicles
3. Implementation of Antitrust Damages Directive: Dutch legislation effective as of 10 February 2017

Team

Related news

02.07.2020 NL law
European Commission to pull the strings of foreign subsidies

Short Reads - The European Commission is adding powers to its toolbox to ensure a level playing field between European and foreign(-backed) companies active on the EU market. On top of merger control and Foreign Direct Investment screening obligations, companies may also need to account for future rules allowing scrutiny of subsidies granted by non-EU governments if those subsidies might distort the EU Single Market.

Read more

04.06.2020 NL law
Please share – ACM conditionally clears shared mobility platform merger

Short Reads - There may soon be a new competition tool available to tackle structural competition concerns in dynamic tech and platform markets. Until then, competition authorities resort to existing tools to deal with these markets. The Dutch competition authority (ACM) recently subjected the merger of two emerging platforms – without significant market footprint – to behavioural remedies. On 20 May 2020, the ACM cleared the merger between the travel apps of Dutch rail operator NS and transport company Pon.

Read more

04.06.2020 NL law
No proof of competitive disadvantage? No abusive favouritism

Short Reads - Companies claiming abuse of dominance in civil proceedings have their work cut out for them, as demonstrated by a ruling of the Amsterdam Court of Appeal. Real estate association VBO had accused dominant online platform Funda of favouritism. However, in line with the District Court’s earlier ruling, the Appeal Court dismissed the claim for insufficient evidence of negative effects on competition. The ruling confirms that the effect-based approach also applies in civil abuse claims, and that the standard of proof is high.    

Read more

02.07.2020 NL law
New competition tool: something old, something new, something borrowed

Short Reads - Large online platforms may face more regulatory obligations, whilst non-dominant companies’ unilateral conduct may soon be curbed. The European Commission intends to tool up its kit by adding a new regulation to keep digital gatekeepers in check, as well as providing more clarity on how to define digital markets in its new Market Definition Notice.

Read more

04.06.2020 NL law
Not so fast – General Court clarifies merger control test

Short Reads - There is no magical number when it comes to “4-to-3” telecom mergers. On 28 May 2020, the EU’s General Court (“Court”) handed down a landmark judgment annulling a 2016 decision of the European Commission (“Commission”) blocking the merger between O2 UK and Three. The judgment fine-tunes the Commission’s application of the “significant impediment to effective competition” test for horizontal mergers and raises the bar for proving the removal of an “important competitive force” as a result of the merger.  

Read more