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

06.02.2020 NL law
Pay-for-delay: brightened lines between object and effect restrictions

Short Reads - In its first pay-for-delay case, the ECJ has clarified the criteria determining whether settlement agreements between a patent holder of a pharmaceutical product and a generic manufacturer may have as their object or effect to restrict EU competition law. The judgment confirms the General Court’s earlier rulings in Lundbeck and Servier (see our October 2016 and December 2018 newsletters) in which it was held that pay-for-delay agreements (in these cases) constituted a restriction ‘by object’.

Read more

06.02.2020 NL law
Consumers and Sustainability: 2020 competition enforcement buzzwords

Short Reads - The ACM will include the effects of mergers on labour conditions in its review. It will also investigate excessive pricing of prescription drugs. As well as these topics, the ACM has designated the digital economy and energy transition as its 2020 focus areas. Companies can therefore expect increased enforcement to protect online consumers, and active probing of algorithms.

Read more

06.02.2020 NL law
The ACM may cast the net wide in cartel investigations

Short Reads - Companies beware: the ACM may not need to specify the scope of its investigation into suspected cartel infringements in as much detail as expected. On 14 January 2020, the Dutch Trade and Industry Appeals Tribunal upheld the ACM’s appeal against judgments of the Rotterdam District Court, which had quashed cartel fines imposed on cold storage operators. The operators had argued that the ACM was time-barred from pursuing a case against them, because the ACM had not suspended the prescription period by beginning investigative actions specifically related to the alleged infringements.

Read more

06.02.2020 NL law
Den Bosch Court of Appeal revives damages claims in Dutch prestressing steel litigation

Short Reads - On 28 January 2020, the Court of Appeal of Den Bosch issued a ruling in the Dutch prestressing steel litigation. In its ruling, the Court of Appeal overturned a 2016 judgment of the District Court of Limburg, in which it was held that civil damages claims brought by Deutsche Bahn were time-barred under German law (see our January 2017 newsletter).

Read more

06.02.2020 NL law
CDC/Kemira: Amsterdam Court of Appeal applies European principle of effectiveness to limitation periods

Short Reads - In a private enforcement case brought by CDC against Kemira, the Amsterdam Court of Appeal applies the European principle of effectiveness and rules that claims are not time-barred under Spanish, Finnish and Swedish law. With reference to the Cogeco judgment of the ECJ, the Court considers that claimants must be able to await the outcome of any administrative appeal against an infringement decision, even in relation to respondents who themselves have not filed appeals against the infringement decision.

Read more

This website uses cookies. Some of these cookies are essential for the technical functioning of our website and you cannot disable these cookies if you want to read our website. We also use functional cookies to ensure the website functions properly and analytical cookies to personalise content and to analyse our traffic. You can either accept or refuse these functional and analytical cookies.

Privacy – en cookieverklaring