The facts suggest bid rigging occurred in both scenarios. In scenario 1, the private company likely engaged in complementary bidding by submitting an inflated bid to facilitate being awarded a subcontract. In scenario 2, the two major companies divided the market and fixed prices through their quarterly meetings, and later included the local company to maintain their collusive scheme. The CAK should investigate both scenarios further for violations of competition laws prohibiting bid rigging, market allocation, and price fixing agreements that harm consumers.
Related topics: