Bid rigging was fined in total with nearly PLN 2 mln. Six undertakings involved – members of three consortia – intended to unlawfully affect the results of public procurement concerning the delivery of IT equipment to schools and libraries. At present UOKiK is carrying out 70 proceedings concerning bid rigging

Under the law, bidders are forbidden to fix conditions of their offers. Undertakings applying for public procurement as independent entities, are obliged to act on their own and cannot agree their actions with any other parties. At present UOKiK is carrying out 70 proceedings concerning bid rigging (13 antimonopoly proceedings and 57 explanatory proceedings).

At the end of 2011, the Marshall Office of Dolnośląskie Voivodeship (pl. Urząd Marszałkowski Województwa Dolnośląskiego) held a tender for the delivery of IT equipment to schools and libraries involved in the project Dolnośląska e-szkoła (e-school in Dolnośląskie voivodeship). Its participants were, among others, three consortia created by the following companies: Itsumi and KEN Solutions, Integrit and Dreamtec Solutions, as well as Incom and Dreamtec. Based on media reports, UOKiK instituted the proceedings to verify if these undertakings had made unlawful agreements. In the course of proceedings, UOKiK undertook cooperation, inter alia, with the Central Anti-Corruption Bureau (pl. CBA). The collected information clearly showed that these consortia had entered into tender collusion so that the ordering party would select the more expensive offer. At first, it seemed that Itsumi and KEN Solutions had submitted the cheapest bid, however, as the companies failed to supplement the documentation, its bid was rejected. In such case the Marshall Office should select the second subsequent offer, which means in fact the more expensive one submitted by Integrit and Dreamtec Solutions.

Excluding the cheapest contractor resulted from the fact that he failed to provide the relevant ZUS certificate (pl. ZUS stands for Social Insurance Institution) showing no delays in transferring ZUS contributions. However, UOKiK came to the conclusion that plenipotentiary of this consortium was in possession of the relevant document, which he could have filed along with the tender documentation. According to UOKiK, failing to supplement the documentation in the right way was a deliberate action. Moreover, competitors, who normally should compete, knew conditions offered by their rivals, which proved e.g. insurance guarantees, ZUS certificates issued the same day; the former ones had subsequent reference numbers. Moreover, bids of the two consortia still contained some data relating to competing entities, which meant the undertakings jointly made the documentation.

Furthermore, concluding prohibited agreements could have been affected by personal and capital relations between participants to the consortia. The President of Incom and Dreamtec also acted as an executive in the Integrit company, whereas the President of Dreamtec – in Dreamtec Solutions and KEN Solutions.

It is worth noting that participants to the collusion failed to obtain their goal, as eventually the tender winner was their competitor. The entity appealed against to Krajowa Izba Odwoławcza (the National Chamber of Appeal), which supported its charges.

The President of UOKiK fined participants to this competition-restricting agreement with nearly PLN 2 mln. However, the decison is not final, as it may be appealed against  to the court.

Both ordering parties and contractors who suspect a tender collusion might have taken place, can inform UOKiK of this fact via a special form available on the Office’s website. This form contains an easy to follow description of circumstances which under the antimonopoly law may be prerequisites of a prohibited agreement.

Additional information for the media:
Małgorzata Cieloch, Spokesperson for UOKiK
Department of International Relations and Communication
Pl. Powstańców Warszawy 1, 00-950 Warszawa
Tel.: +48 22 827 28 92, 55 60 314, 55 60 430
Fax: +48 22 826 11 86
E-mail: [SCODE]bWFsZ29yemF0YS5jaWVsb2NoQHVva2lrLmdvdi5wbA==[ECODE]

*Volume of fines imposed on participants to the collusion:

• Incom – PLN 1 717 184
• Itsumi – PLN 118 895
• Integrit – PLN 88 312
• Dreamtec – PLN 13 341
• KEN Solutions – PLN 3 415  
• Dreamtec Solutions – no financial penaty due to a low revenue generated by the undertaking.