rules," which provided that the association would consider temporary suspension or expulsion from the association of any member who would be awarded a contract at lower price than that of the expected winner, according to the number of such contracts awarded. This was found to be in violation of Section 8(1)(i) (Sec.8(i) of the existing Antimonopoly Act).

Trade Association Z of building maintenance firms (FTC Recommendation decision No.10 of 1993)

In this case, involving bids competed by designated firms or comparison of estimates submitted by firms for environmental sanitation-control work ordered by government agencies located in Prefecture C, the trade association had decided that it would make its members predetermined the expected winner, and that, in order to ensure the predetermined, if a member except the expected winner would be awarded a contract through mistake, the actual winner would have to compensate the expected winner by paying sum equivalent to the profit on the contract, and if a member except the expected winner would be awarded a contract by willfully offering the lowest price, the other members would refuse to act as underwriters guaranteeing the completion of the work. This was found to be in violation of Section 8(1)(i) (Sec.8(i) of the existing Antimonopoly Act).

## • Conduct suspected to be in violation

1-2 (Reporting the fact of designation and planned participation in bids)

Firms' concerted conduct or a trade association's conduct of requiring individual firms to report the fact of their designation for participation or their intent to participate in a forthcoming bid.

## (Point of issue)

Such conduct is often undertaken to identify the firms participating in a bid, in order to predetermine an expected bid winner. In such a case, the conduct would raise problems under the Antimonopoly Act, regarded as accompanying the predetermined of an expected bid winner.

## (Specific cases of violation)

Firm X and other manufacturers of water meters (FTC Recommendation decision No.35 of 1992)

In this case, involving bids competed by designated firms or comparison of estimates submitted by designated firms for water meters ordered by municipalities and a water-supply agency in Prefecture A, the designated firms had agreed to notify the leader firm that they had been designated to participate in a forthcoming bid or comparison of estimates, as a rule, no later than two days, before the day of a bid or the submission of an estimate, and had predetermined the expected winners in accordance with a certain method. This was found to be in violation of Section 3.

### Trade Association Y of pipe-laying firms (FTC Recommendation decision No.5 of 1990)

In this case, involving bids competed by designated firms for pipe-laying work ordered by Prefecture B, City C, and public corporations funded by the foregoing, the trade association had decided that it would make its members immediately notify the association that they have been designated to participate in a forthcoming bid and that it would make its members predetermined through collusive discussion the expected bid winner. This was found to be in violation of Section 8(1)(i) (Sec.8(i) of the existing Antimonopoly Act).