## of 1992)

In this case, involving the purchase of water meters by local government A by means of a fixed-unit-price method (unit price for delivery during a specified fiscal year is determined through a bid competed by designated firms, with no reference to quantities to be delivered, and contracts are awarded to the lowest bidder and to any other firm prepared to supply at the determined unit price), the designated firms had predetermined the minimum bid price, the firm to submit the minimum bid price, and the bid prices to be submitted by all other participants, in order to prevent the lowering of the minimum bid price. This was found to be in violation of Section 3.

Trade Association Y of distributors of petroleum products (FTC Recommendation decision No.5 of 1984)

In this case, involving bids for the petroleum products ordered by City B and others, the trade association had predetermined the expected bid winners and the prices to be bid by the expected bid winners according to the category of petroleum products. This was found to be in violation of Section 8(1)(i) (Sec.8(i) of the existing Antimonopoly Act).

## (Points to be noted)

In relation to the example described in 2-1 (Predetermining an expected bid price) of "Conduct in principle constituting violation," some points are noted below for the purpose of preventing bid-rigging.

2-1-1 (Exchange of information concerning bids prices)

➢ Conduct of exchanging information concerning bid prices among firms intending to participate in a bid. Or, conduct of collecting and offering such information by a trade association which includes such firms, or conduct of promoting the exchange of such information among such firms by it.

## (Specific cases of violation)

Firm X and other manufacturers of plywood (FTC Hearing decision No.2 of 1948)

In this case, involving bids for plywood ordered by Ministry A, a number of domestic plywood manufacturers, through various conversations concerning their bid prices in advances, had reached to rough recognition of the others' bid prices. Then, the great majority of them had submitted almost the same bid prices. This was found to be in violation of Section 3.

## • Conduct suspected to be in violation

2-2 (Exchange of information concerning price levels of goods or services subject to a bid)

➢ Conduct of exchanging information among firms intending to participate in a bid concerning the price levels or trends in prices of goods or services subject to a bid, or conduct of collecting and offering such information by a trade association which includes such firms or conduct of promoting the exchange of such information among such firms by it, in such as case that contract awarding public agency requests firms or a trade association to submit information to be used in the computation of the estimated price for the bid of the agency.

## (Point of issue)

Such collecting, offering and exchanging of information is often transformed into the collecting, offering and exchanging of information concerning bid prices. In such a case, it would raise problems under the Antimonopoly Act, regarded as leading to the predetermined of a minimum bid price.

Moreover, firms' concerted conduct or a trade association's conduct of predetermined the