to a certain formula, would be selected to be the expected winner. This was found to be in violation of Section 3.

Trade Association Z of landscape gardeners (FTC Recommendation decision No.17 of 1992)

In this case, involving bids competed by designated firms or comparison of estimates submitted by firms for landscaping work ordered by City C and by foundations funded by City C, the trade association had decided to make its members predetermined the expected winners in such a way that the firm with the highest point total, which was calculated under a certain formula where points were deduced on the basis of the value of orders received while they were added on the basis of the number of times designated, according to the type of work. This was found to be in violation of Section 8(1)(i) (Sec.8(i) of the existing Antimonopoly Act).

B. The following conduct, which accompanies predetermined of an expected bid winner or a procedure for selecting an expected bid winner (1-1), aimed at ensuring that the contract is in fact awarded to the expected bid winner, is included in the violation under 1-1.

1-1-3 (Adjustment of bid prices)

➢ Conduct of adjusting bid prices by bid participants other than an expected bid winner after receiving information or directives from the expected bid winner concerning bid prices so as to allow the expected bid winner to be awarded.

## (Specific cases of violation)

Firm X and other electrical-construction firms (FTC Recommendation decision No.13 of 1993)

In this case, involving bids competed by designated firms or comparison of estimates submitted by designated firms for electrical-construction work ordered by City A, the designated firms predetermined the expected winners and had behaved to enable the expected winners to be awarded the contracts, obtaining cooperation of other designated firms than the parties of this decision, as the need arose, under the agreement that they predetermine the expected winner and that designated firms except the expected winner would cooperate so that the expected winner would be awarded the contract, by submitting bid prices or estimate prices higher than those informed by the expected winner as their own prices. This was found to be in violation of Section 3.

Trade Association Y of surveyors (FTC Recommendation decision No.5 of 1993)

In this case, involving bids competed by designated firms for aerial-photographic surveying work ordered by Ministry B, the trade association had decided that the expected bid winner would be predetermined and that designated members would cooperate by adjusting their bid prices in such a way that the bid price of the expected bid winner would be the lowest so that the expected bid winner would be awarded the contract. This was found to be in violation of Section 8(1)(i) (Sec.8(i) of the existing Antimonopoly Act).

C. The following conduct premises predetermined of an expected bid winner or a procedure for selecting an expected bid winner (1-1), and aims to facilitate or to enforce or otherwise such predetermined. The conduct of predetermined an expected bid winner or a procedure for selecting an expected bid winner in principle constitutes violation even if it is not accompanied by the conduct described below. In certain cases, the conduct described below constitutes violation inherently and of itself (Sec.8(iv), (v), Sec.19)