Trade Association X of construction firms (FTC Recommendation decision No.13 of 1982) In this case, involving bids competed by designated firms for construction work ordered by Prefecture A and City B, the trade association had decided to make its members predetermined the expected bid winner, by making designated firms hold meetings, and by making the selected official of the trade association chair the meetings, inquire whether or not each designated firm has interest to be awarded and make recommendations to facilitate discussions, and by making certain methods for arbitration be established. This was found to be in violation of Section 8(1)(i) (Sec.8(i) of the existing Antimonopoly Act).

### Firm Y and other construction firms (FTC Recommendation decision No.19 of 1993)

In this case, involving bids competed by designated firms or comparison of estimates submitted by designated firms for civil engineering work ordered by City C, the designated firms had predetermined the expected winners in such a way that when there was only one firm which showed interest in being awarded the contract, the firm was selected as the expected winner, and when two or more firms showed interest, the expected winner was determined by collusion among the firms interested in being awarded the contract. This was found to be in violation of Section 3.

### Firm Z and other surveyors (FTC Recommendation decision No.7 of 1993)

In this case, involving bids competed by designated firms or comparison of estimates submitted by designated firms for aerial-photographic surveying work ordered by the government agencies in District D, the designated firms had predetermined the expected winners taking into consideration such factors as their past records of business activities concerning the work in question, and their past records of winnings for the works in connection with the work in question by holding meetings and other collusion. This was found to be in violation of Section 3.

1-1-2 (Collating and offering information regarding the number of times designated and past record of contracts awarded)

Firms' concerted conduct or a trade association's conduct of collating information concerning the number of times that individual firms have been designated for participation in past bids and their past records of contracts awarded, in such a manner that the information can be used to establish an order of priority in the selection of future expected bid winners and to offer such information to firms intending to participate in bids.

## (Specific cases of violation)

Firm X and other manufacturers and distributors of fire-fighting hoses (FTC Recommendation decision No.2 of 1986)

In this case, involving bids competed by designated firms for fire-fighting hoses ordered by Fire Department A, the designated firms had predetermined the expected bid winners by identifying the firm which had the lowest record of adjusted cumulative sales based on their records of past sales to Fire Department A. The designated firms had confirmed the expected bid winners and had behaved to enable the expected bid winners to be awarded the contracts prior to bids. This was found to be in violation of Section 3.

Firm Y and other construction firms of road-sign and marker (FTC Recommendation decision No.29 of 1992)

In this case, involving bids competed by designated firms or comparison of estimates submitted by firms for construction work of road signs and markers ordered by Prefecture B, the designated firms had predetermined the expected winners in such a way that the firm with the highest number of past designations, as computed according