Trade Association Z of construction firms (FTC Surcharge Payment Order No.15 of 1988) In this case, involving bids for construction work in Japan ordered by the Officer in charge of the Construction Far East of Navy of Country C, the trade association had decided that the expected bid winner would be predetermined through discussions held among the firms participate in a bid, and had made its members predetermined the expected bid winners. This was found to be in violation of Section 8(1)(i) (Sec.8(i) of the existing Antimonopoly Act).

### Trade Association U 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 D, the trade association had decided that the expected bid winner would be predetermined under a point system (a specific formula was used in determining the points assigned to members based on their past records of designation and winning; the member with the highest point total was given priority in the predetermined of the expected bid winner), or under a take-turn system (the expected bid winners were predetermined according to a previously determined order) according to the type of the work. And the trade association had made its members predetermined the expected bid winner. This was found to be in violation of Section 8(1)(i).

(Sec.8(i) of the existing Antimonopoly Act)

### Trade Association V 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 designated firms for environmental sanitation-control work ordered by government agencies in District E, the trade association had decided that the member would be predetermined as the expected winner of the next bid or the next comparison process for the same work, if the member had been awarded the previous contract for the certain work, that as for work to be newly ordered, the designated members would collude to predetermined the expected winner, and that designated members except the expected winner would cooperate so that the expected winner would be awarded the contract. Based on this decision, the trade association had made its members predetermined the expected winners. 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 1-1 (Predetermining an expected bid winner) of "Conduct in principle constituting violation," some points are noted below for the purpose of preventing bid-rigging.

A. The following conduct would be used as a means for the predetermined of an expected bid winner, or has a high probability of leading to the formation of a tacit understanding or common intent concerning an expected bid winner. Thus, such conduct is highly suspect

## 1 -1-1 (Exchange of information concerning interest in being awarded a contract)

➢ Conduct of exchange such information among firms intending to participate in a bid, which may lead to the selection of an expected bid winner, such as interest in being awarded the contract, past business activities concerning the bid, past contracts awarded in related projects, and others. 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)