Filter Cases

Keywords


Case Category


Country


Year/Month



Latest Cases

CCCS issues Proposed Infringement Decision for Bid-rigging Conduct in Procurement of Vulnerability Management Software Licences and Services

2024, Singapore, Abuse of Dominance

2 August 2024

(View media release in PDF)

1. The Competition and Consumer Commission of Singapore (“CCCS”) has issued a Proposed Infringement Decision (“PID”)[1] against Rei Securite Pte. Ltd. (“Rei”) and Soh Chee Keong (“Soh”) (collectively, the “Parties”) on 2 August 2024 for infringing section 34 of the Competition Act 2004[2]. The companies engaged in bid-rigging conduct relating to three invitations to quote (“ITQ”) called by Ngee Ann Polytechnic (“NP”) between January 2021 and November 2022 for the procurement of licences for vulnerability management software and related support services. The value of the affected ITQs were between $63,000 and $65,000. CCCS was alerted to the conduct in January 2023.

CCCS’s Investigation

2. Investigations revealed that Soh had entered into agreements and/or concerted practices with Rei. He procured the submission of cover bids by two newly incorporated companies, QBTT Pte Ltd (“QBTT”) and Contabilita Pte Ltd[3] (“Contabilita”), for each of the affected ITQs in which Rei had participated. As a result of QBTT’s and Contabilita’s cover bids, Rei won each of the affected ITQs. These were the only three companies involved in the three affected ITQs. Soh subsequently received payment from Rei of up to $34,000 for providing IT support services to NP on behalf of Rei in respect of the affected ITQs.

3. CCCS found that the cover bids facilitated by Soh, as part of the anti-competitive agreements and/or concerted practices, undermined the competitive process intended for the affected ITQs. This gave NP the false impression that there was genuine competition from three independent bids, when in reality the bids were not independently determined and were designed to enhance Rei’s chances of winning the ITQ. This prevented NP from obtaining bids that could provide the best value from the ITQ process, thereby undermining the intended competitive process.

4. The Parties now have the opportunity to provide their individual responses regarding the proposed infringements against them. After CCCS carefully considers any representations received, together with the evidence obtained during the investigation, CCCS will then make its final decision.