Legal Solution Strategies for Key Issues in the Field of Bidding - Taking a Case of Bids Arrangement and Collusion as an Example

Click on the blue word

Follow us

Legal Solutions to Key Issues in the Field of Bidding

Take a case of bid-rigging as an example

Case brief

In May 2023, a municipal public resources trading center publicly invited tenders for a municipal engineering project. Bidder A company joined company B and company C to manipulate and win the bidding results by unifying the production of bidding documents, agreeing on the quotation range, and dividing the bidding. Finally, company A won the bidding at a price slightly lower than the bottom bid.

After reporting, the procuratorial organ intervened in the investigation and found that Company A was suspected of colluding in bidding, and took coercive measures against the main responsible person. The focus of the dispute in this case is: how to define the criminal illegality of bid-rigging? How to lock the subjective intention through the chain of evidence?

Core Disputes and Legal Analysis

1. Legal qualitative disputes over bid containment

According to Article 223 of the Criminal Law and Article 53 of the Law on Inviting tenders, the crime of colluding in bidding must meet the requirements of "harming the interests of invited tenders or other bidders" and "serious circumstances".

In this case, although Company A won the bidding by means of matching bids, the project was finally completed at a reasonable price without directly causing economic losses. Defence counsel needs to clarify: Does the "serious circumstances" have to be based on actual losses? Legal basis: The Supreme People's Court's "Regulations on the Standards for Filing and Prosecution of Criminal Cases under the Jurisdiction of Public Security Organs (2) " clearly states that the amount of winning the bidding is more than 2 million yuan or the illegal income is more than 100,000 yuan, and no actual loss is required.

2. Difficulties in identifying evidence of subjective intent

The core evidence of bid collusion is often covert communication records or financial transactions. In this case, Company A and Company B and C met and negotiated offline, without keeping a written agreement, only some witness testimonies and abnormal quotation data. Breakthrough point: Combined with objective evidence such as the similarity of bid documents (consistent technical solutions and typesetting errors), the overlap of Internet Protocol Addresses (sources of electronic tender uploads), a chain of indirect evidence is constructed, and subjective intent is presumed.

3. Separation of unit crime and individual responsibility

Company A advocates that "bid-rigging behavior is the personal behavior of employees", and it needs to prove that the behavior reflects the will of the unit through evidence such as company decision-making documents and capital flow (the bid deposit is paid by the company account), and then investigate the dual responsibility of the unit and the direct responsible person.

Solutions and defense strategies

1. Precise cutting of "technical defects" and "criminal violations"

Technical defense: If the quotation does not exceed the reasonable range or the project does not actually lose money, it can argue that the "circumstances are significantly minor" and strive for administrative penalties to replace criminal accountability.

Evidence rebuttal: To challenge the authenticity of the witness's testimony (e.g., the testimony of an interested party needs to be reinforced), and to request the exclusion of illegal evidence.

2. Strengthen the "innocent" defense

Subjective level: through the company's internal compliance documents, employee training records, etc., to prove that the company has fulfilled its prudent obligations, and individual employees' behavior exceeds the scope of authorization.

Objective level: Introduce a third-party evaluation report to prove that the winning bidding price is in line with the market level and does not damage the fair competition order.

3. Key responses in the pre-trial phase

Golden rescue period: Submit a "legal opinion that does not constitute a crime" in the investigation stage, focusing on "no substantive harmful results" and "broken chain of evidence".

Compliance rectification: Promote enterprises to establish anti-bid containment internal control mechanisms (such as bid isolation and censorship), and strive for procuratorial organs to apply the "compliance and non-prosecution" system.

Practical inspiration and risk prevention

1. Pre-construction of corporate compliance system

Set up an independent bidding management department to strictly segregate the production and decision-making processes of bidding documents.

Regular training on the "invited tenders bidding law" special project, keep written records for evidence.

2. The tactical significance of evidence marks

During the bidding process, the whole process is recorded and recorded, and communication records are kept to avoid "oral agreements" that lead to failure to provide evidence.

Use independent IP when uploading electronic tenders to avoid technical risks.

3. Timeliness of lawyer intervention

In the early stage of the investigation, professional lawyers were hired to conduct risk diagnosis to avoid the risk of self-admission through verbal evidence.

Prepare financial data defense materials in advance for "serious circumstances" filing standards (such as profit margin analysis of winning the bidding project).

conclusion

The dispute resolution in this case highlights the complexity of criminal risk prevention and control in the field of bidding: it is necessary to accurately identify the boundary between "legal competition" and "illegal collusion", and to cut unit and individual responsibility through technical defense. For enterprises, building a whole-process compliance mechanism is the core of resisting legal risks; for lawyers, making good use of indirect evidence construction and logical deduction is the key to breaking the dilemma of "zero confession".

In the context of increasingly standardized bidding, only by embedding legal compliance into business logic can sustainable development be achieved.

(Note: This case is based on a public judgment document, and the characters and details have been desensitized.)

Professional tips:The criminal threshold for bid-rigging is low and the evidence identification is flexible. Enterprises should avoid the "unspoken rules of the industry" thinking. If abnormal signs are found during the invite tenders process, it is recommended to consult a professional lawyer immediately to avoid criminal risks through compliance review and evidence fixation.

Lawyer Profile

This article and its content are shared by Zhiheng Chongqing lawyers. It is for communication purposes only and does not represent the legal opinions, suggestions or decision-making basis issued by the law firm or lawyers. If you need legal advice or legal professional analysis, please contact the professional lawyers of Zhiheng (Chongqing) Law Firm, or leave your contact information in the private message WeChat official account. If you need to reprint this article, please contact the official account editor in the background.