Cartel between bidders

The whistleblowing report alleges that there was a cartel between the bidders.  If a cartel is well concealed by the bidders, it may not be possible to identify.  However, carelessly concealed cartels may be identifiable.  The investigator could examine the following matters:

• Compare bidders’ prices for patterns (e.g. prices differ by the same percentage spread, or BOQ rates are the same for losing bidders).
• Compare bidders’ documents for similarities which suggest copying (e.g. identical method statements or BOQs).
• Check for prices which materially exceed market.
• Identify whether prices are unusually close to the RA’s confidential budget price.
• Obtain details of the contractors which have won other RA contracts over the last five years.  Is there a pattern which suggests that the work is being evenly shared between contractors.
• Interview the relevant managers of BuildWell and other competing bidders to identify whether there has been any communication between them in relation to their bid prices or other bid data, or the selection of an agreed winner.
• Identify whether there are bidding contractors who continually lose, or contractors who would have been expected to bid, but did not:  do they have evidence of a cartel by other contractors.
• Review the emails and social media messages of the Chief Executive, procurement manager, and the relevant managers of BuildWell to identify whether there is any written evidence of any communication between them in relation to their bid prices or other bid data, or the selection of an agreed winner.

If evidence of collusion between contractors is identified, was this an improper collusion, or was it a legitimate type of collaboration disclosed to and agreed to by the project owner (e.g. a joint venture).

If the collusion was improper, does it amount to a criminal offence.  Note that in many countries, any undisclosed collusion at all between contractors can amount to a criminal offence, even if there was no improper outcome.