In our previous blog: ACM conducts antitrust dawn raids in connection with potential bid rigging of 18 November 2025, we reported that the Authority for Consumers and Markets (ACM) had carried out dawn raids at the premises of three contractors suspected of coordinating their bids in a municipal tender. At that stage, the ACM was investigating whether the companies had aligned their offers and engaged in prohibited pre‑tender contacts. With the decision of 28 May 2026, it became clear that they did.

Outcome of the ACM investigation

In its decision of 28 May 2026, the ACM concluded that three undertakings active in the civil engineering sector infringed the cartel prohibition, Article 6 of the Dutch Competition Act (Mededingingswet), in the context of a municipal tender procedure.

The ACM found that the three companies coordinated their conduct prior to submitting their bids. Specifically, they agreed on the outcome of the tender, including which company would win and how the bid prices would be structured.

According to the ACM, this conduct distorted the competitive process and deprived the contracting authority of genuine competition. The authority therefore established a breach of the cartel prohibition and imposed fines on two of the companies, while granting full immunity to the third.

Why is this conduct prohibited?

Competition law prohibits agreements or arrangements between companies that restrict or distort competition. In particular, companies must determine their behaviour independently and may not coordinate with competitors on key aspects such as pricing or participation in tenders.

The ACM emphasises that certain types of conduct are considered particularly harmful. This is the case where competitors coordinate their bids in a tender process. In such situations, the companies no longer compete with each other.

This undermines the purpose of the tender, which is to ensure genuinely competitive bids and the best possible outcome. As a result, the ACM does not need to assess whether the coordination actually led to higher prices because the conduct is already considered sufficiently harmful in itself.

What happened in the tender process?

The infringement related to a single tender organised by a municipality in 2024, for which three companies were invited to submit bids for civil engineering works (below European thresholds). Shortly before the submission deadline, the companies contacted each other and discussed their intentions regarding the tender. These exchanges resulted in a coordinated strategy under which one company would submit the lowest bid and win the contract, while the other two companies would submit higher bids.

As part of this arrangement, the parties agreed in advance on the bid prices, which were subsequently reflected in the offers submitted to the contracting authority. They also discussed a financial compensation for the losing bidders. As a result, the municipality was presented with three bids that appeared to be independent and competitive, while in reality the outcome had already been determined through prior coordination. The ACM therefore concluded that the companies had replaced genuine competition with cooperation and had effectively eliminated competition for the tender.

Fines and leniency: how the ACM assessed the case

Following its investigation, the ACM imposed fines on two of the three companies involved and granted full immunity to the third under its leniency programme. The fines amounted to EUR 15,500 and EUR 30,000 respectively, while no fine was imposed on the company that received immunity. The amounts of the fines were determined on the basis of the contract price of the tender, which was EUR 153,250.

In addition, the ACM took into account both mitigating and aggravating factors. The companies cooperated with the investigation and agreed to a simplified settlement procedure, which resulted in a reduction of the fines. At the same time, the fines were increased due to recidivism, as the companies had previously been involved in similar infringements.

A central element of this case is the operation of the ACM’s leniency programme. One of the companies reported the conduct to the ACM at an early stage and provided information that led to the initiation of the investigation. It was therefore granted full immunity from fines. A second company applied for leniency at a later stage (approximately three weeks after the dawn raids), but did not qualify, as the information it submitted did not add sufficient evidential value to the material already in the ACM’s possession. This underscores the importance of both timely disclosure and the added value of the evidence provided when seeking leniency.

What to do in similar situations

The recent fines of the ACM evidence that it is important to ensure compliance with the applicable competition rules. Also, if your organisation is involved in a situation where competitors have coordinated their behaviour in a tender, or if you are approached by a competitor in relation to a procurement process, it is essential to act without delay. Early legal advice can be decisive, particularly where a leniency application may be appropriate.

In the event of an investigation or a dawn raid by the ACM, companies are required to cooperate with the authorities. At the same time, it is crucial that such inspections are handled carefully in order to safeguard your rights and ensure that the process is managed appropriately from the outset.

Our 'What to do in an event of a dawn raid' team has extensive experience in advising on cartel investigations, dawn raids and tender‑related issues. Combining deep expertise in competition law with practical experience in public procurement, we work closely with you to navigate these situations and protect your organisation at every stage of the process.

Contact us

If you have any questions, do not hesitate to reach out to the contacts mentioned below.