Angela Jameson
Your last chance to get tickets to Top Gear Live
The Office of Fair Trading has today formally accused 112 construction firms in England of participating in "bid rigging", in its biggest investigation of cartel activity to date.
Some of the biggest names in construction in the UK — including Balfour Beatty, Carillion, Connaught, Interserve and Kier — have been accused of ripping off the public sector to the tune of hundreds of millions of pounds. They were today issued with a "statement of objections" from the OFT, alleging that they participated in cartel-type activity in bidding for thousands of public sector construction contracts, worth £3 billion, including tenders for schools, universities and hospitals.
Multi-million pound fines are expected to arise from the investigation, which began in 2004 after a complaint from an East Midlands council and quickly spread across England.
The focus of the OFT’s investigation is on “cover pricing”, where companies place a high bid for work that they have no intention of winning so that they are not left off a client’s tender list. The cover price is fixed after consultation with another supplier.
However, agreements between suppliers gives a false impression of the level of economy and can lead to inflated prices, the OFT said. A spokesman for the competition watchdog said that the general rule of thumb was that cover pricing can lead to prices 10 per cent higher than those achieved in a normal competitive situation.
In one case revealed by the OFT, the price of building work at a college leapt by 25 per cent after four bidders agreed artificially high bids.
In another, the winning bid for a primary school contract was £500,000 over the client's budget.
Cover pricing has been illegal since 2000. The OFT investigated thousands of contracts but has focused on 240 alleged offences which it is pursuing.
John Fingleton, the chief executive of the OFT, said: "Cartel activity of the type alleged today harms the economy by distorting competition and keeping prices artificially high. This investigation, together with the OFT's previous decisions in the roofing sector, will hopefully send out a strong message to the construction industry about the seriousness with which we view suspected anti-competitive behaviour. Businesses have no excuses for not knowing and abiding by the law."
Stephen Ratcliffe, the chief executive of the Construction Confederation which represents many of the building firms, said: "The only motive in these cases was to avoid doing the work but stay on tender lists and there was no intention to make a single penny at the tax payers’ expense.
“We are concerned that, because the OFT fines system is based on turnovers, there is a risk that fines will be disproportionate in an industry which has high turnovers and relatively small profit margins.
There are also concerns in the industry that public sector procurers may exclude firms accused of cover pricing from bidding for future public sector work.
In addition to cover pricing, the OFT alleges that a minority of the construction companies have entered into agreements where the winner of a contract would make a payment to the unsuccessful bidder — known as a compensation payment. This is a more serious form of bid rigging, the OFT said, and is usually facilitated by false invoices.
Any business found to be a member of a cartel could be fined up to 10 per cent of its worldwide turnover, but penalties are reduced for those who cooperate with an investigation.
Construction companies have been scrambling to help the OFT in the hope that any fines may be reduced. So far 37 companies have applied for leniency, although many larger organisations are thought to be waiting to see what evidence the watchdog has.
The companies can now make oral and written representations to the OFT, before it makes its final decision on whether the law has been broken, expected next year.
The OFT believes that the construction industry is rife with malpractice and has been targeting it for some years. In 2004 it found nine roofing contractors guilty of collusion and fined them almost £300,000. It made four further findings of bid rigging in the roofing industry, imposing aggregate penalties of £4 million.
Balfour Beatty, the biggest company named, said it believed that all its subsidiaries were now fully compliant with the Competition Act. "The company and its operating businesses have co-operated fully with the OFT in all aspects of its investigation. As a result and subject to ongoing co-operation, the OFT has granted leniency to Balfour Beatty, thus reducing any fines which might ultimately be levied on Balfour Beatty or any of its operating businesses," the company said.
Explore your passion for food with the delights of Thai, Indian & Chinese cooking
In our new series, Tony Hawks takes a dry, wry look at modern life - junk mail, interminable meetings and snooty sales assistants
Read the training tips and advice that helped our London Triathletes
Read our exclusive 100 Years of Fleming and Bond interactive timeline, packed with original Times articles and reviews
The latest travel news plus the best hotels and gadgets for business travellers
Shortcuts to help you find sections and articles
2007
£30,000
2006
£14,337
2008
£39,937
Great car insurance deals online
c.£75,000
GlosFirstmeansbusiness
Gloucestershire
£32,795 - £41,545
Universitry of Southampton
Southampton
£
£32,795 - £41,545
Universitry of Southampton
Southampton
Competitive Package
Npower
West Midlands
Some of the finest Apts & Penthouses
Across London
Great Investment, River Views
Luxury properties within exclusive development in
Chislehurst Kent
A new experience in Luxury Living
Las Vegas SALE!
£POA
With Ramblers Worldwide Holidays!
£POA
List your property with two leading travel websites
£POA
Great travel insurance deals online
Contact our advertising team for advertising and sponsorship in Times Online, The Times and The Sunday Times. Globrix Property Search - search houses for sale and rooms and property to rent in the UK. Milkround Job Search - for graduate careers in the UK. Visit our classified services and find jobs, used cars, property or holidays. Use our dating service, read our births, marriages and deaths announcements, or place your advertisement.
Copyright 2008 Times Newspapers Ltd.
This service is provided on Times Newspapers' standard Terms and Conditions. Please read our Privacy Policy.To inquire about a licence to reproduce material from Times Online, The Times or The Sunday Times, click here.This website is published by a member of the News International Group. News International Limited, 1 Virginia St, London E98 1XY, is the holding company for the News International group and is registered in England No 81701. VAT number GB 243 8054 69.
The saddest part of this is our local college pays a manager £21,000 and an assistant £17,000 Just to make the bids for this work be displayed on line
I note also our local univercity www.newi.ac.uk is paying £35,000 just for a chap to project manage this billing. They are advertising it local
Nicholas Iles, Oswestry, Shropshire
Everybody back down B&Q say I!!
PAUL MASON, Mansfield Woodhouse, UK
There is, of course, another angle to this.
The government expects several companies to bid for their projects. To bid may cost a company as much as half a million pounds. That money has to be recovered. The sucessful bidder will have added it to his bid. The other bidders will recover it on future projects.
Naively the government thinks that this process reduces prices whereas it actually increases them.
Chris, Ashford, Middx, UK
Price fixing is the thin and of the wedge. My experience in construction is that corruption is rife, you become immune to it as an everyday part of the industry (that said the scale is apparently nothing like the aeronautical business - but then thatâs sanctioned by government - BAE)
Price fixing is understandable in some circumstances ie. Not wanting to disappoint your client by not tendering - and some will punish you for it, but inflating prices of the lowest tender by collusion is fraud and is unhealthy.
There are many opportunities for the builder and sometimes, but rarely, the consultants to take advantage of the client, the builder also gets taken for a ride too quite a lot, but whats good for the goose......
Carl, Manchester,
Strange, I actually rang Balfour Beatty who were on a contract for Yorkshire Water six months ago to ask why they were digging up the same section of road for the third time in eighteen months casusing traffic mayhem. Answer there are three pipes down there and we can only repair one at a time. I now understand that what he meant was there was one job that required three payments for.
Cromwell, Leeds, England
Make a false claim for housing benefit/JSA and you can expect a court appearance, criminal record, fine and possibly prison.
Defraud the taxpayer by millions by rigging prices and you can expect a fine, but not a single person will see the inside of a court never mind a prison cell.
And they say justice is blind.
James, Leeds,
What about the private property market? aren't these the same firms that own most of the land in the UK, and its homes? and the property agencies?
Fernando, London, UK,
Don't be so shocked... it goes on in ever yindustry and country... We look down our noses at African corruption but they just aint as slick as us!!
JamesG, shanghai,
Reminds of a thirld world African country.
navraj arora, Heston, U.K.
Surprise surprise.
Farrukh, Woking, UK
It is time that heads should roll. This is criminal activity on a grand scale.
mark gould, london, uk
The company directors of these firms live in a grand style and now we find that they have been stealing money from every ordinary Joe in the country. This Joe is hoping that fines will be severe, and can recoup all the money we have lost. 10% of worldwide turnover was what they knew they were gambling with after all.
Kevin Adam, Aberdeen, Scotland
What about the rail industry? Many of these firms - including Carillion and Balfour Beaty mentioned here - have contracts on our railways.
I wonder if they do the same here. It would explain the fantastically large amounts paid to them....
Roger Bower, Norwich,
Now we see the real benefits of PFI in Local Government and that is even before the price escalator that is built in to PFI once the contract has been agreed.
There is an apocryphal story that if the Lothian Health Board had put the cost of the new Edinburgh Royal Infirmary on their credit cards it would have cost less than the PFI contract they ended up with.
Time to ditch PFI and go back to local authority bonds.
Peter Thomson, Kirkcudbright, Scotland
Why do you think Latham in the early nineties and then Egan later, said we should abandon competetive tendering??? No-body listened.
Tony Smith, King's Lynn, Norfolk
Goverments way to make money.
OFT have been planning this for a while. National disgrace.
John Baker, newport,
Excuse me for being a tad pessimistic, but I'd rather see the regulatory authorities crow about their achievements AFTER successful action against transgressors, not at the outset of proceedings. I don't think we'll hear much if these actions ultimately fail as they usually do.
Still, it's a start, I suppose. Until we have really punitive action against cartel/monopoly abusers along US lines, this will always be rip-off Britain.
Now may we have some real action against the real dastards - the privatised utilities that not only put two fingers up to the British consumer but poke him in the eye as well. The wouldn't dare operate as they do in Britain in , say, the US. Quite a few chief executives could find themselves doing bird.
jonathan spencer, London, UK
Even quite small projects are extremely expensive when contracted by local governments. Absurd figures for pelican crossings, simple road engineering changes and countless others lead me to conclude that no one is even slightly interested in value for money in this area. One option might be to include EU firms in compulsory tendering, as I suspect that basic infrastructure items are far, far cheaper there.
Leaving inexeperienced and often poor quality local authority managers with an unlimited supply of public money to make contracts with construction firms is a recipe for very high costs, which is exactly where we are.
Colinc, shrewsbury,
A friend of mine was made bankrupt after two construction companies (one is named above) simply declared that they weren't going to pay him.
Not only should the OFT apply the fines but the government should reclaim any padding on the tender prices.
Paul, Wellingborough, UK
Tim Carpenter Libertarian Party, UK 'We need Hospitals and Schools outside of State provision"
What like PFI and its others forms, thats worked well!?
I think an investigation into these projects would uncover much much more filth and bad practice.
By hook or by crook they will cover their risk.
Carl, Manchester,
Everyone would be very surprised with the amount of "kick-backs" paid to local authority members. These "kick-backs" are paid utilimately by the taxpayer.
Rob, London,
Wind up the OFT - what is the point of an investigation that takes four years.
Shaffiq Mahmood, Halifax, UK
How does a contractor find out who else is on the list? The plot thickens....
Carl, Manchester,
What do fines mean to these people? They should go to jail.
Tooter, leicester,
The tendering process invloves more than the builder,
questions must be asked of the cost consultants and other professionals employed by client to give advice on procurement routes tendering process and cost validation. The tendering sytem needs a complete review.
Michael , Coleraine,
A close friend of mine works for Connaught as a CORGI gas engineer and is on a very generous bonus scheme. I can now see how the comapny can pay such obsurd amounts of money if they are 'ripping people off' - Even the apprentices are eing paid triple what they would with any other company!!
Dafydd Roberts, Rhyl,
Enid is right. The «traffic d'influences» in the construcction sector includes consultants, often former poiticians and people with inside information and privileged access to the clients.
In Portugal, the issues was recently debated after a yet another former government minister was hired by a large contractor. There are dozen of cases here of politicians thatnow work for companies whose contracts they have signed when in office.
Construction ranks 'well' in the bribe payers index (which is a BAD thing) issued by transparency international.
Rui, Lisbon, Portugal
What's new, this sort of practice, along with individuals registering as self employed, whilst working full time for a building company, has been going on since WW2. All major construction companies see building contracts with Local Authorities and Government departments as a way of printing money with little, if any, financial risk to themselves. If the contractor runs out of money they just charge the relevant Authority more to complete the job, if the project falls behind schedule more taxpayers money is spent in order to complete it. Is it any wonder that corruption, price rigging and selective tendering is common place. In any private contract they would become liable for strict penalty clauses. A building friend once imparted to me that he would give his right arm to acquire a contract with his local council, becasue he could quote any figure and the council would just pay up without question. But other builders had a 'close' relationship with councillors, excluding him!!!.
pip, sutton, surrey
I wonder how many of the 112 companies have officials who subsequently have made donations to the Labour Party?
Bob , Swadlincote, uk
Do we need any more evidence as to why the State, simple shopper extreme, should not be doing all thee things for us? Decisions made by those spending other peoples' money are unlikely to be sound in the long run.
We need smaller government. We need Hospitals and Schools outside of State provision so the cost of building will affect the competitiveness of that school or hospital just like every other entity has to. They will keep a beadier eye, just as we all do.
Tim Carpenter
Libertarian Party, UK
Tim Carpenter, London, UK
This could explain why the cost of building the 2012 Olympics Stadium has shot up.
Mike Mitchell, Spalding, England
Well done civil service. This same process has pushed small local construction businesses out of the tendering rounds. Glad to see planned government action. Well done.
Dan, London,
If you force businesses to bid every time regardless of whether they have the finance, staff or ability to do the work then of course they are going to overbid for the work they dont want. It is the system that is wrong.
John Reekie, Egremont,
I just hope that the fines levied on the construction industry for ripping off taxpayers is in line with those recently issued to the utility companies. The companies concerned should then be struck off the list of tenders for public work.
Oxford Don, Oxford, UK
OFT Should also investigate those get rich councillors who take back handers from 'preferred ' contractors. This practice is rife
AFJ, Launay Villiers, france
A similar investigation is necessary for the MPs expenses
Michael, Doncaster, uk
For anybody on the client side this is a difficult scam to detect. 'Tender rings' at one time was more the rule than the exception but they are less obvious nowadays. The only way to defeat this practice is to regularly vary the the bidders list-not the same people everytime and put together in-house cost estmates of every item, labour and material in the contract. Post tender negotiation (PTN) will make it feel less cosy for bidders and keep your ears open for gossip around the industry
Ray Cobbett, Emsworth, Hants, England
What about the consultants employed at vast expense by public authorities to advise on contracts - shouldn't they be in the dock too?
Enid Barnett, Leeds,