The “ramming” pattern allowed an Orenburg firm to unlawfully win procurement

The conclusion was made by the Commission of Orenburg OFAS, which found that “Orenburg Stroiresurs” Ltd., “Fort” Ltd. and “UralStroiInvest” Ltd. violated Clause 2 Part 1 Article 11 of the Federal Law “On Protection of Competition” (cartel, bid-rigging).

The companies violated the antimonopoly law by entering into an oral anticompetitive agreement to make sure that one of the participants would win procurement for the daily integrated cleaning services at Orenburg State Pedagogical University. The initial maximum contract price was over 2 million RUB.

Orenburg OFAS established that at the auction the companies applied the so-called “ramming” pattern by using a single IP address. “Fort” Ltd. and “UralStroiInvest” Ltd. deliberately filed their procurement bids that did not comply with the requirements set in the tender documentation and the law on procurement as well as deliberately plummeted the initial maximum contract price by 78%. Such an abrupt reduction of the contract price became economically unattractive for other bidders. Knowing that their bids would be rejected due to non-compliance, “Fort” Ltd. and “UralStroiInvest” Ltd. enabled “Orenburg Stroiresurs” Ltd. to become the winner with 26% of the initial maximum contract price, which was 0.05% below the bid of a bona fide procurement participant.

The case materials were transferred to the authorized person of Orenburg OFAS to open an administrative case and determine the liability, i.e., the size of a fine.

Deputy Head of Orenburg OFAS, Igor Bykhovets explained: “The “ramming” pattern is popular among unfair tender participants. Having made arrangements in advance, they damp the price as a result of which bona fide participants loses an interest to the bidding. During the last seconds of bidding, the third cartel member files a bid insignificantly lower that the price of a bona fide bidder, then the two winners refuse to conclude a contract or are rejected due to errors or non-compliance with the documentary requirements (as in this case) so the contract is awarded to the third company at a high price, insignificantly different from the initial maximum price”.