The Netherlands Authority for Consumers and Markets (ACM) has issued cartel fines to three civil engineering contractors after exposing a bid-rigging scheme involving a municipal tender. The enforcement action targets companies Bouwhuis, Timmerhuis, and Van Gelder for colluding on their bid prices to predetermine which firm would win the public ground, road, and water construction contract.
Martijn Snoep, Chairman of the ACM, emphasized that independent bidding is a fundamental legal requirement for public tenders. When companies secretly fix prices and select winners in advance, they directly disadvantage public clients. Ultimately, these anti-competitive agreements inflate project costs, forcing the government—and by extension, the taxpayers—to overpay for essential infrastructure. Snoep expressed concern that such practices persist within the construction sector, reinforcing the regulatory body’s commitment to aggressively investigate and penalize collusion.
The investigation revealed that the illegal coordination directly undermined the competitive process, which is designed to ensure public entities receive the most cost-effective and high-quality proposals. By eliminating the element of surprise and genuine competition, the contractors artificially controlled the market outcome.
The final financial penalties were calculated based on the total contract value of the tender, which stood at 153,250 euros. Because all three firms agreed to cooperate through an expedited legal procedure and formally admitted to the violation, their penalties were significantly reduced. Timmerhuis, the company selected to win the rigged contract, received the highest fine at 30,000 euros. Bouwhuis was ordered to pay 15,500 euros for its participation.
In contrast, Van Gelder escaped financial penalties entirely. The company utilized the regulator’s leniency program by being the first to blow the whistle and report the prohibited agreements to the ACM, effectively triggering the investigation. The antitrust watchdog highlighted the case as an example of the effectiveness of its leniency policies, urging other market participants to come forward voluntarily when anti-competitive practices occur.
