The Belgian Competition Authority (“BCA”) has in recent years made bid rigging a central enforcement priority, and its actions are beginning to speak louder than its words. What was once signalled as an intention – most notably the Chief Public Prosecutor’s announcement on 21 September 2024 that the BCA would for the first time prosecute physical persons – has since become reality. The BCA has now followed through on that commitment, issuing a landmark bid-rigging decision that not only punishes the companies involved but also, for the first time in the authority’s history, imposes fines directly on the individuals responsible. This development, alongside two further BCA decisions issued in July 2024 punishing bid rigging in the fire protection and private security sectors, and the BCA’s ongoing public consultation on a practical guide for public buyers, signals that the authority’s approach to bid rigging has entered a new and more aggressive phase.
Bid Rigging in Competition Law & Potential sanctions
Bid rigging is a form of anti-competitive collusion in which competitors conspire to manipulate the outcome of a public procurement process. Submitting concerted bids for public procurement contracts is prohibited under both EU and Belgian competition laws punishing agreements or concerted practices restricting competition, as well as under public procurement law rules. Infringing the Belgian and/or EU competition rules can be punished with administrative fines imposed by the Belgian and/or EU competition authorities of up to 10 % of the worldwide turnover of the undertakings concerned. The BCA can also impose fines of up to €10,000 on individuals who have participated in the infringement. The BCA’s power to also punish physical persons has existed since 2013 and – as confirmed by the landmark newspaper distribution decision discussed below – is now actively being used for the first time.
Undertakings and persons participating in bid rigging practices may moreover also face penalties under public procurement rules, criminal law, possible exclusion from future public tenders, and damages claims brought by the public authorities that issued the tender and from other undertakings that have suffered damages because of the illegal concertation.
Detection of Bid Rigging
Detecting bid rigging is a challenge for public authorities. They typically examine bidding patterns for signs of collusion, such as unusually high bids, the same companies consistently winning bids, or bids that are close in price.
In 2021, the European Commission published a “Notice on tools to fight collusion in public procurement and guidance on how to apply the related exclusion ground”. This Notice not only provides guidance on how contracting authorities can detect collusion, but also focuses on the possibility of excluding companies involved in bid rigging, and on the possibilities for bidders to ‘self-clean’.
In continuation of these efforts, the BCA has opened a public consultation in January 2026 on a draft guidance document directed at public contracting authorities. The proposed guide is intended as a practical tool to help identify and reduce the risk of competition law violations throughout procurement procedures, such as bid rigging. The guide sets out the relevant competition law principles, highlights the vulnerabilities inherent in public procurement processes, and formulates recommendations and best practices designed to address those risks. The draft also practically describes the specific steps contracting authorities should take where an infringement is suspected and sets out the various ways they may enter into communication with the BCA, including through informal exchanges. The public consultation remained open until the end of February 2026, after which the final version of the guide is expected to be published shortly.
Leniency programmes have so far also proved to be very effective in uncovering collusion in public procurement, providing incentives for companies and individuals to come forward and cooperate with the competition authorities. The latest BCA bid rigging decisions have all been based on leniency applications of undertakings (and persons) that had been part of the illegal practices.
Recent BCA Decisions
- bpost, DPG Media, Mediahuis and PPP in the Newspaper Distribution Sector – Press Release
On 13 February 2026, the BCA held bpost, DPG Media, Mediahuis, PPP and two phycical persons liable for manipulating the public procurement procedure for the award of the 2023-2027 newspaper distribution concession, imposing a combined fine of almost €12 million.
All parties involved pursued the goal of securing the award of the concession to bpost, the incumbent postal operator. To that end, they arranged for bpost’s competitor, PPP, not to participate in the tender. In return, DPG Media and Mediahuis committed to allocating additional newspaper distribution volumes to PPP. As a consequence, PPP’s absence from the procedure left bpost as the only remaining bidder and removed any genuine competitive pressure. The BCA found that these practices infringed Belgian and European competition rules, in particular the prohibition of anti-competitive agreements.
Within the framework of the leniency programme, bpost received full immunity from fines after revealing the underlying facts of the infringement. DPG Media and Mediahuis also applied for leniency, resulting in reduced penalties: €3,786,574 for DPG Media (reflecting a 50% reduction for leniency and a 10% settlement rebate) and € 7,788,423 for Mediahuis (40% leniency reduction plus a 10% settlement rebate). PPP was fined €323,486, benefiting only from the statutory 10% settlement reduction.
Importantly, this decision marks the first time the BCA has exercised its long-standing power to prosecute and fine natural persons. Two individuals – both employed by bpost at the time of the infringement – were fined a total of €6,300. The BCA granted a 50% reduction in view of the unprecedented nature of such sanctions, in addition to the statutory 10% settlement reduction. Thirteen other individuals received immunity from prosecution due to their cooperation during the investigation.
2. ANSUL/SOMATI FIE and SICLI Groups in the Fire Protection Sector– Press Release & Decision
On 8 July 2024, the BCA determined that ANSUL, SOMATI FIE and SICLI, major players in the fire protection industry, had engaged in bid rigging activities over seven years and violated Belgian and EU competition law. The activities mainly concerned the sale, rental and maintenance of fire extinguishers and hose reels.
The companies manipulated public procurement procedures by allocating public contracts among themselves to each retain their legacy customers in Belgium. They used tactics such as submitting “cover” bids – deliberately overpriced bids designed to ensure that a particular company would win the contract. The aim was to retain certain public customers for public contracts put out to public tender or negotiated without publicity, by refraining from competing with each other.
The practices were especially concerning given the essential nature of the products and the vulnerability of the customers involved, such as schools, municipalities, social housing, and public transport companies.
The ANSUL/SOMATI FIE group reported the cartel under the BCA’s leniency programme and was granted immunity from fines. The SICLI group, which cooperated in the investigation, received a 50% reduction in fines, resulting in a fine of €2.2 million. Six individuals were also granted immunity from prosecution. In addition and unusually, ANSUL/SOMATI FIE formally undertook to compensate the defrauded customers, in accordance with a compensation protocol attached to the decision, which further demonstrated its recognition of the wrongdoing and for which it was granted an additional 5% fine reduction.
3. Securitas, G4S, and Seris in the Private Security Sector – Press Release & Decision
On 3 July 2024, the BCA imposed fines totaling over €47 million on Securitas, G4S and Seris for their involvement in a complex cartel that operated from 2008 to 2020. The cartel members engaged in several anti-competitive practices regarding public procurement procedures, including coordinating their bidding intentions for certain procedures and ensuring that certain contracts would remain in the hands of certain suppliers, agreeing on minimum hourly tariffs for their security services and agreeing not to poach each other’s employees.
The leniency programme also had an important impact in this case too. Securitas did not receive any fine as it obtained immunity from fines and G4S and Seris also benefited from fine reductions under the leniency programme. All parties also received a further reduction from fines as they decided to settle the case. 11 individuals obtained immunity from prosecution, and one person was also prosecuted in the US. Conclusion and outlook
The BCA’s renewed focus on bid rigging marks a significant shift in competition law enforcement; the penalties for both undertakings and individuals are increasing. It should be noted that in all bid rigging cases involving practices from before 2019 the BCA could only impose fines of up to 10% of the Belgian turnover of the infringers. Since 2019, the BCA is empowered to impose fines of up to 10% of the worldwide consolidated turnover of the undertakings involved, which will no doubt lead to an increase in the amounts of fines. Moreover, the BCA has now made good on its long-standing announcement that it will no longer refrain from using its powers to prosecute individuals – a shift definitively confirmed by the newspaper distribution decision.
The BCA’s concurrent public consultation on a practical guide for public buyers further signals a broader enforcement and awareness strategy: not only are companies and individuals at greater risk of prosecution, but contracting authorities are also being equipped with better tools to detect suspicious bidding behaviour at the earliest opportunity.
More decisions punishing bid rigging are expected. The dawn raids carried out on several companies active in the supply of bus and coach passenger transport services suspected of bid rigging are likely to result in further proceedings in due course.
Companies must now adopt a proactive stance on compliance, incorporating comprehensive training, robust internal report mechanisms, through documentation practices, and advanced bid management systems. Significant legal questions also arise when forming a consortium bid with competitors where it is crucial to verify and ensure that collaboration can be objectively justified and any information exchange is restricted and confined solely to the current bid.
For businesses contemplating leniency applications, consulting legal counsel is essential to effectively navigate the leniency programme. Legal advice also remains crucial about whether a company is undergoing a self-cleaning process or suspects competitors of engaging in bid rigging. Ultimately, while the BCA represents an important first step in tackling bid rigging, companies should also be prepared for potential damages claims in the courts.
In the current public procurement environment, robust compliance and strategic legal planning are the best bids for success.
Carmen Verdonck and Gaétan Roelants
