It is an established practice for merchants to offer in partnership with other distributors at auctions. Recent developments in legislation have highlighted the difficult distinction between joint legal employment contracts and illegal auction circles. Two companies wishing to submit an offer for a contract can benefit from this agreement. First, it is appropriate to distinguish between a genuine joint acquisition contract and an illegal auction network. Merchants may choose to buy together because they cannot afford to buy independently or because they are not willing to invest individually the amount needed to acquire the property because of a cost-risk analysis. Buying together means they are able to spread the risk. A genuine collective acquisition agreement can foster competition if a party entering into the fight would not have done so if there was no joint purchase agreement with other merchants. It is therefore not illegal to enter into common agreements that are truly pro-competitive. However, as we will see below, we must not consider that all real collective activity contracts are on the right side of the law. Collective acquisition agreements can be unlawful when their challenge or effect harms competition. Before you can provide, you must perform due diligence. This means finding the project that matches your company`s qualifications.

You should only offer projects in areas where you have a lot of experience and where you have already demonstrated your know-how. The contract offer is a competitive sport and the prey goes to the organization that has the best players, strategy and record. Does an auction circle become legal through disclosure? The answer is no. Laws protect « common account property purchase agreements » that are disclosed. If the agreement registers an auction circle, disclosure does not become legal. It should also be noted that the laws require disclosure of the full written agreement and do not merely inform the auctioneer that a joint offer must be made. Responsibility under this Act implies, first, that there is an agreement between potential bidders, that one or some of them renounce bids or that they offer in some way. Such an agreement has the effect of distorting competition and, therefore, the infringement. The second element of the offence is a state of mental dishonesty. The Office of Fair Trading, one of the agencies responsible for prosecuting offenders under the law, has suggested that it will accept dishonesty in the event of bid manipulation. These laws make it a crime for merchants to give an incentive or reward to a person who has renounced the auction and to anyone who accepts the incentive or reward.

Other projects are emerging outside the company, where the project team is only the mediator for stakeholders who use them for their know-how, experience and specialized tools. These types of projects are often obtained through a tendering process in which different entities compete to work. However, other major antitrust authorities do not follow this very hard line with respect to joint tendering agreements. A brief overview of international practice shows that a « broadersaton » or, in itself, common auction approach is not compatible with the position of mature jurisdictions around the world. For example, under this Act, criminal liability will not be incurred if, before or when the offer is made, participants inform the person inviting the bids that there is a tendering agreement. If it is a genuine collective agreement of acquisition and appropriate publicity, the parties avoid liability under the Business Act. Contracts can range from government work requiring a request for proposal (RFP) to a larger conglomerate, to long-term contracts as suppliers of a product or service. Regardless of the type of contract, the bidding stages for this contract are relatively identical. Common offers are available in many sectors (for example.B.