HainanProvincial housing and urban and rural construction offices
On two typical collusive bidsViolationsNotification of cases
Construction and municipal infrastructure projects for sustained consolidationTender bidsHighlighted problem management effectiveness in the fieldTypical casesIn order to warn of the role of education, to strengthen the context of case-based, case-driven and case-oriented bidding, and to create an open, fair, fair and honest tender market, two typical cases of violation of the rules governing collusive bidding were reported as follows:
Case i: typical case of collusion in bidding by two companies, henan gaming construction engineering limited
(i) basic facts
On 12 august 2025, the people's government of fukuyama township in sumama county opened the tender for the “fukubashi road upgrading project” project at the public resource exchange centre in sumama county, for a bid price of $1586156. 48. The project attracted 2881 bids, of which 2596 were valid. During the opening of the tender, the henan province public resource trading “machine tube bid” system automatically issued an early warning indicating that the tender documents uploaded by henan kaming construction engineering ltd. And zhejiang fuding engineering ltd. Had a critical message of a similarity and were suspected of collusive bidding. The system terminated the accreditation of the early warning unit on the spot, and henan garming construction engineering ltd. And zhejiang feng ding engineering ltd. Did not enter the evaluation chain。
(ii) case determination
Following receipt of a referral letter from the county housing and urban-rural construction directorate, the dimel conducted a detailed investigation of the case, in accordance with the law, and retrieved back-office data from the “machine-channel bidding” system, original tender documents from two companies, and questioned the parties involved. It has been found that the following irregularities were found in the tender documents between henan gamin construction engineering co. Ltd. And zhejiang futeng engineering co. Ltd.:
The first is that the information on the bid contacts is identical. The bid contact person (u chi) and contact telephones that henan gamin construction engineering ltd. Filled out in the tender documents are identical to the bid contact person and contact telephones that zhejiang feng ding engineering ltd. Filled out in the tender documents, and fall under the same circumstances as the collusive bid of “the different bidders entrusting the same unit or individual to bid matters” under article 40 of the regulations on the application of the tender law of the people's republic of china。
The second is the high standard of data on basic business conditions. The total number of persons reported on page 45 of the tender documents for henan garming construction engineering ltd., “basic information on bidders” is not different from the data reported on page 46 of the tender documents for zhejiang hong ding engineering ltd. The total number of persons reported by the two companies is 94, of which 41 are project leaders, 12 are senior-level, 23 are middle-level, 34 are junior-level and 37 are mechanics”, which is clearly inconsistent with the common logic of independent filing by different enterprises。
(iii) the outcome
The actions of gaming construction engineering co. Ltd. And zhejiang zhejiang zhong dung engineering co. Ltd. Violated article 32 of the prc law on tenders and tenders' tenders, which states that “no bidders shall collude with each other in bidding proposals, nor shall they crowd out fair competition from other bidders and prejudice the legitimate interests of bidders or other bidders”。
In accordance with article 53 of the law of the people's republic of china on tenders and article 67, paragraph 1, of the regulations on the implementation of the law on tenders and tenders of the people's republic of china, and with reference to rule 250 of the rules of procedure for administrative penalties for the construction of urban and rural housing in the province of hainan (in the 2022 version of the tender class), “of collusive bidding by bidders”, the following administrative penalty decisions are taken in accordance with the law, in view of the failure of the parties to enter the tender evaluation chain, the absence of serious harmful consequences and the active cooperation of the parties in the investigation, and the active disclosure of the circumstances surrounding the tender for the project:
First, a fine of 5 per thousand yuan in the amount of the tender contract for the project (us$ 156,23775. 74) was imposed on henan kaming construction engineering co. Ltd. And zhejiang feng ding engineering co. Ltd., respectively, in the amount of us$ 78,118. 88, for a total fine of us$ 156,237. 76。
Second, a fine of 5 per cent of the amount of the fine imposed on the other persons directly responsible for the tender project in question, i. E., choi shoi and ryo, in one of their respective units, is set at rmb 3905. 94, for a total of rmb 7811. 88。
In january 2026, when the enterprise in question, gaming construction engineering co. Ltd., henan, applied to the people's government of summae county for administrative review but voluntarily withdrew the application during the administrative review, the people's government of sunmae county issued a decision to terminate the administrative review (reconcluding [2026) (32) the provincial housing and urban and rural construction offices and provincial judicial offices have been copied as required。
In addition, henan gamin construction engineering ltd. And zhejiang futeng engineering ltd., which were involved in collusive bidding, will be subject to credit sanctions by the summae district housing authority in accordance with the relevant regulations。
Case ii: typical case of collusion in bidding by four companies, including heinong construction engineering ltd
(i) basic facts
On 8 december 2021, a tender was opened for the 2021 reclamation zone company environmental remediation project - third sector (handing an town lions farm) in peshawar county in the amount of $28,58,767. 91. The peshawar district development and reform commission handed over a lead that the winning unit had contained a cordoning and that the housing and urban and rural construction directorate of peshawar county had immediately organized a case investigation by law enforcement officials。
(ii) case determination
It was found that heinama winchun construction engineering ltd. Carried out an organized rounding exercise during the bidding process for the project. One of the company's partners, qiu qiu, advised the shareholders in the company to conduct a specific exercise and subsequently arranged for the employees to contact hainan want construction engineering co. Ltd., hai nammu feng construction engineering co. Ltd., and henan hyotai construction engineering co. Ltd., to agree that the three companies would participate in the bid as a companion and that the results of the bid would be manipulated. Following the award of the project, heinama winchun construction engineering ltd. Paid approximately $1,000 to $2,000 in cash to the related liability of each of the three companion companies。
The above-mentioned acts, which are contrary to article 32, paragraph 1, of the law of the people's republic of china on tenders and tenders, which states that “betters shall not collude with each other's bid proposals”, fall within the provisions of article 39, paragraph 2 (b), of the regulations on the implementation of the law of the people's republic of china on tenders, and constitute an offence of collusion among bidders, and are clear and sufficiently substantiated。
(iii) the outcome
On 17 november 2025, pursuant to article 53 of the tenders and tenders law of the people's republic of china, the housing and urban and rural construction department of peshawar county, in accordance with the discretionary administrative penalties for housing and urban construction in the province of hainan (2022 edition), decided the following administrative penalties in accordance with the law:
First, heinama winner, organizer of the construction and engineering company ltd. (hinama) is liable to a fine of eight per thousand of the amount awarded for the project, in the amount of rmb 22870. 14, and to a fine of 7 per cent of the amount of the unit fine imposed on the person directly responsible for it, in the amount of rmb 1600. 91。
Second, heinnamwant construction engineering co. Ltd., heinnam mt. Construction engineering co. Ltd., and heinama hyotai construction engineering co. Ltd. (a companion party) were fined seven per thousand of the award, each rmb 20011. 38, and five per cent of the unit fine, each rmb 1000. 57, for those directly responsible for the three companies。
At the same time, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the office of housing and urban and rural construction in hainan province " credit management scheme for construction markets in hainan province " , and the credit evaluation standards for construction enterprises (revised 2024), a three-year disclosure period was set for hainan yunhun construction engineering co. Ltd., henan want construction engineering co. Ltd., hainan mtma feng construction engineering co. Ltd., and hainan yitai construction co. Ltd., respectively, for poor credit information。
Typical meaning of 2 cases
The two above-mentioned cases of typical irregularities in collusive bidding are highly representative。
Case one is a typical example of the heinama “machine-barrel bid” system's precision in identifying collusive tendering. Henan kaming construction engineering co. Ltd. And zhejiang feng ding engineering co. Ltd. Are perfectly identical in their bid contacts and in their basic business profiles, revealing the salient problems of individual enterprises ' disregard of the rule of law, their own luck and their secret moneys in their bidding exercises. The fact that the two companies were automatically stopped without entering the bid evaluation chain is a good indication that, in the present time, where large data and intelligent regulatory instruments are fully covered, it has become difficult to identify violations such as the frame of reference。
Case two is a typical case of a condensed string organized by the winning bidder on its own initiative, with multiple enterprises cooperating with the accompanying bid. The partners of heinrichon construction engineering limited had a premeditated arrangement whereby their shareholders would direct their employees to contact the tenderer specifically, four enterprises had agreed on the outcome of the award prior to the tender, after payment of the costs of the tender in cash, the complete and well-defined chain of operation of the round bid, seriously disrupting the bidding market order and undermining the fair competition rights of other bidders。
The investigation of two cases showed that, no matter how subtle the actions of the framers were, they would eventually be seriously prosecuted if they touched the legal red line. In case i, both the enterprise and the persons involved were subject to administrative penalties for fines and would be subject to further good faith sanctions. In case ii, not only the organizers of the winning bid had been punished, but the three co-bid enterprises had also been held legally liable, with credit records recorded and credit points deducted. In both cases, the cost of the offence covered both administrative and credit sanctions。
Market owners need to learn from the lessons learned, to effectively promote legal awareness and integrity, to adhere to the principle of fair competition and to firmly refrain from organizing or participating in offences such as escorts, sidings, etc. The administrative supervision of tenders at all levels will continue to maintain a high-pressure posture, deepening the use of smart regulatory instruments such as machine-biding, finding, searching and exposing together the issue of the rounding of tenders, and making every effort to maintain an open, fair and fair bidding market environment。
