Unfair Competition Case: Dispute on Bid-rigging of One Electric Power Equipment Company

文章摘要 本案涉及华能某水电站安全挂孔盖板设备采购安装招投标中的串标纠纷。江苏泰比亚公司发现另两家投标企业涉嫌串标,委托杨 chambers 律所提起诉讼。律所通过比对两被告的出厂价、运费、杂费、保险费及安装单价等报价数据,发现其报价存在规律性差异,符合《招标投标法实施条例》规定的串标情形。此外,两被告在过往业绩部分使用相同案例,且一被告员工曾作为另一被告的投标代表,进一步证明双方存在合作关系与串标行为。法院认定证据充分,判定两被告构成串标,需赔偿泰比亚公司直接经济损失及合理预期利润损失,涵盖标书制作费、调查费、差旅费、投标保证金利息及中标可得利润,体现了对不正当竞争行为的全面追责。

When participating the bidding on purchase and installation of safety hanging hole cover plate equipment of some hydroelectric station owned by Huaneng, Jiangsu Taibiya Electric Power Equipment Co.,Ltd. found that the other two bidding enterprises are suspected of bid-rigging, therefore, it entrusted legal team of Chambers Yang to raise up lawsuit.

Legal team of Chambers Yang has collected and organized evidences on a solid basis to this end.  By comparing in sequence the quotation data of the ex-factory price, freight and sundry charges, insurance fee and unit price of installation submitted by the two defendants, team has found that there existed regular differences between the bidding quotation of the two defendants as a whole which falls into the circumstance of bid-rigging of bidders under Implementing Regulations of Tendering and Bidding Law.  In addition, team has also certified that the same cases were quoted in the Past Performance Part of the bidding documents of the two defendants, and one employee of one defendant worked for another defendant as bidding representative.  All the above can prove that the two defendants had cooperation relationship and conducted bid-rigging.  Therefore, the court affirmed that Taibiya had submitted sufficient evidences to prove the two defendants’ bid-rigging and judged that the two defendants shall bear compensation for damages.  For the compensation, the court has not only supported the direct economic loss of Taibiya incurred due to the bid-rigging of the two defendants including all normal expenses such as the production cost of bidding documents, investigation fee, travelling fee and interest of bid bond, etc., but has also supported the indirect loss of Taibiya incurred which is the loss of reasonable profit of winning the bidding.

最后编辑于:2018-09-23 16:16

杨春宝一级律师简介

杨春宝一级律师,大成上海高级合伙人、资本市场部主任、国资基金研究中心主任,大成中国区私募基金专业带头人、科技与文化法律研究中心联合牵头人。执业30余年,长期从事私募基金、投融资、并购重组法律服务,尤其对对赌研究颇深且具有非常丰富的实战经验,并专注于金融机构股权投资业务。2004年起多次入选The Legal 500"私募基金"和"公司与商业"等境内外各类律师榜单,代理的中国法院首例适用外国法律审理外国公司的董事损害小股东权益纠纷案入选上海高院发布的《上海法院域外法查明典型案例》和威科先行"要案头条"。入选上海涉外法律人才库、上海市司法局鼎新法治人才库、上海国有企业改制法律顾问团,具有上市公司独立董事任职资格,系多家知名高校的兼职教授或兼职研究生导师及上海市商务委跨国经营人才培训班讲师。出版《私募股权投资基金风险防控操作实务》等16本投融资法律专著。了解更多

常见法律问题

如何认定招投标中的串标行为?

通过报价规律性差异、共用业绩材料、人员交叉任职等证据,结合《招标投标法实施条例》相关规定综合判断。

串标行为需承担哪些法律责任?

需承担民事赔偿责任,包括直接损失和合理预期利润,并可能面临行政处罚或刑事追责。

企业如何维权串标造成的损失?

可通过收集证据提起不正当竞争诉讼,主张直接费用与可得利益损失的经济赔偿。

以上内容仅供参考,不构成法律意见。如需专业法律服务,请联系杨春宝一级律师:chambers.yang@dentons.cn

  • 本站声明:本站所载之法律论文、法律评论、案例、法律咨询等,除非另有注明,著作权人均为站长杨春宝高级律师本人。欢迎其他网站链接,但是,未经书面许可,不得擅自摘编、转载。引用及经许可转载时均应注明作者和出处"法律桥",并链接本站。本站网址:https://lawbridge.org/。
  •  
  •         本站所有内容(包括法律咨询、法律法规)仅供参考,不构成法律意见,本站不对资料的完整性和时效性负责。您在处理具体法律事务时,请洽询有资质的律师。本站将努力为广大网友提供更好的服务,但不对本站提供的任何免费服务作出正式的承诺。本站所载投稿文章,其言论不代表本站观点,如需使用,请与原作者联系,版权归原作者所有。

发表回复