Moldova’s Competition Council has fined 27 enterprises a total of approximately 95 million lei after finding an anti-competitive agreement and/or concerted practice in public procurement procedures organised by the State Road Administration during 2019–2020. The procedures concerned road repair, rehabilitation and maintenance, with contracts worth approximately 1.75 billion lei awarded in tenders where the council found submitted bids had been rigged.
The council’s finding
According to the Competition Council’s announcement, the enterprises coordinated their conduct in tenders run by the State Road Administration, known by its Romanian initials as ASD. The investigation covered public purchases for road repair, rehabilitation and maintenance, financed from the Road Fund. The council said the companies exchanged sensitive information and divided procurement procedures between them. On that basis, it concluded that the enterprises did not independently set their participation strategies or the content of their bids, and did not genuinely compete for the contracts. The firms have been sanctioned, although the decision can be challenged by the enterprises within 30 days of receiving it.
How coordinated bidding works
Public procurement normally depends on bidders preparing offers independently, so that price, technical approach and participation decisions reflect genuine competition. The conduct described by the council is different: competitors allegedly used sensitive information to coordinate bids and shared out procedures rather than deciding separately which opportunities to pursue. Such an arrangement can make several bids appear to compete while reducing the competitive pressure on the buyer. The mechanism matters beyond road building because the same indicators can arise in other tenders: unexplained patterns of participation, shared information between competitors and bids whose content is not developed independently. The council’s account identifies these practices as an anti-competitive agreement and/or concerted practice.
The scale of the affected work
The contracts awarded in procedures where the council found participation with rigged bids were worth approximately 1.75 billion lei. Those procedures represented at least 47% of the total value of road rehabilitation contracts concluded by ASD during 2019–2020. The authority said the practices affected public procurement financed from the Road Fund, which it described as important to Moldova’s infrastructure and economy. It also said anti-competitive practices can affect the efficient use of public resources. In this case, the council noted that savings which might have resulted from effective competition could have allowed a larger volume of road works to be carried out. The statement describes the potential effect; it does not establish that a specific amount was lost.
Fines and the route to challenge
The total sanctions amount to approximately 95 million lei across the 27 enterprises. When setting the individual fines, the Competition Council said it considered several mitigating circumstances. Seven enterprises fully or partially acknowledged the anti-competitive conduct and received reductions in their fines under the conditions provided by competition legislation. The decision is not necessarily the end of the process: the sanctioned enterprises may contest it within 30 days of receiving it. The source reports the council’s findings and penalties, but does not state whether any challenge has been filed or whether the decision has been upheld by a court. The reported conduct therefore remains subject to the available legal route of review.
| Fact | Value |
|---|---|
| Enterprises sanctioned | 27 |
| Total fines | Approximately 95 million lei |
| Procurement period | 2019–2020 |
| Value of affected contracts | Approximately 1.75 billion lei |
| Share of ASD road rehabilitation contract value | At least 47% |
| Enterprises receiving fine reductions | Seven |
| Deadline to challenge the decision | 30 days from receipt |
The enterprises did not independently set their participation strategies or the content of their bids, according to the Competition Council.
WHY IT MATTERS
The case illustrates why public buyers and bidders must preserve genuine independence in tendering. Coordinating sensitive information, dividing procedures or aligning bid content can undermine the competitive process on which public value depends. The decision also shows that competition authorities may consider acknowledgements and other mitigating circumstances when setting individual fines, while leaving a formal route to challenge the sanctions.
Reported from zdg.md, 2026-10-09. The Tender Wire is published by Otnox.
