On 8 September 2026, the UK CMA shone the spotlight on UK public procurement markets, publishing two reports (here and here) that highlight the risk of bid-rigging in the sector and encourage public authorities to harness systematic data screening to identify suspicious patterns of behaviour. 

This was a broad intervention, which calls for greater recognition of the “strategic importance of public procurement” and how it can be used to support UK industrial strategy and the national interest. This signals a concerted pivot by the CMA to focus on public purchasing markets, with CEO Sarah Cardell recognising this had not “generally been a headline-grabbing topic”. The agency now estimates that taxpayers could be overpaying suppliers by up to £3.5bn every year due to unlawful activity such as bid-rigging, which typically occurs when suppliers collude to prevent a purchaser from obtaining goods, works or services at a competitive market price. The CMA’s call will be especially relevant for businesses active in sectors like construction, energy, outsourcing and managed services, and suppliers to public sectors like healthcare, education and social services.

For business who routinely bid for UK public tenders, including as part of bidding consortia or as sub-contractors, there are immediate takeaways:

1. Contact or coordination with fellow potential bidders in the context of tender processes may give rise to significant competition law risks. CMA guidance already describes bid-rigging as among “the most serious restrictions of competition”. As with all anticompetitive agreements or practices, infringing enterprises can and do face very significant penalties (up to 10% of global turnover) and private litigation exposure. Individuals risk criminal liability and director disqualification. Since 2014, the CMA has imposed more than £129m in fines from seven bid-rigging cases. There are now heightened consequences too: under the UK’s post-Brexit Procurement Act 2023 cartel infringements can lead to debarment and/or mandatory exclusion from UK public procurement. Further still, even without a formal regulatory infringement decision, contracting authorities also now have discretion to exclude suppliers, where they consider that a supplier has engaged in anti-competitive conduct or practices. 
    
2. The CMA calls for a shift toward proactive, data-driven detection and improved screening capability. It has developed an in-house Bid Rigging Intelligence Tool (BRIT) that analyses procurement data for suspicious bidding patterns. It also calls for a more joined-up and scaled-up approach to procurement data collection across government, and the wider public sector, to facilitate investigative screening. Clearly, the risk of detection in the UK is rising, consistent with peer jurisdictions – indeed, OECD data shows that the share of cartel decisions involving bid rigging rose from 34% to 47% between 2021 and 2024. Data-centric screening is also an international trend – the CMA’s paper draws attention to initiatives across Europe (Spain, Germany and Ireland) and beyond (Korea, Brazil).
    
3. The CMA also recommends including a clear commitment to preventing, detecting and deterring bid-rigging in the National Procurement Policy Statement and related procurement guidance. Under the Procurement Act 2023, public buyers must now have regard to this statement when conducting procurements. Businesses should prepare to face greater scrutiny at tender evaluation stage and through contract management interactions with public bodies and be ready to evidence their approach to compliance.
    
4. To that end, we recommend that companies should:
    
   1. Review internal antitrust compliance policies and controls to ensure they address bid-rigging risks properly. Such risks include cover bidding (i.e., agreeing to submit false bids), bid rotation (i.e., taking turns to be the predetermined winner), and other market allocation conduct (e.g. agreements with other suppliers not to bid, or the distribution of specific lots between competitors). Such policies should consider how staff interact with competitors through trade associations, consortia, or joint ventures, or where two enterprises form part of the same dynamic market.  Businesses should also guard carefully against the exchange of competitively sensitive information on previously successful bids, past bid prices and similar, including at informal industry events. As automated data screening by authorities intensifies, similarities arising over time between competitors’ tender submissions will increase detection risk.
       
   2. Train relevant commercial or procurement teams on red flags, risky scenarios and reporting obligations, taking advantage of CMA resources such as the Cheating or Competing campaign. The distinction between bid-rigging and legitimate activity is sometimes a fine one. For instance, the CMA’s guidance mentions how competition concerns may arise in the case of subcontracting arrangements, where the parties disclose to each other information related to their respective tenders.
       
   3. Monitor supply chains and take a “whole group” approach: under the Procurement Act 2023, cartel conduct by subcontractors or consortium partners, in both the UK and elsewhere, can directly disqualify a bidding business from public tenders. In that context, scrutiny of key suppliers routinely used for public contracts is warranted. Similarly, statutory exclusion criteria can now be met via the conduct of “connected persons” (including directors, parent and subsidiary entities). It is therefore prudent to take a “whole group” approach to compliance, focused not just on business units with specific exposure to public markets, but commercial teams more broadly.