So, the OFT has announced which construction companies it has fined for bid-rigging - and here's the full list.

A fair outcome?

Tell us your views.

I find it excessive because the OFT admits that it knows this is only the tip of the iceberg.

So it's basically made an example of these firms. Great if your not one of those made an example of, tough titty if you're Kiers and have to swallow a £18m fine.

The bigger issue is that this is all a symptom of the chaos that is public sector procurement, and if there were a more sensible system, with fewer hoops to jump through and fewer boxes to check - then you wouldn't have contractors trying to play the system.

It is ridiculous that we have ended up in a situation where we feel we have to be seen to bid for a contract, even when we don't want the work!

Tip of the iceberg would be an understatement - "this is all a symptom of the chaos that is public sector procurement" however, is spot on!

Six out the 103 firms fined by the OFT today had their fines halved or more due to their co-operation in the investigation.  I have previously asked the question somewhere in this forum - Why?

All I can say is I am so glad to be nearing the end of my Construction Career, this excuse for an industry has failed all concerned ...and future generations - big-time.

I don't really follow all the indignation.

All these companies have been found guilty of breaking the law, and have been fined accordingly.

What possible defence is there?

No indignation Fred

I fully agree with what you say but I am simply asking the question - Why, when they have raised their hands in the air and muttered 'fair-cop' to the charges, and because they have coughed up afterwards, they are receiving reduced fines, that to me, isn't being 'fined accordingly'..is it?

What a shambles,

Please could someone advise just how much money it has cost for the OFT to produce this investigation??

 Is it £130m and hence they have generated the "%age of turnover" to recover these costs.

 No Client has ended up paying "over the odds" for a Tender.

The main reason a Contractor gets a cover price is because he is short of resource in that particular month- and are scared to deeath to decline it for fear of being knocked off a LIST.

No-one has mentioned in all of this that Many clients promise an enquiry on a certain date, rsource is arranged to price it then the enquiry is delayed- and resource cannot be shifted to suit this.

Quite a number of the companies listed are not trading anymore- how on earth do the OFT honestly think that the balance will "cough up" these ridiculously huge sums.

Admittedly i don't hear of cover pricing anymore but don't think previous activities has actually "cost the taxpayer any money"- Yet again the Construction industry gets slammed and ruins it's reputation unfairly.

 Exactly right Dobbin. How can cover prices have "cost the taxpayer money"? If those firms hadn't got a cover price, they wouldn't have submitted a bid at all. So how on earth does that disadvantage the taxpayer? I'm not saying the practice is right, and like you say, you don't really see it any more (haven't done for the past few years in fact). But the news coverage yesterday, which basically implied that contractors have been ripping Joe Public off left right and centre, are ridiculous.

I agree with Dobbin, and you are very probably right that the OFT have recovered the cost of their investigation plus a tidy margin with the fines imposed.

The best part about cover pricing is the look on the contractors MD's face when he wins the job with a cover  priceless.

steam boss