The UK Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) has publicly called for reform of public procurement rules and enhanced enforcement action against bid rigging, in a move that puts collusive tendering squarely back on the enforcement agenda for contracting authorities and bidders alike.

The CMA's intervention, reported by Lexology, signals the regulator's concern that bid rigging — agreements between competitors on the bids they submit to public tenders — continues to distort the UK's substantial public procurement market and deprives taxpayers of value for money.

What is the CMA asking for?

The regulator's call rests on two pillars:

• Procurement reform — changes to how public bodies design and run tenders, so that contracting authorities can better detect and deter collusive bidding before contracts are awarded.
• Enhanced action against bid rigging — stronger, more visible enforcement against companies and individuals who rig bids, complementing the CMA's existing powers under competition law.

Bid rigging is one of the most serious forms of cartel conduct. It typically involves competitors agreeing which of them will win a contract, or coordinating the prices or terms of competing bids, so that the tender process produces an appearance of competition without its substance.

Who does this affect?

The practical reach is wide. Public procurement accounts for a major share of UK public spending, spanning construction, services, IT and supplies. Every contracting authority — central government departments, local authorities, NHS bodies and other public sector buyers — relies on competitive tendering to secure fair prices.

For practitioners, the CMA's intervention carries consequences on both sides of the tender:

• Bidders and their counsel face a renewed risk of competition law scrutiny in tender processes. Companies participating in joint bidding, sub-contracting arrangements or informal contacts with rivals before submission deadlines should review their compliance controls.
• Contracting authorities are likely to come under pressure to strengthen red-flag screening: suspicious bid patterns, identical wording across bids, rotating winners, and losing bids priced far above the winner's.
• Procurement lawyers should expect reform proposals to feed into the design of future tender rules, following the recent overhaul of the UK's public procurement regime.

Why does bid rigging attract this attention?

Cartel enforcement has long treated bid rigging as a per se infringement of competition law, capable of attracting heavy fines and, in the most serious cases, criminal liability for individuals involved in dishonest price-fixing arrangements.

Yet detection remains difficult. Colluding bidders work to keep the tender outwardly competitive. The CMA's call for reform acknowledges that enforcement after the fact — investigations, fines and disqualification — catches only a fraction of the harm, and that prevention at the procurement stage may deliver more.

What happens next?

The CMA's public call sets the direction of travel rather than finalising legislative text. Practitioners should watch for:

• Formal reform proposals addressing tender design and bidder screening;
• Guidance or tools aimed at contracting authorities to help them spot collusive bidding;
• Continued CMA casework and enforcement against bid-rigging cartels, building on its existing cartel enforcement record.

For now, the message to the market is clear: the UK's competition regulator wants public buying to become harder to rig, and it wants enforcement against those who rig it to bite harder. Companies that bid for public contracts should treat the CMA's announcement as a prompt to audit their tendering practices now, rather than waiting for the regulator to do it for them.