Bid rigging, more formally known as bid collusion, is a serious matter. In fact, it can be a crime. Any allegation of bid collusion should be backed up by tangible evidence. It is not an allegation to be made lightly or for tactical advantage.

In a recent case out of Indiana, a disappointed bidder alleged that the public project owner’s architectural firm structured a bid process in a manner that allowed the architect to manipulate the system and disqualify any bidder that underbid a favored bidder. The allegation of favoritism arose from the fact that a principal in the architectural firm was a close friend of a principal in the construction company that allegedly received the preferential treatment.

The Indiana court said the structure of the bid process, while unorthodox, did not violate state competitive bidding statutes. And, the allegation of favoritism was mere speculation and not supported by any substantive evidence.

Other cases this week addressed the need for a joint venture to obtain a separate contractor’s license and the ability of an offeror to revive an expired proposal. The “joint venture” was actually a newly formed limited liability company, so it needed its own license even though its two members were both licensed contractors. And, the expired proposal could be revived without prejudicing the other offerors.