Allegation was HP India and seven of its resellers engaged in bid rigging for certain tenders floated on the Government e-Marketplace (GeM).
The Competition Commission of India (CCI) has dismissed allegations of bid rigging against HP India Sales Private Ltd and its associated resellers, finding no prima facie evidence of cartelisation in government procurement tenders.
The case, filed under Section 19(1)(a) of the Competition Act, 2002, alleged that HP India and seven of its resellers engaged in bid rigging for tenders floated on the Government e-Marketplace (GeM). The complainant, whose identity remains confidential, claimed that the accused parties colluded to manipulate bids in two tenders issued by the Gurugram Metropolitan Development Authority (GMDA) and the Faridabad Metropolitan Development Authority (FMDA) for the procurement of inkjet/LED plotter printers.
The informant, argued that the tenders’ specifications unfairly excluded competing multinational brands, such as Canon India and Epson India, and that HP India and its resellers coordinated to inflate prices and limit competition. Additionally, concerns were raised about the warranty terms and the pricing of individual components in the bids.
After reviewing the case, the CCI found that the allegations were not supported by sufficient evidence. The Commission noted that while multiple bidders quoted HP products, this alone was not indicative of cartelisation. It further clarified that the five-year warranty quoted by bidders aligned with the requirements set in the GMDA tender, eliminating concerns of collusion.
Regarding the FMDA tender, the Commission observed that bidders had the freedom to quote different brands, and the fact that some opted for HP products while others chose alternatives did not constitute bid manipulation. Furthermore, the Commission asserted that procurers have the discretion to define tender specifications based on their needs and budgetary considerations.
Finding no grounds for an investigation, the CCI ordered the case to be closed under Section 26(2) of the Competition Act, 2002. The identity of the informant will remain confidential for three years as per regulatory provisions.
Source: The Hindu Business Line
