Login
Federal Court finds architecture firm guilty of attempting to rig bids for Charles Darwin University project
In charges brought by the ACCC as part of its crackdown on cartel conduct, the Federal Court has found that an architecture firm attempted to rig bids for a tender, in relation to a $250 million building project at Darwin’s Charles Darwin University.
Lauren Croft
Ashton Raggatt McDougall (ARM Architecture) and its former managing director, Anthony (Tony) John Allen, have both been found guilty by the Federal Court after the firm admitted to engaging in cartel conduct.
To continue reading the rest of this article, please log in.
Create free account to get unlimited news articles and more!
This news follows numerous charges brought by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) in recent months, as its crackdown on cartel conduct has been an enduring priority.
The Federal Court ordered ARM Architecture to pay a penalty of $900,000 and Mr Allen to pay a penalty of $75,000.
The firm had admitted to engaging in cartel conduct when Mr Allen sent emails to eight other architecture firms in September 2020, urging the firms not to bid for the second phase of the university project. Mr Allen also conceded that he had attempted to persuade the other architecture firms to come to an understanding with ARM in regards to a cartel provision.
After the conduct was brought to its attention, Charles Darwin University excluded ARM Architecture from tendering for the project. Mr Allen subsequently left the firm in March 2022. ARM Architecture was ordered by the court to conduct an education, training and compliance program relating to obligations under the Competition and Consumer Act and pay part of the ACCC’s costs.
The ACCC first commenced proceedings against ARM Architecture and Mr Allen in September 2022, shortly before the ACCC secured another criminal conviction for cartel offences in October last year.
ACCC chair Gina Cass-Gottlieb said this type of conduct was harmful for any type of industry.
“This judgment should serve as a strong reminder for everyone, including professionals and professional services firms, that bid rigging is against the law, no matter what industry you are in,” she said.
“When a business attempts to rig a bid or form a cartel, they harm competition by unfairly seeking to advance their interests over those of its customers. When they do so on a public project, they are also doing so at the expense of the public purse.”
Mr Allen was also ordered to contribute to the ACCC’s costs and to seek to have an educative notice about his experience published under his name on the website of the Architects Registration Board of Victoria as a warning to other professionals.
According to the ACCC, Mr Allen has agreed to say in his that notice: “I made a very serious mistake by attempting to induce the other firms to engage in bid-rigging, and this has had serious consequences for me. I have lost my position, my reputation, and my involvement in a profession that I love. Do not do what I did. Learn from my mistakes. Whatever pressure you may be under, and whatever motivation you may have, do not attempt to induce others to engage in cartel conduct.”
Ms Cass-Gottlieb added: “The ACCC has recently enhanced its cartel detection program, and we encourage public procurement officials to be alert to the signs of bid rigging and other cartel conduct in public tenders. If they have any concerns, they can report the matter to the ACCC, and they can do so anonymously.”
