Tribunal dismisses “Parliament travel tender collusion case” against
Tourvest Holdings, Trigon Travel
 

The Tribunal has dismissed a price fixing and collusive tendering case -- involving a government tender to supply certain administrative and management services in respect of domestic airplane flight tickets and accommodation for members of Parliament – against Tourvest Holdings (Pty) Ltd (“Tourvest”) and Trigon Travel (Pty) Ltd (“Trigon”).
 
The Competition Commission, which investigates contraventions of the Competition Act before referring such cases to the Tribunal for prosecution, accused the two companies of colluding with each other when bidding for the tender in 2015.
 
In terms of the tender, the winning bidder would have to process an estimated 28-thousand transactions for an annual spend of R100-million during the contracting period.
 
In referring the matter to the Tribunal in 2017, the Commission relied on certain features of the companies’ bids which were identical: (i) the bid price; (ii) the companies’ Broad-Based Black Economic Empowerment (B-BBEE) status and procurement level and; (iii) the submission of the bids on the same day.
 
It conceded that it had no direct evidence of collusion between Tourvest and Trigon. Instead, its case was based on drawing inferences from the similarity in the bids and the existing commercial relationship between them. Tourvest and Trigon have an indirect commercial relationship through a buying group with suppliers of travel services such as airlines.
 
The companies refuted the Commission’s allegations, arguing that they each compiled their respective bids independently of one another and that the Commission failed to put up sufficient facts and evidence to sustain an allegation of price fixing or collusive tendering. The gist of their argument was that they independently arrived at the bid price; and that any potential incentive to collude (because of their membership in the buying group) was outweighed by each company winning the tender on its own.
 
In dismissing the case, the Tribunal said, among others: “On the objective facts before us, the Commission has not discharged the onus to enable us to draw an inference of an agreement or concerted practice by the respondents…
 
… The complaint referral against the respondents must therefore be dismissed,” the Tribunal concluded.
 
A copy of the Order and Reasons will be made available on the Tribunal’s website at in due course.