21.1.2022

How to Estimate Whether to Submit a Joint or Separate Offer in a Public Competitive Tendering?

As a general rule, tenderers participating in public procurements have the right to form a consortium and submit a tender as a joint offer to meet the requirements of the competitive tendering. Small companies, in particular, may find it difficult to tender for products or services alone.

By combining resources with a competitor, it might, however, be possible to submit a tender. Sometimes cooperation with a competitor can also result in significant cost savings for the customer compared to carrying out the procurement alone.

Competition law restricts cooperation between competitors

From a competition law perspective, joint offers are not always permitted, and forming a consortium might lead to serious competition law sanctions. If the object or effect of a cooperation between companies is to significantly prevent, restrict or distort competition, then cooperation is prohibited. This means that bidding cartels and other procedures through which markets are shared between competitors are prohibited.

The provisions of the Finnish Act on Public Procurement and Concession Contracts have a permissive view on consortiums, while the approach taken in the Finnish Competition Act is negative. So what should competing companies then take into account when they consider bidding as a consortium? 

Joint offers attract interest

Under competition law, competitors may generally cooperate only if the tenderer is otherwise not able to participate in the competitive tender process. Joint offers in public procurements that violate the competition laws have lately been under discussion both in Finland and elsewhere. We would like to highlight two recent cases where the court stated that a joint offer had prevented competition.

1. In Finland, tenderers were deemed to have used a joint offer to share markets

In September 2021, the Finnish Competition and Consumer Authority (FCCA) submitted to the Market Court a penalty payment proposal, in which it proposed a penalty payment of EUR 1.9 million to six companies operating in the Turku region traffic and their joint venture. The companies submitted several joint offers through their joint ventures.

According to the FCCA’s estimate, the companies eliminated all competition with their joint offers in the competitive tendering and shared the markets in a manner agreed in advance. In the penalty payment proposal, it is stated that, when evaluated as whole, the violation concerned a serious competition restriction. The companies had alleged that the cooperation in reality would have benefited the client and consumers but, according to the FCCA’s estimate, it was not demonstrated what these benefits were or how they would have been passed on to consumers.

2. In Denmark, a joint offer was considered a competition restriction

The permissibility of joint offers has also been assessed in Denmark. The Danish Road Directorate (Vejdirektoratet) requested tenders for repainting road paintings in three different geographical areas. The road painting contract was divided into parts in accordance with the geographical areas.

Two large undertakings operating in the road painting market formed a consortium that submitted a tender for all three areas. The consortium won the competitive tendering in all areas.

One of the losing tenderers appealed the decision, and the case was brought before the Supreme Court of Denmark (Hoejesteret 191/2018). The consortium was deemed to be in violation of the Danish Competition Act and Article 101 TFEU. The Supreme Court of Denmark held that the question was of a competition restriction, the object of which was to restrict competition. The consortium had also not brought up any efficiencies that would have justified the cooperation. The companies that formed the consortium could have submitted a tender on their own at least in some areas.

Because the issue is topical and has attracted a lot of attention, we recommend that companies pay special attention to competition rules when they consider forming a consortium and submitting a joint offer. The aforementioned cases are examples of situations in which advance assessment failed.

When is cooperation permitted and when prohibited?

If the members of the consortium are not competitors or potential competitors, cooperation is, as a rule, permitted.

If the parties of the consortium are competitors, the point of departure is the opposite, and it is necessary to separately assess every time whether cooperation is permitted. The assessment must be made on a case-by-case basis taking into account the actual content of the cooperation, the concrete details and terms and conditions of the competitive tendering.

It may be permitted to submit a joint offer if the parties of the consortium could not submit a tender at all on their own or if the cooperation can be justified on efficiency grounds. It is important to note that the threshold for using the efficiency argument is high and the efficiencies must also de facto be passed on to consumers.

When making the assessment, it is advisable to consult a competition lawyer – in particular, if the cooperation is to be justified on efficiency grounds.

A company that concludes agreements with the aim to distort competition can be excluded from procurements

Under the Finnish Act on Public Procurement and Concession Contracts, the contracting entity may decide to exclude from competitive tendering a tenderer that has concluded agreements with other suppliers seeking to distort competition, and the contracting entity can prove that this has occurred.

By making joint offers that violate competition laws, the company thus also compromises its possibility to participate in public competitive tendering in the future.

Ensure in advance that the cooperation is permitted

For the tenderer it is therefore important to always assess the permissibility of cooperation in advance. If cooperation is entered without an assessment, there is a risk that it breaches the cartel prohibition and results in fines and other sanctions. The company may also lose business opportunities in public competitive tendering processes in the future.

Latest references

We are acting as the joint legal advisor to Oomi Oy and Lumme Energia Oy in a transaction whereby Lumme Energia will merge with Oomi. As from the completion of the merger, the combined entity will be the largest electricity retail and service company in the Finnish market. In 2024, Oomi reported a turnover of EUR 373.9 million and had approximately 110 employees. Lumme Energia’s turnover for the same year was approximately EUR 314.6 million and it had approximately 50 employees. The transaction is primarily driven by the recent developments in the electricity market and the strategic goal to develop competitive products and services. Another key objective is to further enhance the customer experience, which is a shared value between the two companies. As a result of the merger, Lumme Energia’s customers will transfer to Oomi, and Lumme Energia will become one of Oomi’s shareholders. The completion of the transaction is subject to an approval by the Finnish Competition and Consumer Authority.
Case published 29.8.2025
We assisted Oomi Oy in its expansion into the mobile telecommunications market with the launch of Oomi Mobiili, a new MVNO brand. Our work covered the preceding due diligence process as well as structuring and negotiating key partner agreements, laying a solid foundation for Oomi’s entry into the new market. Oomi Mobiili will operate as a virtual mobile network operator, offering customers the option to purchase a mobile subscription together with their electricity contract. The phased launch is set to begin in autumn 2025, with nationwide availability targeted for early 2026. 
Case published 15.8.2025
We are acting as the legal advisor to WithSecure Corporation in Diana BidCo Oy’s voluntary public cash tender offer for all the issued and outstanding shares in WithSecure. The tender offer values WithSecure’s total equity at approximately EUR 299 million. Diana BidCo is a private limited company incorporated and existing under the laws of Finland that will be indirectly owned by a consortium formed for purposes of the tender offer by certain affiliated funds of CVC Capital Partners Plc and Risto Siilasmaa. The consortium believes that the partnership strengthens and accelerates the road to WithSecure’s long-standing goal of becoming Europe’s most trusted cybersecurity partner by positioning the company to lead the next era of business cybersecurity. WithSecure’s shares are listed on the official list of Nasdaq Helsinki. WithSecure is a Europe-based cybersecurity company that helps protect businesses and is committed to strong partnerships with customers and collaborators. WithSecure’s customers trust WithSecure with outcome-based cybersecurity that protects and enables their operations. The completion of the tender offer is subject to the satisfaction or waiver by the offeror of certain customary conditions on or prior to the offeror’s announcement of the final results of the tender offer. The tender offer is currently expected to be completed during the fourth quarter of 2025. The Takeover Board of the Securities Markets Association issued on 4 August 2025 a new recommendation (1/2025) on good securities market practice that deals with the target company’s board of directors’ obligations in case of a consortium offer in which a major shareholder of the company participates in the consortium.
Case published 8.8.2025
We acted as Finnish legal advisor to HANZA AB in connection with its acquisition of the contract manufacturing division of Milectria, a group of companies specialising in electrical systems for the defence industry.  The transaction comprises 100% of the shares in Milectria Oy (Finland), Milectria OÜ (Estonia), and the real estate company Kiinteistö Oy Kanungin Karhu. The transaction is expected to close in September 2025, subject to customary closing conditions, including regulatory approvals.  Founded in 2008, HANZA is a Swedish mechanical engineering and electronics contract manufacturing company listed on the Nasdaq Stockholm main list. The company operating in seven countries currently has annual sales of approximately SEK 6 billion and approximately 3,100 employees. Milectria is a Finnish contract manufacturer of electrical systems for the defence industry.
Case published 21.7.2025