A construction firm and two of its employees have been fined £50,000 for concealing evidence during a probe into suspected “bid-rigging” on contracts for school repairs. The penalties were issued to Bedfordshire company M&J Group and two of its staff members earlier this month following a Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) inspection. The visit was conducted as part of the watchdog’s months-long investigation into the supply of construction services to academies. Named and shamed In December 2024, the watchdog opened an initial inquiry into suspected bid-rigging in the government’s condition improvement fund (CIF), which provides repairs cash to academies in small trusts, sixth-form colleges and voluntary-aided schools. At the time the CMA said it had “reason to suspect that several companies providing roofing and construction services – including building contractors and technical advisers – illegally colluded to rig bids to secure contracts”. This came after the Department for Education identified “serious irregularities” in a number of successful CIF applications and withdrew funding for the projects. The CMA later updated the scope of its inquiry, with applications for contracts awarded by other private and public sector bodies added. The first indication of the scale of the investigation was given by officials in June, when the CMA revealed it was investigating 12 businesses, identifying each of them. M&J was among those named. Phone and papers removed During an inspection carried out under a court warrant in December 2024, Barry Pirrie, M&J’s estimating director, instructed office manager Tracey Woods to “remove a work mobile phone and paperwork” from the premises, the CMA said. The competition watchdog said this was done to “prevent the evidence from being found” by investigators. Pirrie also falsely told CMA officers “he did not have a work mobile phone” twice. The items were handed over later that day. However, the CMA stated: “Concealing the evidence, even temporarily, risked the loss of relevant information, and wasted valuable investigative time and resource.” It has “reviewed the material on the mobile phone… and identified a significant amount of evidence of relevance to the suspected anti-competitive conduct that is the subject of the investigation”. This includes evidence of Pirrie’s direct involvement in such conduct. The paperwork was internal documents relating to CIF projects. These included notes of internal meetings, presentations and email chains involving Pirrie. ‘Collective failure’ M&J was slapped with a £25,000 fine, while Pirrie was told to cough up £20,000 and Woods will have to pay £5,000. CMA papers show the company “did not dispute” what happened or “offer an excuse for the… failures to comply”. It said the conduct was a result of “a collective failure on the part of management and a failure of company processes and procedures, rather than a fault attributable to any one senior manager”. The CMA stressed the penalties are separate to any findings from the investigation, which remains ongoing, and that “no assumptions should be made as to whether competition law has been broken”. M&J’s website states the business is “at the forefront of education refurbishment works”. Its services extend to playground refurbishment, bid writing, CIF and the school condition allocation, which is a guaranteed sum given to larger trusts for repairs and maintenance. M&J did not respond to our request for comment.