Connecticut has become an unexpected focal point for bid rigging enforcement in public contracting. Many government contractors still see this risk as a federal problem driven by the Department of Justice and the Procurement Collusion Strike Force. Yet Connecticut is showing that a state attorney general, using state antitrust law, can reshape everyday service contracts in a very direct way.

Link to Connecticut Paves the Way Connecticut Paves the Way

In 2025, the Connecticut Attorney General announced an antitrust settlement with two moving and storage companies over allegations that they coordinated bids on a state contract. The state concluded that the companies shared confidential pricing information and prearranged their bids, creating the appearance of competition when real rivalry was lacking. The settlement required a monetary payment but also something more lasting: an antitrust and competition compliance program and restrictions on joint bidding among related competitors.

This followed an earlier case in which Connecticut obtained a substantial civil penalty and imposed a similar compliance program on contractors performing state paving work. Viewed together, these matters show a deliberate enforcement program. The state is targeting what many regard as lower-profile routine work and using settlement leverage not only to recover money but also to dictate how companies behave on future bids. For a regional contractor, this feels like a state-level version of the federal strike force.

Link to Neighboring States’ Activity Neighboring States’ Activity

The picture looks different in surrounding states. Public records from 2025 in Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, and Delaware show active talk about bid rigging, detailed procurement guidance, and a history of older cases. What they do not show, at least so far, is a new wave of state attorney general antitrust actions in which bid rigging on state or municipal contracts is front and center, comparable to the recent Connecticut matters.

Pennsylvania spends real effort training state buyers to spot suspicious bidding patterns. New York has an experienced antitrust bureau and a long record of public contract and corruption cases. Other neighboring states maintain public materials that warn contractors about collusion and price fixing. Yet the most visible bid rigging headlines in 2025 connected to this region are still federal, often brought through the Procurement Collusion Strike Force, rather than new state antitrust prosecutions.

Link to Contracting Life After Bid Rigging Contracting Life After Bid Rigging

Connecticut also offers a useful lens on life after a bid rigging settlement. In the paving case, the contractor agreed to penalties and an antitrust compliance program, but the settlement preserved eligibility for future public work. The preservation of eligibility permitted the contractor to continue bidding on projects. Indeed, a town awarded that contractor a grant-funded municipal project, apparently unaware of the prior settlement, while the company operated under enhanced internal controls.

For contractors, the lesson is that a settlement may not end public-sector business, but it changes scrutiny and expectations. For agencies, prior antitrust settlements are a meaningful risk signal that should feed into responsibility determinations and disclosure requirements.

Link to Conclusion Conclusion

The broader theme is clear: Connecticut is actively using state antitrust law to police public procurement and to embed compliance into contractors’ operations. Neighboring states have not yet made the same public shift, leaving federal enforcers as the primary source of procurement collusion risk, at least for now.