7th meeting of the Digital Agency Bid-Rigging Surveillance Commission

Overview

Date: Wednesday, September 24, 2025
Place: Digital Agency Public Meeting Room
Names of committee members (honorifics omitted, in Japanese alphabetical order):
- Ryota Kaneko Professor, Graduate School of Accounting, Waseda University
- Yoshiko Kawazawa Representative Director, Social Policy Lab, Inc.
- Yuichi Mochinaga Certified Public Accountant
Period for deliberation: October 1, 2024 to March 31, 2025
Number of extracted projects: 3 (228 projects)
Number of deliberation items: 3

Material

Agenda (PDF/214KB)

Summary of the Proceedings

FY 2024 Survey and Research on Overseas Legal Systems in the U.S., Europe, and Other Countries Related to Data Utilization

Serial No.: 25 - 09 - 01
Contract method: General competitive contract (comprehensive evaluation bidding method)
Counterparty: Nishimura & Asahi and Gaikokuho Kyodo
Contract amount: 9,988,000 yen
Contract date: February 18, 2025

Opinions and questions	Answer
What was the reason for the large difference between the estimated price and the successful bid? What were the differences between the estimates and proposals of the successful bidders and those of other bidders?	Since the successful bidders did not have overseas bases, their staff had to travel to Europe to conduct on-site surveys. On the other hand, since the successful bidders had bases in the EU, they could immediately conduct on-site interviews. In addition, they had already received many consultations in the relevant fields and had already conducted a preliminary survey. Compared to other bidders, it was possible to compile a report with fewer man-hours by utilizing the in-house accumulation, which is a factor behind the large difference.
I think that it is valuable to interview persons in charge of practical affairs in foreign countries. In the specifications, only the EHDS method shows specific persons concerned and persons in charge of hearings. In other parts, persons in charge are experts. Does it mean that as a result, on-site hearings were conducted only for the EHDS method and that hearings were conducted for experts including those in Japan for other parts that were essential in the specifications?	For areas other than the EHDS method, interviews were conducted with local experts in Australia and the United States as well as domestic experts through online meetings, and local interviews were included in the man-hours in all project proponents' proposals, although they were not required in the specifications.
Although it is quite difficult for the consulting industry itself to secure man-hours in a period of a little more than one month at the end of the fiscal year, we would like you to continue to examine the appropriateness of calculating the estimated price that exceeds that as Digital Agency.
Supplementary payments of investigation reports have been made. How did these payments arise?	An inspection was conducted on the delivered deliverables, and it was determined that corrections were necessary for the parts that were not consistent or insufficient as a report, and additional payment became necessary.
The work related to the investigation report tends to be delivered at the end of March, which is thought to be one of the causes of the late payment. Couldn't the investigation be announced earlier so that the business operator could have more time?	At the Prime Minister's Council meeting on November 12, an instruction was issued for the first time to consider a specific legal system for data utilization while comparing it with those of other countries. In response to the instruction, we made our utmost efforts, such as considering the parts that would be requested of business operators and the parts that would be implemented within the agency, and coordinating with each ministry. However, we ended up with a public notice of delivery at the end of March. In addition, since the survey was for the Cabinet decision in June, the order was made when there was no time to spare.
What instructions are given to companies regarding the use of generated AI in the preparation of reports?	No rules have been established for the use of generated AI. Since the content covered here is a comparison of the legal systems of various countries and does not deal with confidential government internal information, we believe that it is acceptable to use generated AI owned by the operators to improve the work efficiency.
The specifications even mention the personal rights of authors, but what exactly are they assuming?	It is set on the assumption that the deliverables created by business operators can be used by the government without restrictions. Past specifications are also listed for reference, and we are not concerned about specific risks.
Regarding the comparison of legal systems, is the information surveyed by the Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare, Financial Services Agency, etc. shared within the government?	A study group has been established to formulate the basic policies. Persons in charge from Financial Services Agency, Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare, Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry, Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications, Japan Fair Trade Commission, Personal Information Protection Commission, etc. have been invited to participate as observers or guest speakers. In addition, past reports that have been publicly available have been reviewed and studied while sharing information with each ministry.
If there is a target law, it would be easier for experts in each field to estimate the effort if it is focused and clearly described in the specification rather than a comprehensive survey.	When preparing the specifications, there was an idea to focus on Europe and the United States, but there was also an opinion that it would be better to refer to other countries as well. Therefore, this survey was conducted without focusing on those countries. However, if the survey is conducted for a short period of time, it may be better to focus on certain countries. If there is a similar survey in the future, it should be considered.
The information required by the Employer should be specifically indicated in the written specifications, and it should be made clear that this does not prevent the Employer from making additional proposals. Additional proposals should be considered as one of the evaluation items.

Fiscal 2024 Renovation of Supervision and Management Support System

Serial No.: 25 - 09 - 02
Contract method: Discretionary contract (planning competition)
Counterparty: BIGTREE Technology & Consulting Co., Ltd.
Contract amount: 69,696,000 yen
Contract Date: November 8, 2024

Opinions and questions	Answer
What is your evaluation of the supervisory support system as a user?	From the users' point of view, this system has made a considerable contribution to improving the efficiency of administrative work. There are more than 1,000 systems in place in all government ministries and agencies. This system makes it possible to collect information in an integrated manner, although it would take a great deal of time and manpower to use them individually.
In 2024, it was a proposal type planning competition, and in 2025, it shifted to general competition. If it had been formed to some extent in 2023, I think that general competition would have been good in 2024. Why was it decided to be a proposal type planning competition?	When the new system was introduced in FY 2023 and interviews were conducted with each ministry and agency, there were many severe feedbacks such as that it was difficult to use. We asked specific parts that were difficult to use and listed the points to be improved, but we could not systematize the requests and show the specific parts to be corrected. At the same time, we also consulted with Microsoft and obtained information on new function proposals and the possibility of technology that could be made more easily. Therefore, we came to the conclusion that it would be better to invite multiple business operators with specialized knowledge to compete their ideas and adopt the best proposal rather than just modifying a specific part. We decided to hold a proposal-type planning competition.
In the proposal method, business operators that have concluded contracts in the past may gain an advantage because they know "implicit information" that is not written in the specifications, which may make it difficult for new entrants to enter the market. How have you dealt with the risks associated with this information advantage?	This time, a business operator that had a contract in fiscal 2022 won the bid, but the business operator did not have a special advantage. Although another business operator had the most knowledge and experience and had an advantage, it had problems with technical capabilities and response capabilities and could not obtain a strong proposal, and the score was low. On the other hand, the new business operator this time had a deep understanding of Microsoft cooperation and new functions and made a high-quality proposal, and the score was high.
At present, information is collected from each ministry at the end of the fiscal year and updated. It would be good to collect information in real time and make it possible for each ministry to share the information. Are there any plans to establish a system to do so?	The budget request work started in April and May, and information collection started at the end of March. Therefore, at present, it is possible to review using the latest information, but it is reasonable to point out that the latest information should always be included. The system name and department names are basically the same, but it is desirable to be able to grasp changes in the budget execution status and schedule in real time. The introduction of a new system is being considered in order to collect information without burdening each ministry. Through this, instead of entering information once a year in Excel or a web form as before, each ministry would like to be able to enter information at their own timing, and the information would be automatically reflected in the system. In addition, in order to prevent the burden on each ministry from becoming too large, a mechanism is also being considered in which materials such as estimates are submitted, and they are read by AI and automatically converted into data.
It is stated in the specifications that "the development method is based on the assumption of a waterfall." In light of the content of this project, it is conceivable that the method could be agile type. What is the reason for the assumption of a waterfall?	When the specifications for this tender were prepared, it was thought that there was a high possibility that small-scale operators with technical capabilities would participate, and there was concern that engineers would unilaterally proceed with development at their own discretion, so the waterfall method was adopted as a safety measure. Regular reporting and approval are required, and work is not to proceed without approval.
I heard that the winning company has several developers who are familiar with Microsoft products. What kind of careers do these people have?	I checked the development experience history of the proposals, and the developers who belonged to the operators with high scores had a lot of experience in developing Power Apps. Power Apps is developed by Microsoft in the United States, and the functions are available in Japan, but there is not enough information such as manuals. Experienced engineers get information on the latest functions and beta versions from Microsoft's developer blog and use it for development. These engineers not only know the specifications, but also understand the hidden functions of no-code tools and can make flexible proposals according to user requests. Therefore, these engineers seem to be leading in terms of proposals.

Additional development, maintenance, and improvement of API catalog site

Serial No.: 25 - 09 - 03
Contract method: Discretionary contract (planning competition)
Counterparty: N-Works LLC
Contract amount: 35,860,000 yen
Contract Date: October 22, 2024

Opinions and questions	Answer
Some point out that the transition from the rich text format to the markdown format may not be applicable to complex systems. However, is it correct to understand that the markdown format is fully applicable to the operation of corporate CMS (content management system) by utilizing the currently provided API, and that business operators are actually more familiar with the markdown format?	The developer site itself has a simple structure specialized in technical documents, and many of the requirements are general-purpose and simple. Therefore, it is judged that the markdown method can sufficiently meet them. On the other hand, there are times when the person in charge receives individual requests such as "Can't you do this kind of function?". Although not all of the functions are incorporated, the system is arranged so that functions that are considered to be common to the entire service can be flexibly supported by additional development.
Five companies participated and two companies were rejected. What was the specific reason for the rejection?	In the evaluation this time, we scored the submitted materials, presentations, and questions and answers of each company based on the evaluation criteria table. Product managers and engineers also participated in the scoring and asked detailed questions especially about the technical aspects. As a result, the evaluation points did not increase for the two companies that failed because they had answers and materials that did not meet the required level. Although the evaluation viewpoint differed depending on the scorer, since the construction technology in the markdown format this time was emphasized, we think that the technical understanding and the concreteness of the proposal in particular were the turning point of the evaluation.
It's good that you were able to select a better business through the presentation, but you need to organize the records so that you can reasonably explain the reasons for rejection and the evaluation process.	I understand.
How many man-hours (labor and time) will be increased if points are given to companies that fail the test?	In this initiative, we spent a lot of time discussing the necessary perspectives and rejection criteria, and created an evaluation criteria table. The graders listen to the presentation based on the evaluation criteria table and evaluate it, and they aggregate it, so we recognize that it does not take that much man-hours (labor).
From the perspective of supporting start-up companies, rather than simply giving a "fail," it may lead to motivation for business operators to show a score and make it clear that "they made efforts but did not get enough points." However, in the case of the comprehensive evaluation, there is a possibility that the price will be reversed, so even if we give a score, it may be necessary to give a fail to business operators who really do not meet the standards.
This time, a relatively small-scale business operator won the bid, and some unique efforts were seen. Therefore, it is necessary to clarify the requirements for handover in order to avoid problems at the time of handover when this project is continued in the future. You said that you would describe and improve that point in the procurement specifications for the next fiscal year. Please tell us specifically how you will do it.	Another business operator was in charge of the initial construction of the developer site, and the current business operator is operating it using the handover document created by that business operator. At present, preparations are underway to create a handover document to be handed over to the business operator for the next fiscal year. At the time of handover, it is planned to record requests for additional functions and reasons for not being able to respond, and to hand over the documents. It is also recognized that the content of handover should be clearly decided in the specification document at the time of contract, and it is planned to reflect the experience in other work in future specifications.
Is there an agency-wide policy on how to specify the handover format, etc. in written specifications?	Although there is no uniform policy for all offices, information systems operation and maintenance contracts always include items related to handover in the specifications.
The items that both operators should be aware of, such as the schedule, man-hours, and timing, should be handed over through the Digital Agency office. This point should be clearly indicated in the specifications, etc., because it is likely to cause problems if the work is carried out only between the operators.	In order to ensure a smooth handover of the project, the NPA has already sorted out the contents of the necessary documents in advance and shared the information with the current operators, and even if the operators change in the future, Digital Agency will manage the documents to prevent any trouble from occurring.