Consistent with the GPA, the Government in Japan has established an office responsible for handling concerns related to public procurement called the Office for Government Procurement Challenge System. Parties are free to submit complaints regarding public procurement through the complaint handling system managed by this Office. If the Office's grievance committee finds reasonable grounds in connection with such a complaint, the grievance committee will prepare and submit a report thereon, as well as a recommended proposal for the handling of the complaint, to the pertinent governmental authority involved in the procurement at issue. However, such reports and proposals are treated only as advisory opinions, and do not have the force of law.

In like manner, local governments have each also established grievance committees of their own for handling complaints related to public procurement conducted under their authority.

There are specialized dispute resolution system for public procurement in Japanese courts. If a party intends to raise a claim related to public procurement through the courts, normal court proceedings are to be used.

Depending on the context, a party may claim for damages caused by illegal procurement under the provisions of the State Redress Act. That party may bring an action for judicial review of a relevant administrative disposition pursuant to the provisions of the Administrative Case Litigation Act. We note, however, that it is quite rare that the court would rule in favour of the plaintiff and cancel the disposition in such cases because a selection process in a procurement procedure is not regarded as administrative action and rather contract process..

In addition to the above, in cases of procurement by a local government, an aggrieved party may file a suit against the local government in the way of citizens' suit (Jyumin-Soshou) as set out in the Local Autonomy Act.

As mentioned above, there are no specialized or compulsory dispute resolution systems for procurement disputes in the Japanese courts. Therefore a party seeking remedy is required to use normal court proceedings.

In case of disputes concerning contracts for construction work, a party may submit a request to the Committee for Adjustment of Construction Work Disputes to conduct mediation, conciliation and arbitration, based on the provisions of the Construction Business Act. In practice, it is common to stipulate in contracts for construction work a clause related to such dispute resolution mechanism, as set out in the Construction Business Act.

According to Article 4 of the State Redress Act and Article 724 of the Civil Code, the right to demand compensation for damages in tort shall be extinguished by operation of law (i) if a relevant claim is not made within three years from the time when the injured party comes to know of the injury and the identity of the person who committed the tortious act, or (ii) when twenty years have elapsed from the time of the tortious act.

Article 1 of the State Redress Act stipulates the main matters that must be raised by a plaintiff seeking redress from the Government or a local government, which are substantially equivalent to what is required in the case of normal torts. The plaintiff is required to show that (i) the act of the relevant public officer or employee was an inappropriate exercise of public authority, (ii) the act at issue was carried out either intentionally or negligently and (iii) the act at issue cause the claimed injury. Article 1 of the Act states that, where such is the case, "the State or public entity shall assume the responsibility to compensate therefor".

There is no specifically designated admissible grounds for starting a review proceeding. The party seeking review must file a suit in the pertinent court in accordance with ordinary civil procedure.

A review proceeding does not affect an on-going tender procedure or an awarded contract, provided, however, that, if provisional disposition has been granted by a court, in certain conditions, an on-going tender procedure can be suspended. Having said that, practically speaking, it is possible that the Government or local government may spontaneously suspend the tender procedure, depending on the context of the dispute.

If a party files a suit in accordance with the State Redress Act and the court has ruled in favour of such party, the remedy is limited to covering monetary damages and does not go as far as suspending or revoking an on-going tender process or already-granted award.

It varies widely depending on the situation. Taking into account the possibility of appeal, it is common to require several years (potentially including more than a decade) to settle such a dispute.

No, there is no law or rule requiring notification to the unsuccessful bidders.

Considering that review process poses a heavy burden for the would-be plaintiff in light of cost and time, the pursuit of review proceedings is uncommon in Japan.

No. As claims for damages in relation to public procurement procedures require significant expenditures of cost and time, they remain uncommon in Japan.

As mentioned in 8(m), while there are few cases/court decisions involving procurement disputes, we can point out the Tokyo District Court (TDC) Decision of June 27, 2011, which is one of the most commonly-known cases regarding public procurement. The TDC states that a contract will not always be void even if such contract has been concluded by the means of a collusive act, but that, if such collusive act "is against the public policy" (Article 90 of Japanese Civil Code) such contract would be considered void. In the end, the TDC did find in the case that the contract should be voided because the collusive act in question was against public policy.