RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONGPA/M/15
12 July 2001
(01-3477)
Committee on Government Procurement
MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON 3 MAY 2001
Chairman:  Mr. Martin Loken (Canada)
1. The following agenda was adopted:
A. Election of the Chairman for 2001
B. Applications for Observer Status
C. Modifications to the Appendices to the AgreementD. Streamlining the Accessions Process
E. Accessions:
(i) Latvia
(ii) Estonia
(iii) Jordan(iv) Bulgaria
(v) Panama
(vi) Chinese Taipei
(vii) Newly Acceded Countries
F. Review of National Implementing Legislation
G. Negotiations under Article XXIV:7H. Date of the Next Meeting
A. 
ELECTION OF THE CHAIRMAN FOR 2001
2. The Committee elected Mr. Martin Loken (Canada) as its Chairman for 2001.
B. APPLICATIONS FOR OBSERVER STATUS
3. The Committee agreed to grant observer status to the Governments of Cameroon , Malta  and
Oman, pursuant to the decision it had taken on this matter (GPA/1, Annex 1) and in response to the
requests received from those countries (GPA/W/121, 139 and 126, respectively).GPA/M/15
Page 2
4. Welcoming the three new observers, the representatives of the United States, the European
Community and Switzerland  said that they looked forward to an active participation of observers in
the Committee's work.  The representative of Switzerland encouraged observers to come forward with
any views on how the on-going negotiations under Article XXIV:7 could take into account the needs
of developing countries, in particular in relation to the amendments to Article V on special anddifferential treatment.  The representative of Oman said that the review of the Agreement should
focus on the needs and the difficulties of developing countries acceding to the Agreement whichmight include provisions allowing flexibility in the implementation of the Agreement and on technical
cooperation for capacity building.  The representative of the European Community said that, while the
general view had been that developing countries mi ght need flexibility related to implementation, the
views of developed countries as to what type of flexibility would be appropriate might not be shared
by developing countries.  An active contribution from developing countries to the discussion of thesematters in the context of the review of the Agr eement would benefit both developed and developing
countries.
C. 
MODIFICATIONS TO THE APPENDICES TO THE AGREEMENT
5. The Chairman said that, since the September 2000 meeting, Japan;  Hong Kong, China;  and
Korea had proposed modifications to their resp ective Appendices I (GPA/W/123 and GPA/W/129,
GPA/W/122/Rev.1 and GPA/ W/128 and Corrs. 1 and 2).  The modifications proposed by Japan in
GPA/W/123 and Hong Kong, China in GPA/ W/122/Rev.1 had entered into force on
29 December 2000 (WT/Let/367) and 6 January 2001 (WT/Let/370), respectively .
6. With respect to the notification by Japan in GPA/W/129, the Chairman said that
communications had been received from the delegations of the United States;  Canada;  and
Hong Kong, China (GPA/W/132, 134 and 135) requ esting further information from Japan and
objecting to the proposed changes going into effect.  Japan's responses had been circulated in
document GPA/W/137.  The representatives of Hong Kong, China, the United States  and Canada  said
that their authorities were currently studying Japan's responses.  The representative of theUnited States said that her authorities had some specific concerns with respect to the proposed transfer
of independent administrative units from Annex 1 to Annex 3 and a more general concern about the
complexity of the changes to the list of entities in Annex 3.  The representative of Japan said that
Japan hoped that the information provided on the proposed modifications to Annex 1 would improve
the understanding of the proposed modifications to Annex 3 so that their objections could be
withdrawn in the near future.1  In concluding the discussion, the Chairman said that the Committee
would revert to this matter at its next meeting in the light of discussions between Japan and otherParties.
7. Referring to the notification by Korea in GPA/W/128 and Corrs. 1 and 2, the representative of
Korea said that a communication had been received from the delegation of the United States
requesting further information on the proposed changes (GPA/W/133).  His authorities would respondto the questions by the United States in the near future .
8. As regards the modifications proposed to Japan's Annex 3 of Appendix I, notified in
document GPA/W/91, the representative of Japan said that bilateral consultations had been held with
the delegations of the United States, the European Community and Canada in early May.  Therepresentative of the United States said that, on the basis of the information that Japan had provided in
the recent consultations and some additional inform ation that the delegation of Japan would provide,
the United States hoped to reach a conclusion of this matter.  The representative of theEuropean Community said that the bilateral discussions held with Japan had given his authorities a
                                                     
1 In a communication, dated 16 June 2001, the United States indicated that it has withdrawn its
objection (GPA/W/139).GPA/M/15
Page 3
more clear picture of the evolution of the Japanese market and the circumstances in which the relevant
entities operated.  The European Community would submit a few additional questions to Japan and
hoped to resolve the issue soon.
9. The Chairman said that, due to a technical error which had occurred in the preparation of the
Loose-leaf System of Appendices circulated in document WT/Let/330, the proposed new entity names
by Japan in GPA/W/91 in Appendix I, Annex 3 with respect to NTT had been reflected in the
Appendices to the Agreement in the form of a loose-leaf system circulated in document WT/Let/330,
dated 1 March 2000.  Once these errors had been discovered, document WT/Let/386 had been issued
on 19 March 2001 indicating the rectification that should be made to WT/Let/330.  Since there had
been no objections within thirty days, the corrections had been certified by a Procès-Verbal of
Rectification (WT/Let/391).
D. STREAMLINING THE ACCESSIONS PROCESS
10. Referring to the note on the Establishment of an Indicative Time-Frame for Accession
Negotiations and Arrangements for Reporting on the Progress of Work, the representative of the
European Community said that the revised note circulated in GPA/W/109/Rev.2 would give the right
signal to potential candidates for accession, to the external world as well as to the Parties to theAgreement as regards the importance that Parties attached to the accession process.
11. The representative of Canada said that it was important to recognize that time-frames were
indicative.  With the increasing number of acceding countries, the work on accessions had become a
challenge for small delegations.  In Canada's view, the time-frames outlined in the note were
ambitious.  For example, the period of two months pr ovided for the receipt of questions from Parties
after the submission of an acceding country's offer in the indicative timetable for negotiation ofAppendices was very short for the consideration of all aspects of an offer and necessary internal
consultations.  Canada remained concerned that, by having such tight timetables, the Committee
might be raising expectations that Members would have difficulty achieving.
12. The representative of Switzerland said that the timetables and the reporting procedures in the
note would be a useful guide for the accession process.  Delegations would recall that the delegation
of Iceland had found that its accession process had taken far too long.  It was clear that those Parties
who were interested in negotiating detailed conditions of accession would need to allocate additional
resources to the work in order to ensure the smooth running of the overall process.  It would
regrettable if the work on the expansion of member ship was slowed down because of the difficulties
that Parties themselves might have in following the pace of negotiations.  Joined by the representative
of the United States, he said that Parties should make every effort to meet the expectations of a
number of countries who had shown an interest in joining the Agreement.
13. The representative of the United States said that his delegation appreciated the amount of
work that the acceding countries had undertaken notwithstanding the resource issues that they also
faced.  This showed their commitment to the proces s.  While recognizing that the time-frames were
indicative and that, in certain cases, it might not be possible to keep to certain specific deadlines,
Parties should ensure that they had the resources available to allow them to respond promptly to theinformation and offers received from acceding countries.
14. The representative of the European Community sa id that Parties should be coherent in the
message that they delivered regarding their ambitio ns for the enlargement of the membership of the
Agreement.  Parties had declared on many occasions that one of the objectives of the negotiations
under Article XXIV:7 was to make the Agreement more attractive for potential candidates.  It wouldbe contradictory to try to make the Agreement more attractive but take a long time in discussing offers
and procurement regimes of the acceding countries.  On account of the level of ambition that PartiesGPA/M/15
Page 4
had for the enlargement of the Agreement and recognizing the resource problems of applicant
countries, it was worthwhile for the Parties to make the effort to try to finalize the accessions within
the time-frames.  What was meant by an indicative timetable was clear.  There might be negotiations
where 18 months might not be necessary, whereas in other situations the negotiation of an offer might
require more time.
15. In concluding the discussion of this agenda item, the Chairman suggested that the Committee
proceed with the accessions process in accordance with the Indicative Time-Frame for Accession
Negotiations and Arrangements for Reporting on the Progress of Work in paragraphs 4 to 9 in the
note in GPA/W/109/Rev.2.  The indicative time-fra me would be kept under review and could be
revised, if necessary, in light of the experience gained with its application.
16. The Committee so agreed.
E. ACCESSIONS
(i) Latvia
17. Reporting on the developments regarding Latvia's accession since the meeting of the
Committee held on 29 September 2000, the Chairman said that informal plurilateral consultations had
been held between Latvia and interested Parties on 31 January 2001 on the basis of Latvia's writtenanswers to the questions received from the United States (GPA/SPEC/8/Rev.1), Switzerland,
(GPA/SPEC/10) and Canada (GPA/SPEC/18/Rev.1) as well as an exchange of oral questions and
answers during the consultations.
18. Referring to the developments since the plurilateral meeting of 31 January 2001, the
representative of Latvia said that Latvia had submitted a revised offer on 26 April 2001
(GPA/SPEC/5/Rev.1) which had been prepared in the light of the consultations that had been held on
the initial offer.  Moreover, translated copies of the Law on Construction Work, Supply, Leasing and
Services for the Needs of Public Service Undertakings of 4 November 1999 and the Regulations
relating to the Procedure of Selection of Tenderer s and Application of Methods for Choice of Tenders
of 31 October 2000 had been circulated in docume nt GPA/28/Add.1.  Information relating to Latvia's
public administration reform and the national competition legislation had also been made available tothe delegation of the United States.  Latvia would soon submit a status report on the steps needed to
align its procurement regime with the requirements of the Agreement which would reflect all the
recent developments relating to the procurement legislation.  Latvia was ready to pursue bilateral
discussions with interested delegations with a view to finalizing any outstanding issues .
19. The representatives of the United States, Canada
 and Switzerland  said that their delegations
would hold further bilateral consultations with Latvia regarding the remaining outstanding issues, in
particular regarding the coverage of the revised offer.  The representative of the European Community
said that his delegation was in the process of examining the revised offer.  The representative of Israel
said that his delegation had been concerned about the influence that Latvia's external obligations hadon the negotiation of its accession offer and the way in which the results of certain issues relating to
the offer had been known in advance of the negotiations.  His delegation would continue the bilateral
consultations so as to resolve the outstanding issues regarding Latvia's offer.
20. With regard to the question of the conclusion of Latvia's accession process, the representative
of the United States said that his delegation hoped that Latvia would be able to accede to the
Agreement before the end of the year.  The representative of the European Community said that there
seemed to be no main reason why Latvia could not complete its accession process before the end of
the year.  The representative of Switzerland said that  Parties should try to complete the clarification of
any outstanding issues with Latvia before the next meeting, if necessary by communicating throughGPA/M/15
Page 5
fax and e-mail.  The representative of Canada said that the indicative time-frame did not preclude the
submission of a second revised offer, if necessary.
21. In concluding the discussion on Latvia's acces sion, the Chairman suggested that Parties
should pursue their bilateral consultations in the coming months with a view to completing Latvia's
accession process before the end of the year.  Depending on the outcome of those bilateralconsultations, there might be a need for the submission of a further revised offer by Latvia.  Unless
advised otherwise by Latvia or any other Party by 15 September 2001, the Secretariat would circulate
a draft Decision on the Terms of Accession of Latvia for the consideration of Parties at the next
meeting.
(ii) Estonia
22. Reporting on the developments regarding Estonia's accession since the meeting of the
Committee held on 29 September 2000, the Chairman said that Estonia's replies to the Checklist of
Issues had been circulated on 5 December 2000 (GPA /W/127).  Informal plurilateral consultations
had been held between Estonia and interested Parties on 31 January 2001 on the basis of Estonia's
replies to the questions received from  Switzerland (GPA/SPE C/12/Rev.2), Japan
(GPA/SPEC/14/Rev.1), the United States (GPA/ SPEC/15/Rev.1) and Cana da (GPA/SPEC/16/Rev.1)
as well as oral questions and answers exchanged during the consultations.  A follow-up question
received from Japan in April 2001 and Estonia's answers thereto had been circulated in
document GPA/SPEC/19/Rev.1.
23. The representative of Estonia said that Estonia's replies to the Checklist of Issues circulated in
document GPA/W/127 would be revised in the near fu ture to reflect the provisions of the recently
amended Law on Government Procurement which had entered into force on 1 April 2001.  During the
course of the current week Estonia had had bilateral consultations with Switzerland and the
United States.  His delegation from the capital was available for further bilateral consultations with
any other interested Parties.
24. The representative of Canada said that her delegation was reviewing Estonia's offer and
would be contacting Estonia in the near future.
25. On concluding the discussion on Estonia's accession, the Chairman suggested that Parties
should pursue their bilateral consultations with Estonia.  Should the submission of a revised offer by
Estonia prove to be necessary on the basis of these consultations, Estonia should submit such an offer
before the next meeting of the Committee.
(iii) Jordan
26. Reporting on developments regarding Jordan's accession since the meeting of
29 September 2000, the Chairman said that Jordan's replies to the Checklist of Issues had been
circulated on 6 December 2000 (GPA/W/124).  Info rmal plurilateral consultations had been held
between Jordan and interested Parties on 31 January 2001 on the basis of oral replies by Jordan to the
written questions received from Switzerland (GPA/ SPEC/11), the United States (GPA/SPEC/13) and
Canada (GPA/SPEC/17).  Jordan's written rep lies to these questions had been circulated on
8 March 2001 (GPA/SPEC/11/Rev.1, GPA/SPEC/13 /Rev.1 and GPA/SPEC/17/Rev.1, respectively).
Further questions had been received from the European Community on 3 May 2001 (GPA/SPEC/20).
27. Referring to the domestic work on government procurement that had recently been
undertaken by Jordan, the representative of  Jordan said that research had been carried out recently to
evaluate the impact of Jordan's accession to the Agreement on the different national economic sectors
and also to assess the scope of procurement by entities subject to the procurement regime.  InGPA/M/15
Page 6
cooperation with the World Bank, the Government of Jordan had prepared a draft procurement
legislation which had been intensively debated with interested stakeholders in Jordan including the
private sector.  The new unified legislation whic h would incorporate all the disciplines of the
Agreement on Government Procurement would contribute to the work on the finalization of Jordan's
offer.
28. The representative of the United States said  that the intensive work that Jordan had
undertaken domestically was a good indication of its commitment to the process of accession to the
Agreement.  The United States had indicated bilatera lly to Jordan that it was ready to consider any
specific needs it  might have in this respect and to provide, as appropriate, any support that the
United States might be able to give to help to facilitate the accession process.  He hoped that other
Parties would be ready and willing to do the same.  The representative of Israel congratulated Jordan
on the progress that it had made regarding the process of accession.  The representatives of the
United States, Canada , the European Community  and Switzerland  said that they looked forward to the
submission of an offer from Jordan as soon as possible so that the negotiation of the offer couldproceed in parallel with the on-going examination of the national procurement system.
29. As regards the next steps in Jordan's accession  process, the Chairman suggested that Jordan
should submit its initial offer as soon as possible.  In accordance with the Indicative Time-Frame forAccession Negotiations, within two months of its receipt, Parties should submit their questions to
Jordan regarding the offer.
(iv) Bulgaria
30. The representative of Bulgaria said that Bulg aria's replies to the Checklist of Issues in
document GPA/35 had been circulated on 2 May 2001 (GPA/W/136).  In addition, Bulgaria had
submitted an English translation of the Law on Government Procurement enacted on 25 June 1999
(GPA/49) as  well as of two pr ocurement regulations that had been issued in 2000, namely "Keeping
the Public Procurement Register" and "Regulation on Awarding of Public Procurement Contracts
below the Thresholds Set Out in the Law".  The draft offer was at an advanced stage of preparation
and would be submitted shortly.
31. Regarding the next steps in Bulgaria's acc ession process, the Chairman suggested that
delegations should put in writing any questions they might have regarding Bulgaria's procurement
regime by 1 July 2001.  Bulgaria should reply to any such questions by 1 September 2001.
(v) Panama
32. The Chairman recalled that, in response to a suggestion that the Chair had made at the
September 2000 meeting regarding the holding of informal plurilateral consultations between Panama
and interested Parties in January 2001, the representative of Panama had said that he would ask forinstructions from his authorities before giving a de finitive answer on this point.  Since subsequently
the Chair had been informed by the delegation of Panama that, in its view, such consultations might
be useful after an evaluation of renewed contacts with interested Parties, no plurilateral consultations
had been scheduled in January 2001 regarding Panama's accession.
33. The representative of the United States said that the United States had had a number of
contacts with the authorities in Panama both before and since the September 2000 meeting.  His
delegation considered that, pursuant to these consultations on Panama's offer, it would not be difficult
to conclude the consideration of Panama's accession on the basis of a couple more decisions which his
delegation hoped would be taken soon by Panama.  If there was an indication of movement from
Panama over the coming months with respect to the outstanding issues, plurilateral consultationscould be held before the next meeting.  The representative of Canada said that her delegation had oneGPA/M/15
Page 7
remaining issue with Panama.  The representative of  the European Community said that a resolution
of the United States' outstanding issues with Panama would have an important impact on the
Community's consultations with Panama given that the substance of the issues was similar.
(vi) Chinese Taipei
34. The representative of the United States said that, following the clarification of some
outstanding issues in the agreement reached be tween the two delegations in 1998, the bilateral
discussions with Chinese Taipei had been concluded.  Chinese Taipei had indicated that its offer
would be revised as a result of these consultations.
35. The representative of Canada said that her delegation had had a series of discussions with the
delegation of Chinese Taipei and looked forward to receiving a response to the information that
Canada had provided.  Her delegation looked forward to reaching a rapid solution to a fewoutstanding issues with respect to the offer.
36. The representative of the European Community said that his delegation had concluded the
remaining issues with Chinese Taipei and looked forward to receiving a revised offer.
(vii) Newly Acceded Countries
37. The representative of Oman said that, in the Report of the Working Party on Accession of
Oman to the WTO, Oman had confirmed that, upon accession to the WTO, it would initiate
negotiations for membership in the Agreement on Government Procurement by tabling an entity offer.
If the results of the negotiations were satisfactory to the interests of Oman and to the Parties to the
Agreement, Oman would complete its negotiations for membership in the Agreement within a year of
its accession to the WTO (WT/ACC/OMN/26, paragraph 121).  Oman had become a WTO Member
on 9 November 2000.  As a first step in its accession process, Oman had responded to the Checklist of
Issues in document GPA/35 (GPA/W/141).  The representative of the United States said that his
delegation looked forward to receiving Oman's app lication for accession.  The United States would be
prepared to discuss any specific issues that might need to be addressed in order to facilitate Oman'saccession to the Agreement.
38. Referring to Slovenia's commitment to accede to the GPA (L/7492), the representative of
Slovenia said that the entry into force of the new legislation on public procurement since
November 2000 would enable Slovenia to fulfil the ma in internal legislative requirements relating to
its accession to the Agreement.  Slovenia was in the process of preparing its responses to the
Checklist of Issues in GPA/35 and had also initiated work on its offer.  Slovenia would apply for
accession in the near future.
39. As regards the other newly acceded countries, the Chairman said that the Protocols of
Accession of five countries, namely Albania (WT/ACC/ALB/51), Croatia (WT/ACC/HRV/59),
Georgia (WT/ACC/GEO/31), Lit huania (WT/ACC/LTU/52) and Mongolia (WT/ACC/MNG/9),
included commitments regarding the Agreement on Government Procurement.
F. REVIEW OF NATIONAL IMPLEMENTING LEGISLATION
40. In accordance with the agreed procedures and the schedule for the review of national
implementing legislation, the Committee initiated the review of the implementing legislation of Israel
(GPA/34) on the basis of the questions put by Ko rea (Job No. 4434), the United States (Job No. 6051)
and Israel's answers thereto (Job No. 5773 and Job No. 2923, respectively), and the questions put by
Canada (Job No. 3414).GPA/M/15
Page 8
41. Taking up the implementing legislation of Japan (GPA/37), the Committee carried out the
review on the basis of the questions put to Japan by Switzerland;  the United States;  Hong Kong,
China;  and Canada (Job Nos. 2244, 2877, 3033 and 3416, respectively).
42. Finally, the Committee initiated the review of the implementing legislation of Liechtenstein
(GPA/46) on the basis of the questions from the United States (Job No. 2878) and Liechtenstein's
answers thereto (Job No. 4371).
43. In concluding the discussion on the review of Israel, Japan and Liechtenstein, the Committee
agreed that it would take up any outstanding points with respect to the legislation of these three
Parties at its next meeting.  In accordance with the agreed procedures for the review, any furtherquestions should be made available by 1 Augu st 2001 and Israel, Japan and Liechtenstein should
respond to these questions by 10 September 2001.
44. Reverting to the on-going review of the legislation of the United States, the representative of
Canada said that her delegation had difficulty in understanding the responses received from the
United States in October 2000 regarding the two questions that had been put by Canada previously(Job No. 6053).  Her delegation would pursue this issue bilaterally.
45. With regard to Singapore and the United Stat es, the Chairman suggested that the Committee
consider that the review of these two Parties ha d been completed, it being understood that the
Committee might revert to any matter relating to the le gislation of these Parties at any time.  The full
record of the review of the legislation of Singapore and the United States would be circulated in the
GPA/- series of documents.2  It was so agreed.
46. With regard to two Parties whose legislation had not yet been initiated, namely the Kingdom
of the Netherlands with respect to Aruba and Iceland, the Committee took note of a statement by the
representative of the Kingdom of the Netherlands with respect to Aruba that the notification of the
implementing legislation of Aruba would be submitted in the near future.  In addition, the Committee
invited Iceland to notify its implementing legislation by responding to the Checklist of Issues in
GPA/1/Add.1.
G. NEGOTIATIONS UNDER ARTICLE XXIV :7
47. Reporting on the informal consultations held on 30 January and 2-3 May 2001 on the
Article XXIV:7(b) negotiations, the Chairman said that the informal group had continued its
Article-by-Article review of the Agreement on the basis of the note by the Secretariat "SuggestedDrafting Changes to the 1994 Agreement".  At the 2-3 May meeting there had been detailed
discussions on a new submission by the United States containing a comprehensive revision of the
Agreement (Job No. 2867).  Participants had made it clear that, given its scope, their reactions to the
United States' proposal were preliminary.  Delegations had been invited to submit their additionalcomments and questions relating to the draft articles proposed by the United States prior to the next
meeting.  Moreover, the United States had agreed to submit explanatory notes on its proposed changes
to the existing Articles.  In addition, the group had a further discussion of the existing proposals by
other delegations relating to amendments to the Articles of the Agreement based on the Secretariat
note "Suggested Drafting Changes to the 1994 Agreement" (Job No. 2057), in particular, a proposalby Switzerland on Article V (Job No. 1274) and the proposals and suggestions by the European
Community (Job No. 443), Japan (Job Nos. 860 and 3289) and the United States (Job No. 3152) on
Article XXIV:6(b).  As it had appeared that some of the proposals in the side-by-side text might
require further clarification and fine-tuning, delegations who had tabled such proposals had been
invited to inform the group whether those proposals should be maintained in the draft text or whether
                                                     
2 GPA/52 and GPA/50.GPA/M/15
Page 9
they had the intention of amending them.  It ha d been agreed that any new or amended proposals
should be submitted by 30 June 2001.  Regarding the future documentation for the article-by-article
review of the Agreement, it was agreed that the new proposal by the United States would replace the
proposals by this delegation in the document "Suggested Drafting Changes to the Text of the
Agreement".  Comments relating to replaced United States' proposals could be removed.  Theproposals by Switzerland and the United States would also be reproduced as attachments to the
side-by-side text.  The comments on the specific articles in the United States proposal would be
incorporated either in the side-by-side text or in the relevant attachment, depending on whether the
comments related to substantive or structural elements of the proposals.  At its meetings of 30 January
and 2-3 May 2001, the group had also considered other aspects of the Article XXIV:7 negotiations –
the elimination of discriminatory measures and the expansion of coverage.  At the 2-3 May meeting,
in addition to a paper that Canada was expected to submit in the near future, delegations had beeninvited to come forward with papers expressing their views on these elements of the negotiations.  A
list of papers that had been made available to the group by various delegations as well as the notes by
the Secretariat relating to these elements would be circulated to the group.  Moreover, the Secretariat
would prepare a brief note on the modalities that had been used in the past for negotiating Schedules
in the GATT/WTO.  Finally, the group would resume informal consultations in the autumn at whichtime delegations would have a further exchange of views, seek to take stock of the work on the review
of the text over the past three years, and try to develop a plan for carrying forward work on all
elements of the review.
H. 
DATE OF THE NEXT MEETING
48. The Committee agreed to hold its next meeting on 2 October 2001.
__________