RESTRICTED
WORLD TRADE GPA/IC/M/6
8February 1996
ORGANIZATION(96-0486)
Interim Committee onGovernment Procurement
MINUTES OFTHE MEETING HELD ON7DECEMBER 1995
Chairman: Mr.Harald Ernst (Switzerland)
1. Thefollowing agenda wasadopted:
A. Application forobservership bySingapore, Iceland andRomania
B. Modification ofAppendix ItotheAgreement prior toitsentry intoforce
C. Application foraccession byChinese Taipei
D. Application foraccession byLiechtenstein
E. Application foraccession byTheKingdom oftheNetherlands withrespect toAruba
F. Application foraccession bySingapore
G. Completion ofAppendices II,IIIandIVtotheAgreement
H. Progress innational ratification procedures
I. Recommendations forprocedural decisions bythecommittee tobeestablished under
theAgreement onGovernment Procurement
J. Establishment ofapractical guide tothenewAgreement
K. Information technology
L. Other Business
(i) Draft Report oftheInterim Committee totheCommittee onGovernment
procurement under thenewAgreement.
(ii) Tentative Dates in1996 ofthemeetings oftheCommittee onGovernment
Procurement under thenewAgreement
(iii) Meeting oftheWorking Group onRules oftheCouncil forTrade inServices
A. REQUESTS FOR OBSERVERSHIP BYSINGAPORE, ROMANIA AND ICELAND
2. TheChairman recalled thatSingapore hadapplied forobservership intheInterim Committee
inacommunication reproduced indocument GPA/IC/W/33; thatRomania hadapplied forobservership
intheInterim Committee inacommunication reproduced indocument GPA/IC/W/34; andthatIcelandGPA/IC/M/6
Page2
hadapplied forobservership intheInterim Committee inacommunication reproduced indocument
GPA/IC/W/35.
3. Having regard toitsdecision of29June1994 onobserver status intheInterim Committee
(GPA/IC/M/1, paragraph 4),theInterim Committee agreed tograntobserver status totheGovernments
ofSingapore, Romania andIceland.
B. MODIFICATION OFAPPENDIX ITOTHEAGREEMENT PRIOR TOITSENTRY INTO
FORCE
4. TheChairman recalled thatat,itsJuneandNovember meetings of1994aswellasatitsApril,
JuneandOctober meetings in1995, theInterim Committee hadtaken upthematter ofthebilateral
agreement ongovernment procurement reached between thenegotiators oftheEuropean Communities
andoftheUnited States inApril of1994 anditspossible incorporation intotheAgreement on
Government Procurement under theprocedures adopted bytheInformal Working Group atitsmeeting
inJanuary 1994 on"Modifications oftheAnnexes toAppendix ItotheAgreement onGovernment
Procurement before itsEntry intoForce" (GPA/IC/3). Herecalled thatthese procedures stipulated
thataperiod of60daysbeprovided from thedateofcirculation ofthenotification, toallow an
opportunity foranyconsultations thatmayberequired bySignatories. AttheInterim Committee 's
October meeting, therepresentative oftheEuropean Communities hadexpressed thehope tobein
aposition atthenextmeeting toputforward threetypes ofmodifications toitsAppendix Iallatonce.
These concerned notonlythose pursuant tothebilateral agreement between theECandtheUSbut
alsothose inrelation totheconsequences oftheaccession ofthreenewMember States totheEuropean
Communities aswellascertain other changes warranted bydevelopments thathadtaken place inthe
internal organization ofthegovernments ofsome Member States, including theproposed changes to
Appendix IofSweden ascirculated indocuments GPR/W/133 andGPR/W/139. Atthatsamemeeting,
therepresentative oftheUnited States hadexpressed hisintention tosubmit inthenearfuture
amendments totheUnited States Appendices toreflect thebilateral agreement between hiscountry
andtheEuropean Communities, which hehoped tocombine withcertain changes withrespect toother
Signatories pursuant tobilateral consultations.
5. Therepresentative oftheUnited States reiterated thathehoped tobeinaposition veryshortly
toformally amend itsSchedule together withtheEuropean Communities inlinewiththebilateral
Marrakesh agreement ofApril 1994. Itwashisdelegation 'sviewthattheUnited States andtheEuropean
Communities hadcommunicated theirintention tomodify theirrespective Annexes inadocument dated
15June1994 andthatasaresult theyhadsatisfied theprocedural requirements ofsubparagraphs 1
and2oftherelevant IWG'sdecision of17January 1994, which provided forasixtydayreview period
afterrelevant details oftheagreement would havebeenprovided totheSecretariat.
6. Therepresentative oftheEuropean Communities saidthatherdelegation wasnotinaposition
today todeliver thenewAppendix Iwiththethreetypes ofmodifications asmentioned bytheChairman:
those pursuant tothebilateral agreement between theECandtheUS,those inrelation tothe
consequences oftheaccession ofthree newMember States totheEuropean Communities aswellas
certain other changes warranted bydevelopments thathadtaken place intheinternal organization of
thegovernments ofsome Member States, including theproposed changes toAppendix IofSweden
ascirculated indocuments GPR/W/133 andGPR/W/139. Thisdidnotimply thattheEuropean
Communities would notbeinaposition tofullycomply withtheAgreement including theobligations
under thebilateral agreement.
7. Inresponse toarequest fromthedelegation ofJapan, arepresentative oftheSecretariat, noted
thattheInterim Committee could beflexible about thewayinwhich itchose toapply itsownprocedures.
Herecalled however that,when thetextofthebilateral agreement wascirculated inJuneof1994,GPA/IC/M/6
Page3
itwasmadeclearthatthesemodificationswerestillsubjecttotheusualdomesticproceduralrequirements
andthat,assuch, thenotification wascirculated forinformation purposes onlyandserved asabasis
forconsultations withother members oftheInterim Committee rather thanastheformal notification
pursuant totheIWG'sdecision of17January 1994 onmodifications oftheAnnexes toAppendix I.
8. Therepresentative oftheUnited States saidthatheasked alittleflexibility fromthemembers
oftheCommittee intheirconsideration ofthisissue. Hemaintained thatthecommunication done
jointly byhisdelegation andthatoftheEuropean Communities inJuneof1994would appear tomeet
therequirements ofsubparagraph 1oftherelevant IWG'decision of17January 1994inthatitcontained
therelevant details oftheintended modifications totheirrespective schedules. They hadsubsequently
informed themembers oftheInterim Committee thatratification ofthebilateral agreement hadoccurred
onbothsides. Itseemed thatthetwodelegations hadfulfilled thetechnical requirements ofthedecision
andcertainly hadacted inconformity withthespirit ofthatdecision. Inthelightofthetimepassed
since thatnotification, itseemed therefore unnecessary tomaintain thesixtydayperiod review ofany
submission thetwodelegations would make prior to1January 1996.
9. Therepresentative oftheEuropean Communities supported thestatement oftheUnited States
andagreed thatitcould beconsidered thatthetwodelegations hadfulfilled therequirements provided
intheIWG'sdecision of17January 1994.
10. Therepresentative ofCanada saidthathisdelegation wasflexible inthismatter butasked how
theEuropean Communities 'sintended modification totheirschedules asaresult oftheirenlargement
would beeffected bythisdecision.
11. Therepresentative oftheEuropean Communities agreed thatherauthorities stillneeded to
communicatethemodificationstotheEC'sschedulespursuanttotheenlargementoftheECwithAustria,
Finland andSweden aswellastothose warranted byinternal organizations ofgovernments ofsome
member states butshehoped tobeinaposition todosoassoonaspossible. Thesixty dayperiod
provided forintheIWG'sdecision would beapplicable tothatfuture notification. Theflexibility asked
fortoday onlyreferred tothebilateral agreement withtheUnited States.
12. Therepresentatives ofNorway andIsrael voiced theirflexibility inthematter ofthebilateral
agreement provided thattheEuropean Communities would honour thesixtydayperiod forconsultations
inrespect oftheother twoelements ofitsintended modifications.
13. Therepresentative ofJapan saidthatstrictly legally speaking, oneshould notallow toomuch
flexibility. Hedoubted thattheinterpretation given bytheUnited States wascorrect. However, in
order tofacilitate theprocess andtheentry intoforce oftheexpansion oftheAnnexes, hisdelegation
didnotstand inthewayofaccepting theUSinterpretation.
14. TheChairman concluded thattheInterim Committee proceed assuggested bytheUnited States
delegation. Henoted thatthisshould notberegarded asalegalinterpretation ofanyprocedural decision
butrather aflexible solution. Thesolution onlyconcerned thebilateral agreement reached inMarrakesh
inAprilof1994betweentheEuropeanCommunitiesandtheUnitedStatesandnotthefuturenotifications
which theEuropean Communities hadannounced, namely those pursuant totheexpansion ofits
membership andthose warranted byinternal organizations ofgovernments ofsome member states,
including proposed changes notified bythegovernment ofSweden in1994indocuments GPR/W/133
and139.1
1TheEC/US jointformal notification wassubsequently circulated indocument GPA/IC/10.GPA/IC/M/6
Page4
15. TheInterim Committee soagreed.
16. TheChairman alsorecalled thattheCanadian Schedule offered tocover entities inallten
provinces onthebasisofcommitments tobereceived fromprovincial governments, withafinallisting
tobeprovided within 18months aftertheconclusion ofthenewAgreement. AttheOctober meeting,
therepresentative ofCanada hadmade astatement which canbefound intheMinutes ofthatmeeting
(GPA/IC/M/5) andhadexpressed hisintention tocontact members oftheInterim Committee bilaterally
intheverynearfuture regarding anyfurther progress possible inthisarea.
17. Therepresentative ofCanada recalled that,atthelastmeeting, hisdelegation hadindicated
thatitwasfullyprepared toputforward asub-central offerbutthattheProvinces hadindicated that
thisonlybedoneonthecondition thatParties include coverage ofareas ofpriority interest toCanadian
suppliers andnegotiate concessions related toset-aside exceptions. Canada hadsubsequently written
totheUnited States outlining itsposition andhadconsulted bilaterally withanumber ofcountries.
HisdelegationwascurrentlyawaitingaresponsefromtheUnitedStates.Asaconsequence,theCanadian
position remained unchanged from itsstatement made on25October intheInterim Committee.
18. Therepresentative oftheUnited States saidthathisdelegation 'sposition alsohadnotchanged
since theInterim Committee 'slastmeeting. Itwasdifficult toimagine putting forward anykindof
offerwithrespect toexpanded Canadian coverage without firstseeing aCanadian offeronsub-central
coverage inAnnex 2.
19. Therepresentative oftheEuropean Communities confirmed thatitsposition hadnotchanged
since themeeting on25October.
20. Therepresentative ofNorway, while understanding theCanadian problem, nevertheless referred
toherdelegation 'sintervention attheOctober meeting onthistopic urging Canada toprovide alist
ofsub-central entities asoonaspossible.
21. Therepresentative ofCanada saidthatatthebeginning ofthese negotiations, Canada hadput
forward anumber ofprimary objectives, inparticular theimportance ofcircumscribing, limiting, or
eveneliminating set-aside exception intheAgreement andproviding sectors ofinterest toCanadian
suppliers. Thishadbeenclearly linked inthediscussions tosub-central coverage. Throughout the
discussions ofthelastnumber ofyears thisissue hadresurfaced andhadbeenattheforefront ofthe
Canadian position. Herecalled thatinthelastdaysofthenegotiations inDecember of1993, the
Committee hadprimarily reached agreement onAnnex 1coverage. AtthattimeCanada hadputforward
thecondition thatanycoverage ofitssub-central entities bebased oncommitments tobereceived from
theProvinces. Other countries withheld Annex 2and3coverage from Canada asaresult ofthat
decision byCanada. General Notes inanumber ofoffers identified these exclusions. Canada could
havemade asimilar carve-out forspecific countries withwhich ithadparticular difficulties butitdid
not. Instead ithadindicated that,atleastfrom theProvinces 'point ofview, hisdelegation needed
tobeabletoexamine broader packages oftheentire offer. TheUSandtheECagreed atthattime
tocontinue negotiations andtheyactively didsountilApril 1994 atwhich point theyreached an
agreement. AtthattimeCanada wasasked tojointhatparticular agreement butchose nottodoso.
Ithadpreferred toconsider thedetails ofthatagreement andtheoverall balance ofthatagreement
vis-à-vis itsnegotiating objectives. Over thelastyearthatanalysis hadbeenconducted. Itwashis
delegations viewthatitnotloose sightofitsprimary negotiating objectives which hadbeenstated clearly
inevery single meeting oftheNegotiating Committee. Unfortunately theagreement which wasstruck
didnotidentify oneofthose objectives. Hisdelegation wastherefore oftheopinion thatsince those
objectives hadnotbeenmet,there wasnoreason tomove forward under pressure oftime-limits. As
other countries hadwithheld offers forAnnex 2and3forCanada, hisdelegation didnotexpect to
bepenalized forthisdecision beyond those particular elements, nortohavetopaytwice, nortoignoreGPA/IC/M/6
Page5
itsprimary negotiating objectives. Hisdelegation waslooking forward tofurther discussions with
themembers tothisCommittee bothwithin theCommittee andbilaterally andhoped tomove forward
onwhat itperceived tobesome fundamental questions dealing withthefurther expansion ofthis
Agreement, notonlyfromthepoint ofviewofspecific entity coverage butalsofromthepoint ofview
ofsome specific principles, inparticular securing market access, which wasCanada 'sprinciple concern
inthisarea.
22. TherepresentativeoftheUnitedStatesrecalledthat,accordingtoAnnex2oftheagreedCanadian
Schedule, theCanadian Government offered tocover entities inalltenprovinces onthebasis of
commitmentsobtainedfromprovincialgovernments.Theinitialprovincialentitieslistwouldbespecified
onorbefore 15April 1994withthefinallisttobeprovided within eighteen months aftertheconclusion
ofthenewGovernment Procurement Agreement. Hedidnotseeanyconditions attached tothis
statement. Thereason whyCanada hadnotfollowed theexample ofsome ofthederogations which
hadappeared intheschedules ofsome oftheother Signatories, including theUSschedule, withrespect
toCanada wasbecause there wasnothing tocarve out.Noofferhadyetbeenmade byCanada with
respect toAnnex 2entities. Healsorecalled that,although much ofthecoverage negotiations were
conducted bilaterally, theiroutcome wasagreed multilaterally. Thiswasaplurilateral agreement and
thewillingness tomake anoffershould notonlybeseenonastrictly bilateral basis. Hereiterated that
hisauthorities wereinnoposition tonegotiate anyelimination ofderogations withrespect toCanada
before aCanadian offerwasputonthetablepursuant tothetextinAnnex 2oftheCanadian schedule.
23. TheInterim Committee tooknoteofthestatements made.
C. APPLICATION FOR ACCESSION BYCHINESE TAIPEI
24. TheChairman recalled that,atitsJuneandOctober meetings, theInterim Committee had
encouraged thedelegation ofChinese Taipei andthemembers oftheInterim Committee toholdfurther
consultations onthedraftoffer ofChinese Taipei.
25. Therepresentative ofChinese Taipei saidthathisdelegation hadtaken advantage oftheInterim
Committee 'slastmeeting toholdbilateral consultations withdelegates from Canada, theEuropean
Communities andtheUnited States. Ithadalsohadabriefcontact withJapan. Inparallel withtoday's
meeting some bilateral meetings hadbeenscheduled withCanada, theEuropean Communities andthe
UnitedStates.SeveralsuggestionstoimprovehisGovernment'sinitialofferhadbeenseriouslydiscussed
inthebilateralconsultations.Hisdelegationappreciatedtheactiveparticipationofthesethreesignatories.
While hisdelegation wascarefully reviewing theirsuggestions, italsourged othersignatories toarrange
bilateral consultations withitinthenearfuture inorder tobeinaposition toconclude thebilateral
consultations before June1996.
26. Therepresentative oftheUnited States saidthathisdelegation hadbeengenerally pleased with
theprogress made intheaccession negotiations bothinthisCommittee andinbilateral consultations.
Thedelegation ofChinese Taipei hadbeenextremely forthcoming inaddressing questions which his
delegation hadputtothem inthisprocess. Hewaslooking forward toarevised offer onthebasis
ofbilateral consultations inthenearfuture. Heurged those members oftheInterim Committee which
sofarhadnotheldbilateral consultations, todoso,because hewashopeful thatin1996rapid progress
could bemade inthisaccession process.
27. Therepresentative oftheEuropean Communities saidthatitwasgrateful fortheefforts which
theChinese Taipei 'sdelegation hadmade throughout theprocess ofbilateral negotiations andtheway
inwhich herdelegation 'sconcerns hadbeenaddressed. Shehoped thattheaccession process would
make rapid progress in1996 forthebenefit ofallthemembers ofthisCommittee.GPA/IC/M/6
Page6
28. Therepresentative ofCanada alsoexpressed hisdelegation 'sappreciation fortheefforts made
byChinese Taipei inthebilateral discussions. Hewasencouraged bythefactthataftereachmeeting,
substantial progress hadbeenmade ondifficult issues andhealsowashopeful thatthisprocess would
progressrapidlyinthecomingyear.Heencouragedotherdelegationstoengageinbilateralconsultations.
29. TheChairman recalled thattheDecision onAccession Negotiations totheAgreement on
Government Procurement (1994) Prior toitsEntry intoForce (GPA/IC/M/1, Annex 1)called forthe
Interim Committee tosubmit totheCommittee onGovernment Procurement under thenewAgreement
areport onitsexamination oftherequest foraccession. Thisdraft report hadbeencirculated to
delegations forconsideration attoday'smeeting.
30. TheInterimCommitteetooknoteofthestatementsmade,urgeddelegationstoengageinbilateral
consultations withChinese Taipei, inthelightofthewishexpressed bythatdelegation tobeinaposition
toconclude thebilateral consultations before June1996, andadopted thedraftreport onitsexamination
ofChinese Taipei 'srequest foraccession fortransmission totheCommittee under thenewAgreement
(GPA/IC/5).
D. APPLICATION FOR ACCESSION BYLIECHTENSTEIN
31. TheChairmanrecalledthat,attheInterimCommittee'sAprilmeeting,Liechtensteinhadapplied
foraccession totheAgreement onGovernment Procurement (1994) inacommunication reproduced
indocument GPA/IC/W/13 dated 10January 1995, which alsocontained itsoffer. TheGovernment
ofLiechtenstein hadsupplied figures onthepotential value ofitsoffer which were circulated to
delegations inSeptember, indocument GPA/IC/W/29. TheDecision onAccession Negotiations to
theAgreement onGovernment Procurement (1994) Prior toitsEntry intoForce, called fortheInterim
Committee tosubmit totheCommittee onGovernment Procurement under thenewAgreement areport
onitsexamination oftherequest foraccession. TheSecretariat haddrawn upadraftreport, which
wascirculated on28November todelegations forconsideration today, withaview totheInterim
Committee transmitting ittotheCommittee under thenewAgreement.
32. Therepresentative ofLiechtenstein saidthatherauthorities hadstudied thedraftreport. She
referred toparagraph 3ofthisdraftdecision which stipulated thatthisdecision would expire sixmonths
afterthedateofitsadoption bytheCommittee onGovernment Procurement unless itwasextended
bythatCommittee bymutual consent between theCommittee andLiechtenstein. According tothe
constitutionalrequirementsofLiechtenstein,theParliamenthadtoapprovetheaccessionofLiechtenstein
totheAgreement onGovernment Procurement while apopular votemight alsotakeplace. These two
steps might takelonger thansixmonths especially astheParliament didnotmeetevery month. She
proposed therefore toreplace thesixmonths inparagraph three byoneyear.
33. TheInterim Committee adopted thedraftreport, withtheproposed change, including theterms
fortheaccession ofLiechtenstein (GPA/IC/6).
E. Application foraccession bytheKingdom oftheNetherlands withrespect toAruba
34. TheChairman recalled thattheKingdom oftheNetherlands withrespect toAruba hadsubmitted
itsdraftofferwhich wascirculated todelegations indocument GPA/IC/W/14, dated 8February 1995.
TheDecision onAccession Negotiations totheAgreement onGovernment Procurement (1994) Prior
toitsEntry intoForce, called fortheInterim Committee tosubmit totheCommittee onGovernment
Procurement under thenewAgreement areport onitsexamination oftherequest foraccession. The
Secretariat haddrawn upadraft report, which wascirculated on28November todelegations for
consideration today, withaviewtotheInterim Committee transmitting ittotheCommittee under the
newAgreement.GPA/IC/M/6
Page7
35. Therepresentative oftheKingdom oftheNetherlands withrespect toAruba saidthathis
delegation hadheldsome consultations withmembers ofthisCommittee. OneParty hadgiven some
useful suggestions tofurther expand thealready substantial coverage offered byAruba within this
Agreement. Hisauthorities hadagreed thatthesuggestions made would betaken seriously into
consideration inpossible future extension ofthecoverage. Theprocess oftheimplementation ofthe
newAgreement inAruba could befinalised inFebruary 1996. Hehoped thattheInterim Committee
would approve theterms ofaccession asoriginally putforward bythisdelegation.
36. Therepresentative ofCanada appreciated theefforts made bytheKingdom oftheNetherlands
withrespect toAruba andlooked forward totheextension oftheAgreement tonewmembers. He
urged thatthistakeplace whenever possible.
37. TheInterim Committee adopted thedraftreport including theterms fortheaccession ofthe
Kingdom oftheNetherlands withrespect toAruba (GPA/IC/7).
F. APPLICATION FOR ACCESSION BYSINGAPORE
38. TheChairman referred tothecommunication fromSingapore indocument GPA/IC/W/33 in
which ithadexpressed itsinterest inacceding tothenewAgreement. Singapore hadjusttabled an
initial offer (subsequently distributed asdocument GPA/IC/SPEC/2).
39. Therepresentative ofSingapore recalled thatherauthorities hadformally applied foraccession
inacommunication dated 9November 1995 (GPA/IC/W/33). Shewaspleased tobeabletoday to
tableaninitial offer.Theofferrepresented asubstantial proportion ofSingapore 'sprocurement market
andincluded alistofcentral government entities inAnnex 1andalistofallotherentities which procured
inconformity withtheAgreement inAnnex 3,alistofservices inAnnex 4andofconstruction services
inAnnex 5.Allannexes contained therelevant threshold levels. Since Singapore didnothavesub-
central government levels, theofferdidnotcontain entities atthatlevel. Herauthorities werelooking
forward toholding bilateral negotiations withtheSignatories tothe1994Agreement assoonaspossible.
WhileSingaporewasamemberoftheoldGovernmentProcurementAgreement,andassuchhadnotified
toitsParties Singapore 'stendering procedures, herdelegation nonetheless intended toprovide details
ontheprocurement procedures inSingapore induecourse, asrequired. Singapore 's'interest inacceding
totheAgreementonGovernmentprocurementrepresentedherauthorities'commitmenttothemultilateral
trading system asembodied intheWTO. Shehoped thatmembership oftheAgreement would broaden
infuture andwasencouraged bytheapplications foraccession byother governments.
40. Therepresentative oftheUnited States welcomed theapplication foraccession bySingapore.
HisauthoritieshadalwaysconsideredSingaporeasanexemplarymemberoftheTokyoRoundAgreement
onGovernment Procurement andlooked forward toreviewing itsofferandworking together withthe
Singapore authorities towelcome them intothenewAgreement asamember.
41. TheChairman furthermore recalled thattheInterim Committee should draw upareport on
Singapore 'sapplication foraccession totheCommittee under thenewAgreement buthedidnotsee
anyuseinmaking thisaseparate oneandtherefore proposed instead building intothereport ofthe
Interim Committee totheCommittee areference totoday'sdiscussion witharecommendation that
theCommittee carry forward theaccession process.
42. TheInterim Committee soagreed.GPA/IC/M/6
Page8
G. COMPLETION OFAPPENDICES II,IIIAND IVTOTHE AGREEMENT
43. TheChairman recalled that,attheInterim Committee 'sOctober meeting, therepresentative
oftheUnited States hadexpressed thehope tobeinaposition tosubmit theinformation onState
Publications fromall37States referred toinAnnex 2oftheUnited States todelegations prior tothe
Interim Committee 'sDecember meeting. Thisinformation hadsince beenmade available.
44. Therepresentative oftheUnited States referred totheinformation hisdelegation hadmade
available forthismeeting, containing publications which maybeutilized bytheStates forpurposes
ofpublicising procurement opportunities andproviding notices ofcontract awards. Thisinformation
waslikely toevolve overtimeduring theimplementation oftheAgreement andwould needconstant
up-dating, perhaps inthecontext ofthework onapractical guide. Theinformation notonlyincluded
hard-copy publications butalsoinformation onpossibilities toaccess databases electronically. This
might beviewed inthelightofthecontinued discussion oninformation technology anditsimplications
foraccess. Where appropriate, Internet addresses hadbeenincluded.
45. Therepresentative ofCanada noted that,while hewasaware thatthelistprovided wasan
indicative list,notallStates under theUScoverage hadbeenincluded onitandhewondered whether
additional listswould beforthcoming.
46. Therepresentative oftheUnited States saidthatthetermindicative listwasusedtoindicate
thatitcould evolve overtime. Itwasoneofthemore interesting areas ofimplementation forallof
theParties,sinceitwasthefirsttimethatlevelsbelowcentralgovernmentswerecovered.Hisauthorities
would beworking withtheStates andexplore possibilities onwaystoincrease accessibility andchanges
inpublications overtime.
H. PROGRESS INNATIONAL RATIFICATION PROCEDURES
47. TheChairman recalled thatthepresent situation asregards ratification oftheAgreement as
formally notified totheSecretariat wasreflected inadocument issued bytheDirector-General ofthe
WTO entitled Notification ofAcceptance, dated 27January 1995, andcirculated intheWT/Let/2 series
(ref.WLI/304), towhich should beadded thenames ofJapan andtheUnited States. Thegovernment
ofJapan haddeposited itsinstrument ofaccession withtheDirector-general on5December 1995,
while theUnited States hadconfirmed itsratification bywayofaletter from Ambassador Gardner
totheDirector-general on1December 1995. Canada, Israel, Korea andSwitzerland stillneeded to
deposit theirinstrument ofratification.2According totheprovisions ofArticle XXIV:1, theAgreement
would enterintoforce on1January 1996forthose governments whose agreed coverage wascontained
inAnnexes 1through 5ofAppendix IofthisAgreement andwhich had,bysignature, accepted the
Agreement on15April 1994 orhad,bythatdate, signed theAgreement subject toratification and
subsequently ratified theAgreement before 1January 1996.
48. Therepresentative ofCanada saidthattheratification process inCanada wasatthefinalstages
ofapproval. Ifapproved, hisauthorities intended tosubmit theinstrument ofratification together with
thefollowing declaration:
"Inendorsing thisAgreement vis-à-vis theUnited States forAnnex 1(Federal departments
andagencies), Canada 'scommitments aremade onthebasis ofourunderstanding of1)the
value oftheU.S.offeratthetimeofsigning oftheAgreement inMarrakesh and2)thevalue
of"small andminority business set-asides" discussed withtheUnited States inreference to
2Canada, Israel, Korea andSwitzerland deposited their instruments ofratification respectively on22December,
31December, 22December and19December 1995.GPA/IC/M/6
Page9
theexception taken forthese programs intheiroffer. Canada would further notethatits
commitments areputforward ontheunderstanding thatthevalue ofU.S.contracts, otherwise
subject toWTO-AGP, towhich preferences forU.S.small andminority businesses areapplied,
isconsistent with statistics recently tabled bytheUnited States inaccordance with the
requirements ofChapter 10oftheNAFTA. These statistics indicate thatthetotalvalue of
small andminority business set-asides forU.S.departments andagencies isUS$3.0 billion.
With appropriate adjustments forthehigher threshold values oftheWTO-AGP, thatvalue
would beapproximately US$2.4 billion."
49. Therepresentative ofSwitzerland saidthattheFederal Council haddecided on4December
toratify theAgreement. Theinstrument ofratification would bedeposited withtheSecretariat within
thenextfewdays.
50. TherepresentativeofKoreasaidthattheKoreanparliamenthadalreadycompletedtheratification
procedures. Hisgovernment would deposit theinstrument induecourse, andinanycase, before the
endofthisyear.
51. Therepresentative ofIsrael saidthathisauthorities wereaware oftheurgency ofthematter
butthattheratification process wasstillunderway. Hewashopeful thatitwould beconcluded very
soon.
I. RECOMMENDATIONS FORPROCEDURAL DECISIONS BYTHECOMMITTEE TOBE
ESTABLISHED UNDER THE AGREEMENT ONGOVERNMENT PROCUREMENT:
DRAFTDECISIONONNOTIFICATIONOFNATIONALIMPLEMENTINGLEGISLATION
52. TheChairman recalled that,atthelastmeeting, theInterim Committee agreed torevert to
thedraftDecision onNotification ofNational Implementing Legislation atitsnextmeeting.3With
aviewtoassisting thediscussion, hehadexpressed hisintention tocome forward withadiscussion
paper fortoday'smeeting. Thispaper, including aproposed checklist ofissues, hadbeencirculated
todelegations on23November.
53. Therepresentative oftheUnited States saidthatthechecklist ofissues, ascontained inthe
Chairman 'spaper, wasauseful oneandhewaslooking forward toreviewing itinmore detail. As
apreliminary view, itseemed desirable tosubmit thetextsoftheoverall implementing legislation.
Thatwould, however, notnecessarily always extend toregulations. Acasecould bemade fornotifying
theimplementing legislation oflower levels ofgovernments, sub-central governments andperhaps
entities inAnnex 3,inasummarized format. Indeciding ontheproper notification procedures, his
authorities would continue tolookatthismatter closely, particularly during thefirststages of
implementation.
54. Therepresentative ofCanada would beexamining thepaper inmore detail. Heobserved that
oftendetailedregulationseffectivelyidentifiedelementsofcoverageandwhetheraparticularprocurement
would besubject totheAgreement. Theappropriateness ofsubmitting complete textsofregulations
should therefore bestudied carefully andnotbedismissed tooeasily.
55. Therepresentative ofSwitzerland saidthatapossible solution would betonotify acombination
oftextsandsummaries. Relating thistotheSwiss Cantons, itwould bedifficult toseehowallof
thelawsandregulations ofeachofthetwenty-six Cantons could benotified, allthemore because they
would probably looksimilar. Further review wasnecessary. Shesuggested toaddtwofurther points
3Annex 3oftheNotebytheSecretariat, dated 9June1995, entitled "Draft Recommendations forDecisions onProcedural
Matters Under theAgreement onGovernment Procurement (1994)".GPA/IC/M/6
Page10
onchallenge procedures totheChecklist ascontained intheChairman 'spaper: oneconcerned the
suspensive effects ofthechallenge procedures; thesecond point concerned thequestion ofwhowould
bearthecosts ofachallenge procedure. Itseemed thatinsome countries, some procedures could be
conducted freeofcharge.
56. Therepresentative ofKorea fullysupported theideaofachecklist ofissues. Concerning the
format inwhich legislation should benotified, heconsidered ituseful toreceive thecomplete texts
ofnational legislation. InotherWTO bodies, special sessions hadbeenorganized toreview thenational
legislation oftheMembers. Heproposed that,atsome stage afterreceiving thenational legislation
oftheother Parties, itwould beuseful toorganize aspecial review session intheCommittee.
57. Therepresentative ofNorway saidthatthechecklist inthepaper looked promising. Themain
objective ofthechecklist wastransparency. Concerning theformat ofnotifying legislation, shenoted
thatthesituation would differ from country tocountry since countries would notallusethesame
legislative means ofimplementing theAgreement. AsfarasNorway wasconcerned, there would be
noproblem tosubmit averydetailed notification ofNorwegian legislation andregulations. Shedid
however understand theneedforsummaries inthecaseofother countries.
58. Therepresentative ofJapan welcomed thechecklist ofissues ascontained intheChairman 's
paper. However, hisauthorities werenotready tobeartoomany administrative costsneeded tocombine
alllegislative texts, including umbrella legislation andresponses tothischecklist. Forthetimebeing,
hisauthorities werereviewing thecontents ofthechecklist inthelightofthisconcern. Hisdelegation
wouldsubmitshortlyadescriptionofthechallengeproceduresofhisgovernment(subsequentlycirculated
asdocument GPA/IC/W/37).
59. Therepresentative oftheUnited States noted that,sincethisAgreement would enterintoforce
atalaterdatethantheother WTO Agreements, itmight beadvantageous toreview what typeof
notification procedures hadbeenfollowed insome oftheother WTO Agreements andtherelative
successes orfailures withthoseprocedures. Perhaps asummary ofthesevarious notification procedures
existed asaWTO document. Itwould alsobehelpful foreachofthedelegates individually toconsult
withtheircolleagues onthismatter.
60. TheChairman, insumming upthediscussion, proposed thattheInterim Committee request
theSecretariat todistribute information onnotification procedures inother areas oftheWTO and
experience gained sofarwiththem. Heconcluded thatthere wasageneral support forachecklist
ofissues. Onedelegation hadproposed toaddtwopoints onchallenge procedures tothechecklist
ascontained inthepaper andheproposed thattheInterim Committee request thesecretariat toamend
thepaper accordingly. Another delegation hadsuggested theorganization ofaspecial session toreview
national implementing legislation intheCommittee induecourse. Heproposed thatthismatter be
taken upagain oncethenotifications hadbeensubmitted. Hefurthermore proposed thattheInterim
Committee transmit itsworkonthisissuetotheCommittee under thenewAgreement forfurther action.
61. TheInterim Committee soagreed.
62. TheChairman furthermore recalled thatprocedures forthederestriction ofdocuments andthe
circulation ofdocuments were bothstillbeing discussed intheframework oftheWTO ingeneral.
Since theInterim Committee haddecided, atitsmeeting of4April 1995, totakeintoaccount inits
owndecisions onthese matters theoutcome oftherelevant discussions intheWTO framework, the
Interim Committee should include thisiteminitsreport totheCommittee forfurther action.
63. TheInterim Committee soagreed.GPA/IC/M/6
Page11
J. ESTABLISHMENT OFAPRACTICAL GUIDE TOTHE NEW AGREEMENT
64. TheChairman recalled that, attheInterim Committee 'sOctober meeting, anumber of
delegations,whilenotopposedinprincipletotheestablishmentofanewguide,hadsuggestedpostponing
active consideration ofitinview ofitslinks withvarious other issues which were stillunder
consideration.Healsorecalledthat,atthatmeeting,therepresentativeoftheUnitedStateshadsuggested
thatthere were really twodistinct issues; thestructure andcontents ofapractical guide inthetrue
sense oftheword and,distinct fromthis,aloose-leaf system formaintaining up-to-date theAppendices.
Hehadsuggested that,atsome stage, theCommittee under thenewAgreement decide onaregular
process ofup-dating thenewAgreement toinclude allofitsrectifications. Ontheother hand, active
consideration oftheestablishment ofapractical guide inthetruesense oftheword might bepostponed
forthetimebeing inviewofitslinkages withvarious other outstanding issues.
65. Therepresentative oftheEuropean Communities andKorea supported thesuggestion made
bytheUnited States atthelastmeeting concerning theestablishment ofaregular process ofup-dating
thenewAgreement toinclude allitsrectifications.
66. TheChairman suggested thattheInterim Committee request theSecretariat toprepare abrief
noteoutlining howaloose-leaf system toperiodically update theAppendices intheAgreement might
work, taking intoconsideration other areas intheWTO suchastariff schedules.
67. TheInterim Committee soagreed.
K. INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
68. TheChairman recalled thatatitsprevious meetings, theInterim Committee hadgathered
information about theuseofinformation technology ingovernment procurement inthevarious
Signatories, bothbywayofdiscussion andpapers, thatcanbefound indocuments GPA/IC/W/7 and
Addenda 1through 10,which contained theinformation received from delegations inreply toa
questionnaire (contained indocument GPA/IC/W/4/Rev.1), aswellasintheMinutes oftheprevious
InterimCommitteemeetings.Moreover,atthepracticaldemonstrationheldon20June1995,delegations
hadcirculated various documents containing information ontheirsystems used. Anumber ofpolicy
issues hadbeenraised concerning, ontheonehand, issues bothofaccess toprocurement opportunities
andelectronic tendering and,ontheotherhand, questions bothofcooperation between, andcoordination
of,national systems andofpossible modifications totheAgreement itself. Afirstlistofthese issues
wasproduced indocument GPA/IC/W/18. TheEuropean Communities hadsubmitted anumber of
questions andcomments, which werecontained indocument GPA/IC/W/19 dated 9May1995. At
itsOctober meeting, theInterim Committee hadinvited delegations tocome forward withprecise ideas
inwriting totheSecretariat onthesuggestions putforward atthatmeeting, suchasaproposal toconduct
areview oftheAgreement identifying areas which would merit further attention, andaproposal to
launch apilotproject tofurther examine, andenhance, thedegree ofcompatibility ofthevarious
information systems. Healsorecalled that, attheInterim Committee 'sOctober meeting, the
representative ofNorway hadsaidthat,since hercountry hadsubmitted replies tothequestionnaire
(contained indocument GPA/IC/W/7/Add.6, dated 15November 1994), several projects hadbeen
carried outconcerning information technology ingovernment procurement. Afollow-up toNorway 's
replies tothequestionnaire wasreproduced indocument GPA/IC/W/7/Add.6/Supp.1.
69. Therepresentative oftheUnited States, inintroducing apaper onelectronic commerce, said
thattheInterim Committee hadcompleted afirststage ofinformation exchange, describing nationalGPA/IC/M/6
Page12
systems andconducting demonstrations ofthesesystems4.Hisdelegation believed thatthisinformation
exchange should continue under theprovisions ofArticle XXIV:8 ofthenewAgreement. Moreover,
thiswasnotastatic science. Itwould continue toadvance asdelegations conducted theirwork under
thenewAgreement. However, hisdelegation wasoftheview thatthetimehadcome tobegin
considering thewider implications ofthesetechnological advances forprocurement covered under this
Agreement andthequestion ofhowthisAgreement should beapplied tothese various areas. Those
whohadbeendirectly involved inthenegotiation ofthisAgreement realized thattheissueofinformation
technology hadbeenlargely ignored during thenegotiations. Thishadbecome veryapparent atthe
endofthenegotiations when Article XXIV:8, theprovision oninformation technology which called
forfurther work, washurriedly puttogether. Thisprovision acknowledged thattheAgreement should
notblindly stand asaroadblock tolegitimate efforts bytheprocurement authorities tousetechnological
advances intheinterest ofefficiency andgreater choice inprocurement decisions. Otherwise, the
Agreement would facetheriskofobsolescence inthecollective commitment toitsimplementation.
Theoverriding objective ofthiswork should betoprotect and,where possible, enhance access asthese
technological advances wereadopted. Inorder toaccomplish themandate setforthinArticle XXIV:8,
hisdelegation wasoftheview thatacloser examination ofallareas oftheAgreement should be
conducted, tounderstand theimplications andtoconsider clarifications, evenamendments, where
warranted. Hisdelegation hadattempted averypreliminary andmodest review andhadidentified
three areas which might require closer scrutiny, assetforth inhisdelegation 'spaper. Afirstissue
hadcome tolightinthereview ofthework doneoninformation technology, although itwasperhaps
anissue which wasnotinitially veryapparent. There wasthepossibility thattheuseofinformation
technology, oftheInternet forexample, could leadtosituations where procurement officials found
themselves inundated bytenders. There waslittlethatwould stopanybody fromanywhere intheworld
fromsubmitting atender onaparticular procurement. Thiscould leadtoasituation whereby thechoice
ofselective tendering -alegitimate procedure buthitherto notusedonalarge scale -would become
more attractive. IntheUnited States forexample, thishadbeenafairly rareprocedure, atleastat
theFederal level. Thispotential phenomenon might warrant areview oftheissues associated with
selective tendering, inparticular theprovisions ofArticle X.Secondly, therewereareas ofambiguity
inthenewAgreement. Theobvious example wasArticle XI,which didnotexplicitly refertoelectronic
publications, andArticle XIII,which didnotrefertosome ofthenewer forms ofsubmission oftenders.
Finally, anexamination oftheissue ofdeadlines should beundertaken. Some basic question should
beasked about therelevance ofdeadlines which wereinitially negotiated onthebasisofapurely hard-
copysystem ofpublications. Hisdelegation 'spaper wasapreliminary one.Perhaps therewereother
areas intheAgreement which warranted afurther examination.
70. Therepresentative fromCanada saidthattheconcepts contained inthepaper presented bythe
United States werefundamental. Ifthisissue wasnotaddressed within thecontext oftheAgreement
onGovernment Procurement, theprocurements doneinconformity withtheAgreement would very
rapidly become extremely inefficient. Itsprocedures would prevent governments from procuring
effectively. Heexpressed hismost positive support fortheconcepts exposed inthepaper, because
theydetermined thesuccess ofthisAgreement. Itwas,however, equally important toaddress the
issueofnon-discriminatory access toprocurement markets. Theuseofelectronic tendering borethe
riskofsometimes, unintentionally andindirectly, affecting market access. There wasariskthat
governments,intheirdesiretoprocuremoreefficiently,wouldperhapsnotnecessarilyfollowthecorrect
procedures orwould takeadvantage ofexceptions orexclusions, because thiswould allow them to
procure more quickly. Theuseofselective tendering wasanother areawhich merited caution.
Furthermore, intheUnited States, another indirect effect oftheuseofelectronic commerce wasthat
itmade iteasier toidentify twosmall businesses which would qualify foraparticular tender, thus
potentiallyremovingthatcontractfromcompetitionundertheAgreement.Theuseofelectronictendering
4TheUSproposal wassubsequently circulated asdocument GPA/IC/W/36 of21December 1995.GPA/IC/M/6
Page13
meritedcarefulconsiderationbecauseithadawayofindirectlyaffectingmarketaccess.Itwasimperative
tobalance offtheadvantages ofelectronic tendering withmaintaining effective market access. He
encouraged allmembers oftheInterim Committee tosupport theUSproposal, because itwasa
fundamental issue andperhaps themost important issue which faced delegation inthelonger term.
71. Therepresentative ofNorway welcomed theUSpaper. Shereiterated herdelegation 'sposition
thatitwastimetostartareview oftheAgreement interms oftheuseofinformation technology,
modifying andupdating ittothechallenges andpossibilities ofinformation technology, while notloosing
sight oftheoverall objective ofsecuring non-discriminatory access under theAgreement.
72. TheInterim Committee tooknoteofthestatements made andagreed totransmit itswork on
thisissue totheCommittee under thenewAgreement forfurther action.
L. OTHER BUSINESS
- Draft Report oftheInterim Committee totheCommittee onGovernment Procurement
under thenewAgreement
73. TheChairmanrecalledthattheInterimCommitteeneededtocommunicateareportontheresults
ofitswork totheCommittee onGovernment Procurement under thenewAgreement. TheSecretariat
hadcirculated adraft report todelegations on23November forconsideration attoday'smeeting.
Thedraftneeded tobeup-dated inthelightoftoday'smeeting. Heproposed thattheInterim Committee
givetheSecretariat amandate toamend andupdate thisreport fortransmission totheCommittee under
thenewAgreement5.
74. TheInterim Committee soagreed.
- Tentative Dates in1996ofthemeetings oftheCommittee onGovernment Procurement
under thenewAgreement
75. TheChairmannotedthatthisconcludedthelastmeetingoftheInterimCommitteeonGovernment
Procurement. Nexttimedelegations would meetintheframework oftheCommittee onGovernment
Procurement under thenewAgreement. Fororganizational purposes, andinviewoftheincrease in
meetings under theWTO, theSecretariat hadbeenasked toindicate tentative dates formeetings in
thecoming year. Heproposed thefollowing dates: 27February, 18April, 9Julyand27November
1996.
76. TheInterim Committee tooknoteofthestatement made.
- Meeting oftheWorking Group onRules oftheCouncil forTrade inServices
77. TheChairman reminded delegations thattheWorking Group onRules oftheCouncil forTrade
inServices would discuss theissue ofgovernment procurement andtheGATS forthefirsttimeon
8December 1995. Thefirstmeeting ofthisGroup inthenewyearwasplanned for28February 1996.
5TheReport wassubsequently circulated indocument GPA/IC/9.