RESTRICTED
WORLD TRADE GPA/IC/M/5
6December 1995
ORGANIZATION(95-3958)
Interim Committee onGovernment Procurement
MINUTES OFTHE MEETING HELD ON25OCTOBER 1995
Chairman: Mr.Harald Ernst (Switzerland)
1. Thefollowing agenda wasadopted:
A. Applications forobservership byColombia andArgentina
B. Modification ofAppendix ItotheAgreement prior toitsentry intoforce
C. Application foraccession byChinese Taipei
D. Application foraccession byLiechtenstein
E. Application foraccession bytheKingdom oftheNetherlands withrespect toAruba
F. Completion ofAppendices II,IIIandIVtotheAgreement
G. Progress innational ratification procedures
H. Recommendations forprocedural decisions bythecommittee tobeestablished under
theAgreement onGovernment Procurement
I. Establishment ofapractical guide tothenewagreement
J. Information technology
A. REQUESTS FOR OBSERVERSHIP
(i) Colombia
2. TheChairman recalled thatColombia hadapplied forobservership intheInterim Committee
inacommunication reproduced indocument GPA/IC/W/28 of3August 1995.
3. Having regard toitsdecision of29June1994 onobserver status intheInterim Committee
(GPA/IC/M/1, paragraph 4),andgiven Colombia 'sinterest inacquainting itselfwiththenewAgreement
onGovernment Procurement anditsactivities, theInterim Committee agreed togrant observer status
totheGovernment ofColombia.
(ii) Argentina
4. TheChairmanalsorecalledthatArgentinahadappliedforobservershipintheInterimCommittee
inacommunication reproduced indocument GPA/IC/W/30 of13October 1995.GPA/IC/M/5
Page2
5. Having regard toitsdecision of29June1994 onobserver status intheInterim Committee
(GPA/IC/M/1,paragraph4),andgivenArgentina'sinterestinacquaintingitselfwiththenewAgreement
onGovernment Procurement anditsactivities, theInterim Committee agreed togrant observer status
totheGovernment ofArgentina.
B. MODIFICATION OFAPPENDIX ITOTHEAGREEMENT PRIOR TOITSENTRY INTO
FORCE
6. TheChairman recalled that,atitsJuneandNovember meetings lastyearaswellasatitsApril
andJunemeetings thisyear, theInterim Committee hadtaken upthematter ofthebilateral agreement
ongovernment procurement reached between thenegotiators oftheEuropean Communities andof
theUnited States inApril oflastyearanditspossible incorporation intotheAgreement onGovernment
ProcurementundertheproceduresadoptedbytheInformalWorkingGroupatitsmeetinginJanuary1994
on"Modifications oftheAnnexes toAppendix ItotheAgreement onGovernment Procurement before
itsEntry intoForce" (GPA/IC/3). ThisDecision stipulated thataperiod of60daysshould beprovided
fromthedateofcirculation ofthenotification, toallow anopportunity foranyconsultations thatmay
berequired bySignatories. AttheInterim Committee 'sJunemeeting, therepresentative oftheEuropean
Communities hadexpressed thehopetobeinaposition atthenextmeeting toputforward changes
totheEC'sAppendices, notonlythose concerning themodifications pursuant tothebilateral agreement
butalsothose inrelation totheconsequences oftheaccession ofthree newMember States ofthe
European Communities, aswellascertain other changes warranted bydevelopments thathadtaken
place intheinternal organization ofthegovernments ofsome Member States, including theproposed
changes toAppendix IofSweden ascirculated indocuments GPR/W/133 andGPR/W/139.
7. Therepresentative oftheEuropean Communities saidthathisdelegation intended topresent
thethree types ofmodifications toitsAppendix Iallatonce. Hehoped tobeinaposition tocome
forward withacodified textatthenextmeeting, which would incorporate allnecessary modifications.
8. Therepresentative oftheUnited States saidthathisdelegation wasinasimilar position to
thatoftheEuropean Communities. Hisdelegation intended tosubmit inthenearfuture amendments
toitsAppendices toreflect thebilateral agreement between hiscountry andtheEuropean Communities.
Healsohoped tobeabletoconsolidate allpossible amendments intoonedocument andinthatcontext
noted thathisdelegation wascontinuing bilateral consultations withsome other Signatories tothe1994
Agreement, inthehope thatcertain amendments intheUnited States Appendices could bemade in
respect ofthose countries bythetimeofentry intoforce oftheAgreement.
9. TheChairman alsorecalled thattheCanadian Schedule offered tocover entities inallten
provinces onthebasisofcommitments tobereceived fromprovincial governments, withafinallisting
tobeprovided within 18months aftertheconclusion ofthenewAgreement. AttheNovember meeting
oflastyearaswellasattheApril andJunemeetings ofthisyear, therepresentative ofCanada had
informed theInterim Committee ofdevelopments inthisregard andhadreaffirmed theintention of
hisdelegation torespond onthisissue totheInterim Committee within thetimetable asprescribed
intheCanadian offer.
10. Therepresentative ofCanada stated that,inApril 1994, inMarrakesh, Canada hadindicated
that,within 18months ofsignature, itwould provide theCommittee withalistofsub-central (provincial
government) entities tobeincluded intheAgreement based uponcommitments obtained fromprovincial
governments.SincethattimetheCanadianGovernmenthadworkedcloselywithprovincialgovernments
andCanadian industry todevelop anoffer ofcoverage forsub-central entities. Inworking withthe
provinces todevelop asub-central offer, Canada hadbeenguided bythepriority sectors forincreased
market access identified byCanadian exporters andbytheoffers ofitstrading partners. Hisauthorities
hadcarefully examined theoffers ofother Signatories, andinparticular theopportunities offered byGPA/IC/M/5
Page3
theUnited States, duetotheimportance ofthismarket toCanadian suppliers. With respect tothe
matter ofimproved access, twosectors consistently identified aspriorities forCanadian exporters were
steelandtransportation. Asinalltrade negotiations, however, itwasnotsimply amatter ofgaining
increased access, butalsoamatter ofthesecurity ofthataccess. Aclose examination oftheUnited
States offerhadraised anumber ofimportant questions related totheeffective market access offered
toCanadian suppliers under theAgreement. These related tosmall business set-asides, BuyAmerica
provisions andlocal preference exceptions. Inincreasing thesecurity ofaccess, there hadbeen
considerable progress intheUruguay Round. Inparticular, Canada hadbeensuccessful inobtaining
theelimination ofoffsets. Canada supported thisimprovement. However, hisauthorities believed
thatitwasimportant thatmembers alsonegotiated similar disciplines inareas where insecure market
access remained. Inunderscoring theCanadian concerns withregard tomarket access, hisdelegation
would usetheexample oftheUnited States set-aside programme as,forCanada, theUnited States
remained themostimportant trading relationship. Consultations across Canada hadindicated thatthere
wasarequirement formore security ofaccess -nottheprobability of,butthecommitment to,
circumscribe theseprovisions through disciplines. Thiswasimportant because thespecific application
ofthisexception substantially diluted boththepredictability ofprocurement opportunities aswellas
diminishing effective market access. These provisions effectively meant thatfirstoption wasgiven
toUnited States small andminority businesses forallfederal procurement contracts intheUnited States,
regardless oftheirsize.
11. Continuing, therepresentative ofCanada saidthat,recently, some members hadintroduced
anumber ofprovisions to"simplify" theirprocurement procedures. While simplifying procurement
procedures wasdesirable, thisrecent action marked adisturbing trend which closely associated the
application ofset-asides withtheintroduction ofelectronic tendering. While Canada hadbeenalong-
standingproponentofelectronictendering,thisapproachappearedtoraiseseriousconcernsthateffective
market access potentially would beimpaired. In1979, theUnited States hadobtained therighttohave
aset-aside byproviding coverage oftheNational Aeronautics andSpace Administration (NASA).
Itwas, therefore, ironic thatNASA hadrecently introduced aprogramme fortheset-aside ofall
procurements upto$1million (andpossibly upto$5million) forUnited States small businesses. As
aresult, nocontract inthisrange would beopentocompetition forforeign business iftwoUnited
States small orminority suppliers wereavailable. Improvements intechnology could beaveryeffective
tooltoenhance market access aswellastoimprove theefficiency ofprocurement procedures. However,
intheabsence ofdefining principles, thesetechnology advances could erode rather thanenhance access.
Forexample, thenewUnited States legislative initiatives (simplified acquisition procedures, NASA
mid-range procurement project) were disturbing inthattheyclearly linked theintroduction ofpilot
projects forelectronic tendering withthestringent application ofsmall andminority set-asides. The
introduction ofnewcomputerized databases toidentify suppliers further enhanced efforts toensure
thattheset-aside wasapplied whenever possible. Access toforeign firms wasfurther impeded by
theapplication ofpreferential small business sub-contracting provisions forlarger value contracts which
would otherwise befullysubject totheobligations ofinternational agreements. Itwastherefore critical
thattheAgreement onGovernment Procurement address thesecurity ofanymarket access commitments
thatweremade. Thesame blanket reservation inplace forfederal levelcontracts hadbeentaken to
allow set-asides forindividual stategovernments, withnolimitontheextent towhich thisexception
could beused.
12. Continuing hisstatement, therepresentative ofCanada saidthatitwastheobjective ofthe
Canadianauthoritiestoachieveabalancedandliberalizedagreement.Arangeofentitieswhichprovinces
would beprepared toofferwithin thecontext ofachieving abalanced agreement hadbeenidentified.
Heemphasized thattheCanadian provinces wereready tospecify intheiroffers thecoverage ofgoods
aswellasarange ofservices, andconstruction services, inaccordance withthethresholds asspecified
intheannexes oftheCanadian sub-central offer. Some provinces hadachieved ministerial approval
forthefinallistofentities while others were currently intheprocess ofobtaining thisapproval.GPA/IC/M/5
Page4
However, itwasrecognized inCanada andendorsed bytheprivate sector thatthesecurity ofaccess
issue should beaddressed. Turning again totheissue ofincreases inmarket access, theCanadian
representative saidthataconstant priority throughout thesenegotiations hadbeentheextension ofmarket
access tothesteelandtransportation sectors. These werestillnotincluded intheoffers ofCanada 's
major trading partners. Theissues thenweretwo-fold: firstly, increased market access; andsecondly,
security ofthataccess. Consequently, hehadbeeninstructed toinform theInterim Committee that
Canada wasprepared totableanofferatthesub-central levelif,andonlyif,members wereprepared
(1)toinclude sectors ofpriority interest toCanadian suppliers, forexample, inthesteel and
transportation areas; and(2)toagree tocircumscribe theuseofsmall business andother set-asides
inamanner that,while notprecluding theiruse,would provide anacceptable security ofaccess to
suppliers from allmembers oftheInterim Committee. ItwasCanada 'sposition that,inproviding
increased andsecure market access toitstrading partners, itwasnotunreasonable toexpect thesame
degree ofreciprocal market access inreturn. Inthecontext ofthepresent offers, thiscircumstance
simply didnotexist. Hisdelegation wished toemphasize toallmembers oftheInterim Committee
that,inpresenting itsoffer, Canada wasnotaverse toliberalization andinnowaydidthisstatement
altertheCanadian commitment tothemultilateral trading system. Rather, itwasprecisely because
Canada supported thisprinciple thatitfirmly believed thatthefundamental issues ofincreased market
access, andsecurity ofthataccess, hadtobeaddressed bytheInterim Committee.
13. TherepresentativeoftheUnitedStatessaidthathehadunderstoodfromtheCanadianintervention
thattheUnited States should bethefirsttotableanoffertoinitiate negotiations. Hisdelegation stood
ready tonegotiate andtodiscuss allissues thatwereofconcern toCanada. TheUnited States, however,
hadalready tabled itsofferonsub-central entities, overayearago.Itmight nothavebeencompletely
satisfactory from theCanadian perspective butithadallowed hisauthorities toreach agreement on
sub-central procurement withanumber ofotherSignatories tothisAgreement. Withtoday'sstatement,
Canada seemed tohavelaiddown anumber ofconditions asaprecursor foraCanadian offeronthe
provinces. Herecalled thattheCanadian schedule indicated anintention totable aproposal within
18months ofsignature, which passed on15October ofthisyear, without anyconditions mentioned.
Tosome extent therefore, theCanadian statement oftoday seemed tosuggest arevision ofthatapproach.
Hewasaware ofanumber ofconcerns overcertain United States practices orrequirements. Where
possible, andtotheextent hisauthorities believed thattheyreceived reciprocal market access, his
authorities were willing toaddress some ofthose concerns. With respect tothespecific complaint
ontheset-asides andrecent developments, itwashiscountry 'sposition thatnochanges inpotential
market access forforeign suppliers withrespect tothese programmes hadoccurred. Hewaswilling
tositdown withtheCanadian delegation todiscuss these insome detail andaddress thisspecific issue.
TheCanadian statement hadmade reference tosome oftheachievements ofthenewAgreements, in
particular tooffsets. Herecalled thatsome Signatories totheAgreement hadnegotiated carve-outs
tothecommitment onoffset. Herecognized thatnone oftheSignatories hadcovered alloftheir
government procurement. Nevertheless, itshould betheobjective ofthisAgreement toexplore
continually thescope forincreased coverage under theAgreement soastowork towards eventual
comprehensive coverage. Inthiscontext, hedidnotfinditnecessarily constructive tocondition the
tabling ofanofferonanother Party taking thefirststepwhen thatother Party hadalready taken that
firststep.
14. Therepresentative oftheEuropean Communities saidthathisdelegation wassurprised and
disappointed about thestatement made bytheCanadian delegation. Hehadunderstood theCanadian
Schedules toinclude anactual firmcommitment toofferalltenprovinces onthebasisofcommitments
obtained fromtheprovincial governments. Hisdelegation wasdisappointed thatCanada hadnotbeen
inaposition sofartohonour itscommitment. Hehadlistened withinterest totheexplanation given
bytheCanadian delegation, which really onlyreferred totheUnited States. TheEuropean Communities
didnothaveset-asides. Itwould therefore bedifficult toseehowtheEuropean Communities could
haveledtotheCanadian decision. Ittherefore seemed asiftheproblems which hadledCanada toGPA/IC/M/5
Page5
takethisposition were exclusively partofthebilateral relationship between Canada andtheUnited
States andthattheentire plurilateral framework wasbeing heldhostage byproblems inabilateral
relationship.ThiswentagainsttheentirephilosophybehindtheAgreementonGovernmentProcurement.
TheAgreement offered solutions tothisproblem, forexample, totable anoffer, speak toother
Signatories and,if,indeed, thereafter Canada came totheconclusion thatitsoffer wasnotmetby
sufficient concessions fromother Signatories, itcould include reservations initsofferwithregard to
certain Signatories. TheCanadian statement, however, amounted toawithdrawal ofthepossibility
ofeliminating theGeneral NotetotheEC'soffer, under which theECwould notextend thebenefits
oftheAgreement asregards theaward ofcontracts byentities listed inAnnex 2tothesuppliers and
serviceprovidersofCanada.AstherepresentativeoftheUnitedStateshadpointedout,otherSignatories
hadalready tabled anoffer. Theoffer from theEuropean Communities, which hadbeenaccepted
byevery delegation except Canada, wasonthetable. There wasstilltimeforCanada tocome forward
withalistofsub-central entities, evenbefore theendoftheyear. Hisdelegation would welcome
consultations withCanada withaviewtoreaching amutually acceptable agreement. Hehoped that
Canada would reconsider itsposition andthattheCanadian federal authorities would transmit tothe
provincial authorities thedisappointment ofthemembers oftheInterim Committee about thefactthat
Canada hadnotyetcome forward withanofferconsistent withitscommitments under theAgreement
onGovernment Procurement. Hewasalsoheartened bythecomments made bytherepresentative
fromtheUnited States thatevery delegation should lookatitsownsituation, attheoutstanding problems
andbeopentofinding solutions. TheEuropean Communities werealsoready todiscuss anyconcrete
issue withCanada, aslongasthiswasonthebasis ofaninitial Canadian offer.
15. TherepresentativeofCanadarecalledthatCanada'scommitmentsintermsofsub-centralentities
under theAgreement hadbeenmade subject tocommitments from provincial governments. The
provincial governments hadnowprovided hisauthorities withclearinstructions. Hiscountry looked
forwardtoapositiveresponsefrommembersoftheInterimCommitteeinaddressingtheissuesidentified
byCanada intoday'sstatement. Inresponding totheEuropean Communities, hesaidthattheUnited
States wasCanada 'slargest trading partner. Theprovinces hadindicated thatinorder tomove forward
withthenecessary legislative andadministrative modifications toimplement theAgreement atthesub-
central level, broadly-based commitments interms ofeffective market access would beneeded.
Nevertheless, hisdelegation didnottakelightly theviews expressed byother delegations today and
would convey them totheprovincial authorities shortly. Hewould contact members oftheInterim
Committee bilaterally intheverynearfuture regarding anyfurther progress possible inthisarea.
16. Therepresentative oftheEuropean Communities saidthathehadtaken noteoftheintervention
oftheCanadian delegation, which waspositive butfarfromwhatwasneeded. Headded that,although
theofferfromtheEuropean Communities, asitstood, contained aGeneral Notereserving sub-central
procurement byexcluding Canada, thatoffer, including thatparticular Note, hadbeenbased onthe
commitment made byCanada inrespect ofitssub-central entities. Hisdelegation would therefore
needtoreconsider thisposition if,on1January 1996, therewasstillnoofferfromCanada onsub-central
entities. Inthose circumstances, hisdelegation might havetolookatitsAnnex 1again andmight
needtomake further adjustments byinserting further reservations inrespect ofCanada. Hereserved
hisdelegation 'sposition onthisissue forthetimebeing.
17. Therepresentative from Norway alsolooked forward toreceiving anoffer from Canada in
thenearfuture. Ifthiswere notthecase, herdelegation might alsohavetoconsider taking actions
similar tothose referred tobythedelegations oftheEuropean Communities.
18. TheInterim Committee tooknoteofthestatements made.GPA/IC/M/5
Page6
C. APPLICATION FOR ACCESSION BYCHINESE TAIPEI
19. TheChairman recalled that,atitsJunemeeting, theInterim Committee hadencouraged the
delegation ofChinese Taipei andthemembers oftheInterim Committee toholdfurther consultations
onthedraftoffer ofChinese Taipei.
20. Therepresentative ofChinese Taipei recalled thathisdelegation hadheldbilateral consultations
withthedelegations from Canada, theEuropean Communities andtheUnited States attheoccasion
oftheApril andJunemeetings oftheInterim Committee During those consultations, hisdelegation
hadbeenrequested toprovide more information about thesizeofitsoffer, toexpand itscoverage,
tolower thethresholds, totakeoutreservations andtoaddmore entities. Hisauthorities hadcarefully
reviewed allthesuggestions andwere ready todiscuss further improvements tothedraftoffer. As
forthesizeoftheoffer, eachoftheentities identified intheoffer hadbeenrequested tosubmit the
value ofitsprocurements. Their statistics showed thatthetotalvalue ofeachprocurement above
threshold amounted toabout US$8.4 billion infiscal year1995, which ranfromJuly1994toJune1995.
These figures didnotexclude procurement under thecurrent reservations intheofferbutdidexclude
theprocurements forresale purposes. Bilateral consultations hadbeenscheduled forthenextfewdays
andhisdelegation waslooking forward tofruitful results.
21. TheInterim Committee tooknoteofthestatements made andencouraged thedelegations of
Chinese Taipei andthemembers oftheInterim Committee toholdfurther consultations onthedraft
offer ofChinese Taipei.
D. APPLICATION FOR ACCESSION BYLIECHTENSTEIN
22. TheChairmanrecalledthat,attheInterimCommittee'sAprilmeeting,Liechtensteinhadapplied
foraccession totheAgreement onGovernment Procurement (1994) inacommunication reproduced
indocument GPA/IC/W/13, dated 10January 1995, which alsocontained itsoffer. AtitsJunemeeting,
theInterim Committee hadinvited thedelegation ofLiechtenstein tosubmit anyfigures onthepotential
valueofitsoffer.TheGovernmentofLiechtensteinhadsuppliedthesefigureswhichhadbeencirculated
todelegations inSeptember, indocument GPA/IC/W/29. TheChairman furthermore recalled that
theInterim Committee 'sDecision onAccession Negotiations totheAgreement onGovernment
Procurement (1994) Prior toitsEntry intoForce (GPA/IC/M/1, Annex 1)called fortheInterim
Committee tosubmit totheCommittee onGovernment Procurement under thenewAgreement areport
onitsexamination oftherequest foraccession. Thereport could include aninstrument ofaccession
including Appendices containing listsofentities andservices which would becovered bytheAgreement
onGovernment Procurement. Tofacilitate action pursuant tothisdecision, theSecretariat haddrawn
upamodel report, dated 23October 1995, which wasavailable inthemeeting, forconsideration by
delegations today. Hewondered whether thetimehadbeenreached when theInterim Committee would
wishtoasktheSecretariat todraw upareport byittotheCommittee under thenewAgreement and,
ifso,should thisbedonealong thelinesoftheSecretariat model?
23. Therepresentative ofJapan asked whether Liechtenstein could giveaclarification astothe
current duplication ofLiechtenstein 'scentral government procurement inAppendix IofSwitzerland
andinLiechtenstein 'soffer andhowbesttosolve thisduplication.
24. Therepresentative ofLiechtenstein saidthathercountry 'soffer contained thesame entities
asalready contained intheSwiss offer, resulting fromthefactthatLiechtenstein hadbeenrepresented
bySwitzerland before itbecame afounding Member oftheWTO. Inaddition, Liechtenstein 'soffer
contained, inAnnex 2ofAppendix I,theauthorities atlocallevel.GPA/IC/M/5
Page7
25. Therepresentative ofCanada saidthathisdelegation would beholding bilateral consultations
withthedelegation ofLiechtenstein inthenextfewdaysandhoped tobeinaposition atthenextmeeting
totakeafinaldecision onLiechtenstein 'srequest foraccession.
26. Therepresentative oftheUnited States saidthatthestatistics provided hadassisted inassessing
thepotential market opportunities contained intheofferfromLiechtenstein. Asageneral matter for
future consideration, henoted thattheimpact ofthresholds should bekeptinmind inthatthelevel
ofthresholds tended tohaveagreater effect incurtailing procurement opportunities insmaller members
thaninlarger members. Nevertheless, hisdelegation continued toencourage theaccession of
Liechtenstein andwould notstand inthewayofapositive decision onitsapplication toaccede. He
noted thattheLiechtenstein offerincluded anumber ofderogations withrespect totheUnited States,
which mirrored those intheSwiss schedules. Should adecision beforthcoming inthenearfuture
ontheapplication foraccession byLiechtenstein, hiscountry would, atthatpoint intimeandbased
oncurrent drafts, havetoamend itsschedules toreflect theapproach ithadtaken withrespect to
Switzerland. Nevertheless, hisdelegation wascontinuing bilateral consultations anditwasthegeneral
objective oftheUnited States toeliminate asmany derogations initsschedules aspossible.
27. Therepresentative oftheEuropean Communities saidthathisdelegation hadnoproblems with
theoffer ofLiechtenstein andwould welcome itsspeedy accession.
28. Therepresentative ofJapan saidthatitsdelegation needed more timetostudy theofferfrom
Liechtenstein buthoped tobeinaposition totakeadecision onthismatter atthenextmeeting.
29. TheInterim Committee took noteofthestatements made andurged thedelegation of
Liechtenstein andthemembers oftheInterim Committee toholdconsultations withaviewtotaking
afinaldecision onthismatter atitsmeeting inDecember, including adecision onthedraftmodel report
fromtheInterim Committee tothenewCommittee ontheapplication foraccession, asdrawn upby
theSecretariat andcirculated on23October.
E. APPLICATION FOR ACCESSION BYTHE KINGDOM OFTHE NETHERLANDS
WITH RESPECT TOARUBA
30. TheChairmanrecalledthat,atitsJunemeeting,theInterimCommitteehadinvitedthedelegation
oftheKingdom oftheNetherlands withrespect toAruba tosubmit anyfigures onthepotential value
ofitsoffer.
31. Therepresentative oftheKingdom oftheNetherlands withrespect toAruba saidthat,while
theauthorities inAruba were willing toprovide information, anexact figure ofallpurchases made
wasdifficult toobtain. Therefore, thedelegation oftheKingdom oftheNetherlands withrespect to
Aruba hadprovided some specific figures onpurchases which hadrecently beenmade intheUnited
States. Asthisincluded information onspecific purchases, hehadpreferred tohandthese figures to
theUnited States delegate directly. These included atleastonepurchase above thethreshold ofthe
Agreement. Since June, norequests forfurther consultations hadbeenreceived. Itwould behelpful
ifmembers could today indicate wether theyhadanyobjections totheapplication foraccession as
tabled bytheKingdom oftheNetherlands withrespect toAruba.
32. Therepresentative oftheUnited States thanked therepresentative oftheKingdom ofthe
NetherlandswithrespecttoArubaforthecustomizedresponsetoquestionsraisedatthepreviousmeeting
interms ofspecific United States sales inthemarket ofAruba. Hisdelegation would notstand in
thewayofadecision infavour oftheaccession ofAruba.GPA/IC/M/5
Page8
33. Inresponding toaquestion, therepresentative oftheKingdom oftheNetherlands withrespect
toAruba saidthatthere would notbealongdelay indepositing theinstrument ofaccession under
thenewAgreement, onceaccession negotiations would havebeenfinalized.
34. Therepresentative ofCanada waslooking forward toholding finalconsultations withthe
Kingdom oftheNetherlands withrespect toAruba inthenextfewdays. Heexpected tobeinaposition
tomake afinaldecision onthismatter attheInterim Committee 'snextmeeting.
35. TheInterimCommitteetooknoteofthestatementsmadeandurgedthedelegationoftheKingdom
oftheNetherlands withrespect toAruba andthemembers oftheInterim Committee toholdfurther
consultations withaviewtotaking afinaldecision onthismatter atitsmeeting inDecember.
F. COMPLETION OFAPPENDICES II,IIIAND IVTOTHE AGREEMENT
36. TheChairman recalled that,attheNovember 1994 andApril andJune1995 meetings ofthe
Interim Committee, therepresentative ofCanada hadexpressed thehopethathemight beinaposition
atalaterstage toprovide further information asregards publications inrespect ofentities atthesub-
federal level.
37. Therepresentative ofCanada saidthathehadnothing toaddtowhathehadstated under agenda
itemBoftoday'smeeting withrespect tocommitments atthesub-central level.
38. TheChairman alsorecalled thattheUnited States hadrectified itsAppendix II,witheffect
asof23December 1994. Therectification concerned publications utilized byState agencies. The
United States hadcommitted itselftoprovide acomplete listing ofsuchpublications inthenearfuture
andbytheentry intoforce oftheAgreement atthelatest.
39. Therepresentative oftheUnited States saidthatitwashisunderstanding thathisauthorities
hadnowreceived information from all37States intended tobeincluded inAnnex 2oftheUnited
States. Hewould endeavour tosubmit suchinformation todelegations inapresentable format prior
totheInterim Committee 'snextmeeting.
40. TheInterim Committee tooknoteofthestatements made.
G. PROGRESS INNATIONAL RATIFICATION PROCEDURES
41. TheChairman invited delegations togivetheGroup aprogress report onthestateofplayin
theirdomestic procedures forratification oftheAgreement. Thepresent situation, asformally notified
totheSecretariat, wasreflected inadocument issued bytheDirector-General oftheWTO entitled
Notification ofAcceptance, dated 27January 1995andcirculated intheWT/Let/2 series (ref.WLI/304).
TheChairman alsoinvited delegations tousetoday'smeeting togivetheGroup aprogress report on
thestateoftheirrespective implementation oftheAgreement.
42. Therepresentative ofJapan saidthatefforts werebeing made tocomplete, bytheendofthis
year,thedomestic process necessary toratify theAgreement andtodeposit theinstrument ofratification
withtheSecretariat.
43. TherepresentativeoftheUnitedStatesreiteratedthattheUnitedStateshadratifiedtheAgreement
andthatithadbeenaccepted bytheUnited States Congress inDecember 1994, aspartoftheUruguay
Round Agreement 'sAct. Nevertheless, hisdelegation acknowledged thattheChairman andthe
Secretariat hadsought aformal, written confirmation. Hisdelegation wasinaposition tocomply with
thisrequest andintended tobesubmitting suchaformal letter within thenextfewdays. HehopedGPA/IC/M/5
Page9
thatbydoing so,hisdelegation would havecompleted allstepswithrespect toArticle XXIV interms
oftheAgreement 'sentry intoforce fortheUnited States.
44. Therepresentative ofSwitzerland saidthattheSwiss Parliament hadapproved theAgreement
onGovernment Procurement inDecember oflastyear. Since thenherauthorities hadbeenpreparing
theimplementing legislation atthefederal andsub-federal level. Atthefederal level, alawhadbeen
accepted byParliament which would come intoforce on1January 1996. Animplementing regulation
regardingthislawwasintheprocessofbeingelaborated,onwhichtheFederalGovernmentwasexpected
todecide inNovember orDecember ofthisyear. Atthesub-federal level, theConference oftheCantons
onConstruction andPlanning hadprepared anIntercantonal Agreement onGovernment Procurement
lastyear. ThisAgreement mustbeaccepted bythedifferent cantons, which wasdonemostly through
implementing legislation inthecantons. Thisprocess hadbeenunder wayforoverayearnow. Most
cantons hadalready beendealing withthismatter atthegovernment orattheparliament level. Some
weredoing itaccording toan"urgency procedure", withaviewtoconcluding theprocess bytheend
ofthisyearwhile others hadpreferred touseanormal procedure, withaviewtoconcluding inthe
firsthalfofnextyear. Herauthorities wereconfident thattheywould beinaposition inNovember
ofthisyeartopropose totheFederal Council toratify theAgreement onGovernment Procurement
withaviewtodepositing theinstrument ofratification before theendofthisyear.
H. RECOMMENDATIONS FORPROCEDURAL DECISIONS BYTHECOMMITTEE TOBE
ESTABLISHED UNDER THE AGREEMENT ONGOVERNMENT PROCUREMENT
45. TheChairmanrecalledthat,atitsJunemeeting,theInterimCommitteehadhadafirstdiscussion
ondraft decisions onprocedural matters required under thenewAgreement, asprepared bythe
Secretariat andcirculated asaninformal document dated 9June1995. Atthatmeeting, theChairman
hadinvited delegations tosubmit anydrafting suggestions totheSecretariat inadvance ofthenext
meeting, forcirculation tothemembers oftheInterim Committee, withaviewtotheInterim Committee
taking afinaldecision onthefourdraftdecisions atthatmeeting. Sofarnodrafting suggestions had
beenreceived bytheSecretariat. TheInterim Committee hadalsoagreed toamend paragraph 4of
thedraftdecision onObserver Status toreplace theword "Signatories" inthatparagraph bytheword
"Parties". Arevised version ofthisdraftDecision hadbeencirculated inaninformal notetodelegations
on18October 1995. TheSecretariat 'sinformal notedidnotcontain anydraftdecision onprocedures
forthederestriction ofdocuments andthecirculation ofdocuments, since theInterim Committee had
agreed topostpone consideration untilitcould takeintoaccount, initsowndecisions onthesematters,
theoutcome ofdiscussion inthegeneral WTO framework onthesame issues, which forthemoment
wasstillongoing.
46. Therepresentative oftheEuropean Communities referred tothedraftDecision onNotification
ofNational Implementing Legislation, contained inAnnex 3oftheSecretariat 'sInformal Note of
9June1995, inparticular thequestion astowhether delegations would findituseful toreport summaries
oftheirimplementing legislation, according toachecklist ofissues. Hesaidthat,while rules and
legislation were extremely important, intheendwhat mattered wasnotsomuch toknow whether
Signatories applied every single detail ofthose rules butrather whether effective market access was
ensured. IfaParty werenottoapply therules correctly, inspiteofthefactthatthelegislation was
intotalconformity withtherules oftheAgreement onGovernment Procurement, hewould havea
problem. If,ontheother hand, aParty would notcomply inevery detail withtheprovisions ofthe
Agreement, butnevertheless practised openprocurement procedures, hewould behappy. Hetherefore
doubted theusefulness ofreceiving every single detail ofnational implementing legislation ofallthe
Parties-allthemorebecausethenewAgreementonGovernmentProcurementideallyshouldbechanging
every day. Every dayshould seebilateral procurement discussions taking place, leading tochanges
intheAgreement, which should thenbereflected andtranslated. Hetherefore regarded favourably
thesuggestion made inthedraftDecision, initsparagraph 2,thatParties would giveasummary ofGPA/IC/M/5
Page10
themain elements oftheirlegislation inanotetobeprepared onthebasis ofachecklist ofissues.
If,atsome point inthefuture, Parties would decide thatthiswayofproceeding wasnotsatisfactory,
itcould always bechanged.
47. Therepresentative oftheUnited States saidthathewasnotconvinced thatasummary ofall
aspects ofimplementing legislation, rather thantheircomplete texts, would besufficient information
toallow amonitoring oftheimplementation oftheAgreement. However, asummary ofmany ofthe
detailed requirements associated withimplementation would seem sufficient. Forexample, insofar
ascategories ofentities werecovered bytheAgreement atthesub-central level, itwould becompletely
unrealistic toprovide thename andacopyofeachoftheimplementing lawsorregulations foreach
ofthose entities. Heagreed that,forthattypeofinformation, summaries would benotonlysufficient
butalsodesirable. However, atthenational level, eachParty should beabletoprovide specific
information ontheimplementation legislation oftheAgreement. There wasperhaps merit inreverting
tothismatter inthefuture Committee onGovernment Procurement. Hefavoured theideaofestablishing
achecklist ofissues, specifying where summaries would beappropriate. Thechecklist ofissues prepared
under theTokyo Round Agreement1seemed toodetailed forthenewAgreement asitwould haveto
apply toafargreater number ofentities.
48. Therepresentative ofJapan saidthathisdelegation considered positively theproposal tosubmit
themain elements ofimplementing legislation inasummary format. Asregards thechecklist, he
considered thattheoldchecklist, drawn upunder theTokyo Round Code andreproduced indocument
GPR/4 wasstillappropriate since, interms ofitsrules, thenewAgreement followed theTokyo Round
Agreement inmost respects. Nonewchecklist wastherefore necessary.
49. Therepresentative oftheUnited States suggested that,while there would bearequirement
tonotify theumbrella legislation initsentirety, thisrequirement would notextend toindividual pieces
oflegislation which might beunder thatumbrella. Perhaps therewasmerit inestablishing achecklist
according towhich delegations would, forthemostpartinsummary format, describe specific elements
oftheimplementation oftheAgreement. With respect toparagraph 2oftheproposed draftdecision
onNotification ofNational Implementing Legislation, hesuggested thattheword "legislation" inthe
firstlineshould moreaccurately read"implementation", because thatwasthekindofinformation which
wasreally being sought, more sothanlegislation. Apossible checklist should describe thestorybehind
thelegislation, andthiscould bedoneinsummary form.
50. Therepresentative ofCanada saidthatsome ofthemore problematic areas, which hadbeen
discussed earlier atthismeeting under agenda itemB,werecontained inregulations. Itwould therefore
bedesirable thatthese beavailable upon request andhence notification totheCommittee would be
helpful. However, hisdelegation wasnotnecessarily wedded tothisideaandsome more timetostudy
thewhole issue ofnotification ofnational legislation would bewarranted. Hisdelegation hoped to
beinaposition togivefurther comments atthenextmeeting.
51. Therepresentative oftheEuropean Communities saidthat,ifSignatories could achieve non-
discrimination andtransparency inallcases covered bytheoffers, evenwithout rules, much would
havebeenachieved. Buttransparency alsoincluded thatoftheimplementing legislation itself. Ifthe
onlywaytounderstand aSignatory 'sprocurement régime wastogothrough aconsiderable amount
ofpaperwork, theprocurement régime could notbecalled transparent. Therealcriterion tomonitor
implementation oftheAgreement wasthedegree ofeffective market opening ithadcreated, notthe
numberofpagesofimplementinglegislationcirculated.Therealquestiontobeaddressedwas,therefore,
howcould compliance oftheAgreement bemeasured? Hesuggested that,atsome stage, theCommittee
1Reproduced indocument GPR/4 of30January 1981GPA/IC/M/5
Page11
should haveanin-depth discussion onthisbasicquestion. Indoing so,future meetings oftheCommittee
onGovernment Procurement could perhaps become more operational.
52. TheChairman saidthatwhatwasdesirable wasa"vulgarization" ofthelaws, identifying in
thevariouspiecesofimplementinglegislationofthecentralandsub-centrallevelstheircommonelements
aswellasthedifferences between them. Theobjective ofthenotification exercise intheCommittee
should betoshow thosewhowerenotfamiliar withaparticular country whatthemostimportant features
oftheimplementation oftheAgreement onGovernment Procurement inthatparticular country were,
onthree orfourpages.
53. Therepresentative oftheUnited States reiterated thatitwasdesirable thatatthetoplevel,
delegations should benotifying complete implementing legislation. FortheUnited States thiswould
amount totheimplementing legislation issued byCongress. However, arequirement tonotify all
legislation atthesub-central level, ofwhich much already existed andwasinconformity withthe
Agreement, would betotally unrealistic andhence arequirement tonotify legislation atthatlevelby
wayofsummaries would bejustified. Inthatcase,thepossibility toaskformore details andforcopies
ofspecific pieces oflegislation andregulations could always beprovided for.Hesuggested thatit
would behelpful ifdelegations were tosubmit inwriting their expectations ofthenotification
requirement. These submissions could thenserve asabasis forfuture discussions intheCommittee
withaviewtoestablishing certain guidelines astowhatshould benotified.
54. Therepresentative ofJapan suggested that,since newideas werebeing putforward, itwould
bedesirable torevert tothisissue atanextmeeting.
55. Therepresentative ofIsrael saidthat,inthisdiscussion, delegations should basethemselves
onasimple principle andreflect onwhatwasnecessary andwhatwassuperfluous.
56. Therepresentative ofNorway saidthatthere wasaneedforcommon guidelines onways to
report national implementing legislation.
57. TheChairman proposed torevert totheissueofthedraftDecision onNotification ofNational
Implementing Legislation atthenextmeeting. Heinvited delegations tosubmit inwriting tothe
Secretariat anyideas theymight haveonthisissue, onthebasisofwhich heintended tocome forward
withadiscussion paper forthenextmeeting. Hefurthermore proposed thattheInterim Committee
adopt thedraftdecisions onParticipation ofObservers intheCommittee onGovernment Procurement
(1994) asrevised byaSecretariat Note dated 16October 1995, onAccession totheAgreement on
Government Procurement (1994) andonModalities forNotifying Threshold Figures inNational
Currencies, bothascontained intheSecretariat Note dated 9June1995.
58. TheInterim Committee soagreed.2
I. ESTABLISHMENT OFAPRACTICAL GUIDE TOTHE NEW AGREEMENT
59. TheChairmanrecalledthat,asrequestedbytheInterimCommittee,theSecretariathadcirculated
suggestions foranoutline forapractical guide inaninformal notedated 12June1995, inwhich it
wasfurthermore suggested thatthemostappropriate wayofpursuing thiswork might beforanumber
ofdelegations towork together withtheSecretariat onthepossible structure ofanewpractical guide.
Suchaninformal meeting washeldon20June1995, andthemainpoints raised atthatmeeting were
distributed inaninformal notefrom theSecretariat dated 23June1995. Anupdated version ofthis
2These three Recommendations forDecisions have subsequently been circulated indocument GPA/IC/W/31 dated
30October 1995.GPA/IC/M/5
Page12
note,intended toclarify certain points which hadcome outofthediscussion, wascontained inAnnex 2
oftheAnnotated Agenda forthismeeting.
60. Therepresentative oftheUnited States saidthatthere wasperhaps merit inbreaking down
thisissueintotwodistinct elements. Thefirstwould relate torectifications. Itwashisunderstanding
that,inthepast,thePractical Guide hadbeenthevehicle toperiodically edittheAgreement toinclude
allrectifications which hadbeennotified. ThePractical Guide had,however, notbeenre-published
frequently sothatithadnotalways beenup-to-date. Itwasdesirable toavoid thiskindofsituation
inrespect ofthenewAgreement. Thisissueshould beaddressed regardless ofthequestion astowhether
anewpractical guide would bedesirable ornot.Hesuggested that,atsome stage, thenewCommittee
decide onaregular process ofup-dating thenewAgreement toinclude allofitsrectifications. As
regards thesecond element, thepractical guide itself, hisdelegation feltthatitwould certainly be
advantageous tohave such aguide forthebenefit ofallsuppliers, which would assist them in
understanding thecommercial opportunities available tothemthrough theAgreement. Inconsidering
thisissue, theprimary consideration forhiscountry wasabudgetary one. Aninitial examination of
thequestion oftheestablishment ofaguide should include considerations ofwhether thiscould be
doneonacost-recovery basis. Ifcostswereinvolved, thematter would bemorecomplicated toaddress.
After today'sdiscussion under thepreceding agenda itemonprocedures fornotification ofnational
legislation, hehadwondered whether itwould notbemore appropriate topostpone active consideration
oftheestablishment ofapractical guide untilthenotification issues were dealtwith. Anyeffort to
establish apractical guide would have todraw onwhat eachcountry hadnotified interms ofits
implementinglegislation.Hethereforeproposedtopostponeanyactiveconsiderationoftheestablishment
ofapractical guide untilagreement hadbeenreached intheCommittee onthenotification process.
61. Therepresentative oftheEuropean Communities saidthatthequestion oftheestablishment
ofapractical guide waslinked totheissues ofnotification ofnational legislation, statistics and
information technology. Thesame fundamental question wasattheheart ofallofthese issues: how
could effective market access andtransparency bestbeachieved? What diddelegations wanttodo
withtheAgreement? Asfarasthecostelement oftheguide wasconcerned, heagreed thatitwould
bepreferable iftheguide could beestablished without additional cost,butthat,eventhough itmight
intheendbedecided tocontract outsuchaguide, theCommittee onGovernment Procurement should
remain responsible foritscontents.
62. Therepresentative ofCanada saidthatoneshould firstbeclear astowhattheobjectives of
apractical guide should be,whowastheaudience andwhatshould beitscontents. Heagreed with
theUnited States topostpone forthetimebeing active consideration ofsuchaguide, inthelightof
thedifferent issues which werestilltobeexamined anditslinkswithvarious other matters ofconcern
totheInterim Committee. Anewguide should perhaps bemore focused thantheprevious oneand
contents should beclearly identified, interms ofhowbesttoassist suppliers. Costoptions should
bealsobeexamined.
63. Therepresentative ofJapan agreed topostpone consideration ofapractical guide forthesame
reasons ashadbeenmentioned byprevious speakers. Henoted that,eveniftheCommittee wereto
choose theoption ofcontracting outthepractical guide forbudgetary reasons, theCommittee should
keepthefinalcontrol ofitscontents.
64. TheChairman concluded thatdelegations werenotopposed inprinciple totheestablishment
ofanewpractical guide, butthatfurther reflection wasdesirable. Anumber ofdelegations hadsuggested
postponing active consideration ofthismatter. Henevertheless encouraged delegations toreview the
concrete questions contained inAnnex 2oftheAnnotated Agenda, inpreparation forthenextmeeting.
65. TheInterim Committee soagreed.GPA/IC/M/5
Page13
J. INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
66. TheChairman recalled that,atitsprevious meetings, theInterim Committee hadgathered
information about theuseofinformation technology ingovernment procurement inthevarious
Signatories, bothbywayofdiscussions andpapers aswellasthrough apractical demonstration. This
information could befound indocuments GPA/IC/W/7 andAddenda 1through 10,which contained
theinformation received fromdelegations inreply toaquestionnaire (document GPA/IC/W/4/Rev.1
contains thisquestionnaire), aswellasintheMinutes oftheprevious Interim Committee meetings.
Moreover, atthepractical demonstration heldon20June1995, delegations hadcirculated various
documents containing information ontheirsystems used. Anumber ofpolicy issues hadbeenraised
concerning, ontheonehand, issues bothofaccess toprocurement opportunities andelectronic tendering
and,ontheother hand, questions bothofcooperation between andcoordination ofnational systems
andofpossible modifications totheAgreement itself. Afirstlistofthese issues wasproduced in
document GPA/IC/W/18. TheEuropean Communities hadsubmitted anumber ofquestions and
comments, which were contained indocument GPA/IC/W/19 dated 9May1995.
67. Therepresentative ofNorway saidthatsince hercountry hadsubmitted replies tothe
questionnaire (contained indocument GPA/IC/W/7/Add.6, dated 15November 1994), several projects
hadbeencarried outconcerning information technology ingovernment procurement. TheNorwegian
Directorate ofPublic Management hadcarried outseveral projects assessing thecurrent situation as
wellasfuture possibilities intheuseofEDIingovernment procurement. Thisincluded aproject carried
outbytheNorwegian Telecom entity concerning theuseofelectronic tradeaswellasaproject aimed
atincreasing efficiency ingovernment procurement byusing electronic trade based onEDIFACT.
Herdelegation would provide afollow-up toitsreplies tothequestionnaire given inNovember oflast
year, before thenextmeeting.
68. Therepresentative ofCanada stated thathiscountry wasamajor proponent ofelectronic
tendering, thebenefits ofwhich would bereaped bygovernments andsuppliers alike. Hecautioned
that,asapoint ofprinciple, delegations should beconscious allthetimethattheAgreement 'smajor
objective wastocreate market access forsuppliers. Inmoving forward onthisissue, therefore, it
should beensured thatanysteps taken tointroduce information technology inthegovernment
procurement process would notleadtoanyerosion ofmarket access.
69. Therepresentative oftheEuropean Communities reiterated thathisdelegation wasalsoamajor
proponent oftheintroduction ofinformation technology ingovernment procurement, which would
favour theachievement oftheobjective ofmarket access forsuppliers. Thequestions examined at
thelastmeeting oftheInterim Committee during thepractical demonstration ofinformation technology
wereimportant. Oneofthemajor questions toexamine infuture washowthedifferent technical systems
inthedifferent Signatories, ifnotcompatible, could bemade atleasteasily accessible forallsuppliers
indifferent countries. Indrawing ontheexperience gathered through theCommunities pilotproject,
SIMAP (Système d'Informations desMarchés Publics), henoted thatitwasimportant that,while the
introduction ofinformation technology ingovernment procurement would create more opportunities
forsuppliers, itshould alsobeofinterest tothepurchasing entity.
70. TherepresentativeoftheUnitedStatesagreedwiththecommentsmadebytheCanadiandelegate
thatthemajor objective oftheAgreement wasmarket access. However, oneshould notlosesight
ofthefactthattheAgreement didnotexistinavacuum, inthatitinfluenced andhadadirect impact
ontheprocurement procedures ofpurchasing entities. Oneshould beaware ofthisfactandattempt,
where possible andconsistent withtheobjective ofmarket access, toaccommodate theinnovative
developments intechnology which theprocurement communities intheSignatories wereconsidering.
Henoted thatupuntilnow, theInterim Committee hadbeenengaged inaprocess ofinformation
exchange, which hadbeenauseful firststepandshould continue throughout thework carried outinGPA/IC/M/5
Page14
theCommittee onthistopic. Nevertheless, hefeltthatthetimehadcome tomove thisprocess forward.
Thiscould takeatwo-pronged approach. First, while therelevant provision intheAgreement,
Article XXIV:8, didnotgivemuch guidance, itdidallow formodifications totheAgreement tobe
negotiated. Inthatlighthesuggested thattheInterim Committee takeadecision toundertake areview
oftheprovisions inthenewAgreement withaview toidentifying specific provisions where the
introduction ofinformation technology intheprocurement process might giverisetocertain questions,
which could thenbeexplored. Itmight behelpful ifdelegations weretotablesuggestions onthismatter.
Inmaking thisproposal, heassured delegations thatitwashisunderstanding thatthemajor objective
ofthisexercise would betheenhancing ofmarket access. Asecond steptomove theprocess forward
could focus ontheissueofcompatibility ofsystems. Afewweeks ago,anumber ofdelegations, some
ofwhich weretoday intheroom, metinthecontext ofanAPEC meeting ongovernment procurement
inTokyo. Anagreement hadbeenreached inthatforum tolaunch apilotproject, which consisted
ofcreating ahomepage ofdatabases ontheInternet. Heexpected thatthehomepage would carry icons
forspecific national databases. Aninterested supplier could gointothishomepage, clickontheicon
ofthecountry hewould beinterested inandgetaccess tothenational database ofthatcountry. As
asecond step, therefore, heproposed thattheInterim Committee takeadecision toexplore the
possibilities ofsetting upapilot project. Herecalled that, attheApril meeting thisyear, the
representative oftheEuropean Communities hadspecifically raised theideaofapilotproject.
71. Therepresentative oftheEuropean Communities confirmed thathisdelegation hadsuggested
theideaoflaunching apilotproject attheApril meeting ofthisCommittee andunderlined theimportance
ofsuchanexercise.
72. Therepresentative ofCanada saidthatitwasdesirable tosetsome guidelines astowhat
constituted apilotproject. Hecautioned thatpilotprojects hadawayofrunning indifferent directions.
Herecalled thathehadmentioned theNASA pilotproject fortheMid-Range Procurement Programme
inhisprevious statement under agenda itemB,which clearly linked theintroduction ofpilotprojects
forinformation technology withthestringent application ofsmall andminority business set-asides.
Asaconsequence, hisdelegation wasconcerned thattheunilateral application ofinformation technology
carried thepotential ofrestricting rather thanenhancing market access. Apilotproject onelectronic
tendering,combinedwiththemandatoryapplicationoftheset-asidesprogramme,increasedthelikelihood
ofaresponse ofatleasttwosmall ordisadvantaged companies. TheEnhanced Electronic PAS
(Procurement Acquisition Supply) system database greatly increased theopportunity oftheidentification
ofsmall business set-asides forsmall andminority firms. There wereearlyindications thattheFACNET
("Federal Acquisition Computer Network Architecture") might beintroduced forallcontracts under
US$250,000 which thenwould nolonger beadvertised intheCommerce Business Daily. While his
delegation would haveaproblem ifthese were thetypeofpilotprojects intended, itdidnothavea
problem withtheconcept ofapilotproject. Clear guidelines forsuchapilotproject would therefore
bedesirable, forinstance application ofnational treatment. Under those conditions, hewaswilling
towork together withother delegations inexploring possibilities foridentifying apilotproject and
inreviewing theprovisions oftheAgreement. However, ifthiswere toinvolve exceptions suchas
small business set-asides, these would havetobesubject toreview aswell.
73. Therepresentative ofJapan saidthatnotallSignatories hadaccess tothesame level of
information technology. Since theaimofanumber ofdelegations wastoincrease thefuture membership
ofthisAgreement,andtheintroductionofinformationtechnologyintotheAgreementcouldbeperceived
byanumber ofcountries asanobstacle toaccession, caution should beshown innotmoving forward
tooquickly inthisarea. Hewassomewhat concerned about theimplications ofthetwoproposals tabled
bytheUnited States today onreviewing theprovisions oftheAgreement andontheidentification of
apossible pilot project. Hisdelegation wasoftheview thatelectronic commerce should bea
supplementary wayoftendering, andonlyifthispossibility were available.GPA/IC/M/5
Page15
74. Therepresentative oftheUnited States saidthathehadbeenandwould continue tobeready
todiscuss andgivefullinformation onpractices anddevelopments intheUnited States. Atthesame
time, healsohoped thattheCommittee would seektounderstand therationale behind initiatives being
developed intheprocurement community andnotignore them. Hisproposal toexplore thepossibilities
oflaunching apilotproject hadbeenaimed atenhancing market access andnotasashield forrestricting
market access. Iftheterm"pilot project" ledtomisunderstandings, hewasready towithdraw the
word.Theideabehindhisproposalwastoexplorewaystoexaminethevariousinformationtechnologies
ineachoftheSignatories, withaviewtoidentifying areas forpossible future coordination toenhance
access. Inresponding totheconcern expressed bytheJapanese delegation, heacknowledged theneed
tobecautious and,inthatcontext, recalled thatone-and-a-half years afterthesigning oftheAgreement
inMarrakesh, delegations werestillonlyexchanging information oninformation technology. Hehad
today proposed averymodest nextstepinreviewing theAgreement andinviting suggestions onthe
identification ofprovisions intheAgreement which merited further attention. However, theInterim
Committee wasalongwayaway from negotiating modifications totheAgreement. Hisauthorities
were perhaps oftheopinion thatmodifications were appropriate buthewasaware thatitwould be
unrealistic tothink thatthatwasgoing tohappen atthenextmeeting. Thatshould, however, notkeep
delegations from taking these nextsteps. With respect totheconcern raised ontheriskofreduced
market access, hepredicted that,asthese issues would beexamined more indetail, what would be
found wasnotthattheintroduction ofinformation technology would result inasituation ofdiminished
market access, butrather thatitmight create toomuch access. Putting procurement andprocurement
opportunities on-line, sothattheywere immediately available forsuppliers anywhere intheworld,
could potentially result insuchalarge number oftenders thattheywould bedifficult toprocess.
75. Therepresentative ofNorway supported theinterventions fromtherepresentative oftheUnited
States. Matters would takealongtimetoripen anditwastimetostarttheprocess. While itwas
important todefine theterms onwhich further action should taken inamanner which wasacceptable
toall,action should notalways bepostponed.
76. Therepresentative ofIsrael saidthatpriorities should bekeptinmind. Thefirstpriority was
fortheAgreement asitstood toenterintoforce andsubsequently tobroaden itsmembership toinclude
other countries. Since thepresent membership oftheAgreement ofdeveloping countries wasvery
limited,accesstotheAgreementinparticularfordevelopingcountriesshouldnotbemademoredifficult.
Hedidnotseeanyproblem inadding theuseofinformation technology towhatwasgoverned bythe
Agreement aslongasthiswasavoluntary andcomplementary wayoftendering. Nobody would object
toobtaining information more easily buthewasnotcompletely convinced ofthemerits oftheUnited
States proposals atthisstage.
77. Therepresentative oftheUnited States saidthatitmight behelpful ifthose delegations who
hadexpressed concerns about therepercussions which theintroduction ofinformation technology in
procurement might haveonthedegree ofmarket access express those concerns inwriting, identifying
anyproblem.
78. Therepresentative ofJapan saidthatanumber ofJapanese suppliers hadexpressed concern
thatduetotherapid development ofinformation technology, theyhadtodealincreasingly withtenders
inalanguage other thanJapanese, mostly English, which tosome wasproblematic. Hehoped that
thisaspect ofthedevelopment ofinformation technology would beincluded infuture discussions on
thistopic.
79. Inthelightoftoday'sdiscussion andinterventions, theChairman invited delegations tocome
forward withprecise ideas inwriting totheSecretariat onthesuggestions putforward today, such
astheproposal toconduct areview oftheAgreement identifying areas which would merit furtherGPA/IC/M/5
Page16
attention, andtolaunch apilotproject toexamine further, andenhance, thedegree ofcompatibility
ofthevarious information systems.
80. TheInterim Committee tooknoteofthestatements made andagreed torevert tothismatter
atitsnextmeeting.
DATE OFTHE NEXT MEETING
81. TheInterim Committee agreed toholditsnextmeeting on7December 1995, immediately
before themeeting oftheWorking Group onRules oftheWTO Council forTrade inServices, which
would, pursuant toArticle XIIIoftheGATS, discuss theissue ofgovernment procurement andthe
GATS forthefirsttimeon8December 1995.