RESTRICTED
WORLD TRADE GPA/IC/M/4
27July1995
ORGANIZATION(95-2181)
Interim Committee onGovernment Procurement
MINUTES OFTHE MEETING HELD ON19AND 20JUNE 1995
Chairman: Mr.Harald Ernst (Switzerland)
1. Thefollowing agenda wasadopted:
A. Application forobservership byTurkey
B. Modifications 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
K. Other business
(i) Certain draftlegislation intheUnited States
(ii) Other matters
A. TURKEY: REQUEST FOR OBSERVERSHIP
2. TheChairman recalled thatTurkey hadapplied forobservership intheInterim Committee
inacommunication reproduced indocument GPA/IC/W/21 of12May1995.
3. Having regard toitsdecision of29June1994 onobserver status intheInterim Committee
(GPA/IC/M/1, paragraph 4),theInterim Committee agreed togrant observer status totheGovernment
ofTurkey.GPA/IC/M/4
Page2
B. MODIFICATION OFAPPENDIX ITOTHEAGREEMENT PRIOR TOITSENTRY INTO
FORCE
4. TheChairman recalled that,atitsJuneandNovember meetings lastyear, aswellasatitsApril
meeting thisyear, theInterim Committee hadtaken upthematter ofthebilateral agreement on
government procurement reached between thenegotiators oftheEuropean Communities andofthe
United States inApril 1994 anditspossible incorporation intotheAgreement onGovernment
ProcurementundertheproceduresadoptedbytheInformalWorkingGroupatitsmeetinginJanuary1994
on"Modifications oftheAnnexes toAppendix ItotheAgreement onGovernment Procurement Before
itsEntry intoForce" (GPA/IC/3). AttheInterim Committee 'sApril meeting, therepresentative of
theEuropean Communities hadexpressed thehopethathewould beinaposition assoonaspossible
toputforward changes totheEC'sAppendices, notonlythose concerning themodifications pursuant
tothebilateral agreement butalsothose inrelation totheconsequences oftheaccession ofthree new
MemberStatesoftheEuropeanCommunities,aswellascertainotherchangeswarrantedbydevelopments
thathadtaken place intheinternal organization ofthegovernments ofsome Member States, including
theproposed changes toAppendix IofSweden ascirculated indocuments GPR/W/133 andGPR/W/139.
5. Therepresentative oftheEuropean Communities saidthathisdelegation wasmaking progress
butnotenough tomake aformal announcement thistime. Hehoped tobeinaposition todosoat
thenextmeeting.
6. TheChairman alsorecalled thattheCanadian Schedule offered tocover entities inallten
Provinces onthebasisofcommitments tobereceived fromProvincial Governments, withafinallisting
tobeprovided within 18months oftheconclusion ofthenewAgreement. AttheNovember andApril
meetings, therepresentative ofCanada hadinformed theInterim Committee ofdevelopments inthis
regard andhadreaffirmed theintention ofhisdelegation torespond onthisissue totheInterim
Committee wellwithin thetimetable asprescribed intheCanadian offer, assoonasnewdevelopments
hadoccurred.
7. Therepresentative ofCanada saidthathisauthorities were continuing discussions withthe
Provinces concerning theircoverage under theAgreement. Hewasnotabletoprovide additional
information atthistime. Anumber ofProvinces hadrecently conducted, orwere intheprocess of
conducting, elections which had,insome cases, delayed thedecision-making process. Hisdelegation
would becontacting theInterim Committee andindividual members assoonashewasinaposition
toprovide further information prior tothenextmeeting. Hereiterated hisdelegation 'sintention to
provide alisting within thetimetable prescribed intheCanadian offer.
C. APPLICATION FOR ACCESSION BYCHINESE TAIPEI
8. TheChairmanrecalledthat,atlastyear'sNovembermeeting,theGovernmentofChineseTaipei
hadsubmitted information onitscurrent procurement régime andonplanned future reforms indocument
GPA/IC/W/9.Atthatsamemeeting,theChairmanhadinviteddelegationswhohadquestionsconcerning
theinformation submitted bythedelegation ofChinese Taipei onitsprocurement régime tosubmit
them inwriting totheSecretariat. Acompilation ofthose questions hadbeencirculated tomembers
oftheInterim Committee inaninformal notedated 6February 1995. Theresponses oftheChinese
Taipei authorities werenowavailable (subsequently circulated todelegations inaninformal notedated
27June1995). AttheApril meeting ofthisyear, therepresentative ofChinese Taipei hadintroduced
itsoffer which hadbeencirculated indocument GPA/IC/SPEC/1 of17March 1995. Atthatsame
meeting, theInterim Committee hadencouraged thedelegation ofChinese Taipei toholdconsultations
withmembers oftheInterim Committee. Inaccordance withtheInterim Committee 'sdecision on
accession of29June1994, theInterim Committee should submit totheCommittee onGovernmentGPA/IC/M/4
Page3
Procurement tobeestablished under thenewAgreement areport onitsexamination oftherequest
foraccession, which mayinclude aninstrument ofaccession, forapproval bythatCommittee.
9. Therepresentative ofChinese Taipei saidthat,sincethelastmeeting oftheInterim Committee
inApril, hisdelegation hadbeenreviewing itsinitial offer, which hadbeensubmitted inMarch and
hadbeencollecting dataforstatistics which would beessential forfuture bilateral meetings. His
delegation would welcome further comments onitsinitial offer through correspondence orbilateral
consultations. Sofar,hisdelegation hadheldbilateral consultations withtheUnited States, theEuropean
Communities andCanada. Hisauthorities werelooking forward tomoresuchbilateral communications
inthenearfuture. Inreply tothequestions from delegations onChinese Taipei 'sgovernment
procurement régime, ascompiled bytheSecretariat andcirculated tothemembers oftheInterim
Committee inaninformal document dated 6February 1995, hisdelegation hadsubmitted aformal
response totheSecretariat. Attherequest oftheInterim Committee, hisdelegation wasprepared to
demonstratetheGovernmentProcurementInformationSysteminthemeetingtomorrow.Hisdelegation
would welcome suggestions andcomments onitssystem.
10. TheInterim Committee tooknoteofthestatements made andencouraged thedelegation of
Chinese Taipei andthemembers oftheInterim Committee toholdfurther consultations onthedraft
offer ofChinese Taipei.
D. APPLICATION FOR ACCESSION BYLIECHTENSTEIN
11. TheChairmanrecalledthat,attheInterimCommittee'sAprilmeeting,Liechtensteinhadapplied
foraccession totheAgreement onGovernment Procurement. Itsofferhadbeencirculated indocument
GPA/IC/W/13, dated 10January 1995. Entities oftheGovernment ofLiechtenstein werecurrently
coveredundertheSwissAppendicestothenewAgreementonGovernmentProcurement.TheAgreement
onGovernment Procurement presently inforce applied toLiechtenstein pursuant toamodification
toAnnex 1ofSwitzerland incorporating theGovernment ofthePrincipality ofLiechtenstein intothe
Swissentitylist.AtitsAprilmeeting,theInterimCommitteeencouragedthedelegationofLiechtenstein
toholdconsultations withmembers oftheInterim Committee. Inaccordance withtheInterim
Committee 'sdecision onaccession of29June1994, theInterim Committee should submit tothe
Committee onGovernment Procurement tobeestablished under thenewAgreement areport onits
examination oftherequest foraccession, which mayinclude aninstrument ofaccession, forapproval
bythatCommittee.
12. Therepresentative ofLiechtenstein saidthatherdelegation hadnot,untilnow, received any
demand concerning itsoffer andthatherGovernment remained open toanswer anywritten ororal
questions inrespect oftheoffer.
13. Therepresentative oftheUnited States saidthathisdelegation hadconducted apreliminary
review ofLiechtenstein 'sofferandwould wanttoengage inconsultations withLiechtenstein, hopefully
ontheoccasion oftheInterim Committee 'snextmeeting, withtheaimofcompleting theaccession
negotiations prior totheentry intoforce ofthenewAgreement. Itwould behelpful forthesakeof
making progress inthese consultations toreceive information onthepotential value ofthecoverage
contained intheoffer.
14. TheInterim Committee tooknoteofthestatements made andinvited thedelegation of
Liechtenstein tosubmit anyfigures onthepotential value ofitsoffer.GPA/IC/M/4
Page4
E. APPLICATION FORACCESSION BYTHEKINGDOM OFTHENETHERLANDS WITH
RESPECT TOARUBA
15. TheChairman recalled that,atitsJune1994 meeting, theInterim Committee hadinvited the
delegation oftheKingdom oftheNetherlands withrespect toAruba tosubmit relevant information
onitsprocurement system including anoffer bywayofappropriate Appendices containing listsof
entities andservices which would becovered bytheAgreement, aswellaslistsofrelevant publications.
Acommunication including adraftoffer hadsubsequently beensubmitted bytheauthorities ofthe
Kingdom oftheNetherlands with respect toAruba andhadbeen circulated todelegations in
document GPA/IC/W/14, dated 8February 1995. AtitsApril meeting, theInterim Committee had
encouraged thedelegation oftheKingdom oftheNetherlands withrespect toAruba toholdconsultations
withmembers oftheInterim Committee. Inaccordance withtheaforementioned decision onaccession
of29June1994, theInterim Committee should submit totheCommittee onGovernment Procurement
tobeestablished under thenewAgreement areport onitsexamination oftherequest foraccession,
which mayinclude aninstrument ofaccession, forapproval bythatCommittee.
16. Therepresentative oftheKingdom oftheNetherlands withrespect toAruba saidthat,sofar,
norequests foradditional information onthedraftoffersubmitted byherdelegation hadbeenreceived.
Herdelegation stood ready toholdconsultations withmembers oftheInterim Committee.
17. Therepresentative oftheUnited States saidthathisdelegation hadconducted apreliminary
review oftheoffersubmitted bytheKingdom oftheNetherlands withrespect toAruba, which looked
reasonably comprehensive, andheaccepted theinvitation toholdconsultations withthatdelegation,
hopefully ontheoccasion oftheInterim Committee 'snextmeeting, withtheaimofcompleting the
accession negotiations prior totheentry intoforce ofthenewAgreement. Itwould behelpful for
thesakeofmaking progress inthese consultations toreceive information onthepotential value ofthe
coverage contained intheoffer.
18. TheInterim Committee tooknoteofthestatements made andinvited thedelegation ofthe
Kingdom oftheNetherlands withrespect toAruba tosubmit anyfigures onthepotential value of
itsoffer.
F. COMPLETION OFAPPENDICES II,IIIAND IVTOTHE AGREEMENT
19. TheChairman recalled that,attheNovember 1994 andApril 1995 meetings oftheInterim
Committee, therepresentative ofCanada hadexpressed thehopethathemight beinaposition later
toprovide further information asregards alistofpublications which hisauthorities would useforentities
atthesub-federal level.
20. Therepresentative ofCanada referred tohisstatement under itemBoftheagenda asregards
thecontinuing discussions hisauthorities wereconducting withrespect tocoverage butalsoinrespect
ofthisquestion andsaidthathehoped tobeinaposition tofullyrespond onthisissuelaterthisyear.
21. 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
andbyentry intoforce oftheAgreement atthelatest. AttheInterim Committee 'sApril meeting,
therepresentative oftheUnited States hadexplained thathisauthorities hadrequested allStateauthorities
toprovide information ontheirpublications, including onanyelectronic publication ofprocurement
opportunities.GPA/IC/M/4
Page5
22. Therepresentative oftheUnited States saidthat,ingeneral, hecould report progress inthe
consultations withtheStates onimplementation oftheAgreement. Hisauthorities expected tomeet
formally withthem attheirannual meeting inSeptember andtheyhadspecifically requested thatthe
information onpublications betransmitted totheFederal Government bythetimeofthatmeeting.
Heexpected tobeinaposition toformally submit such information atthetimeoftheInterim
Committee 'snextmeeting,
23. TheInterim Committee tooknoteofthestatements made.
G. PROGRESS INNATIONAL RATIFICATION PROCEDURES
24. TheChairman invited delegations togivetheGroup aprogress report onthestateofplayin
theirdomestic procedures forratification oftheAgreement. Thepresent situation concerning ratification
wasindicated inadocument issued bytheWTO Director-General entitled Notification ofAcceptance,
dated 27January 1995 andcirculated intheWT/Let/2 series (ref.WLI/304). Healsorecalled that,
attheInterim Committee 'sApril meeting, therepresentative oftheUnited States hadsaidthat,asfar
ashisauthorities wereconcerned, theUnited States hadratified theAgreement anditwould enterinto
force on1January 1996 withrespect tohiscountry. TheSecretariat hadclarified atthatmeeting
thatawritten communication wasnecessary from theUnited States informing theDirector-General
ofitsratification oftheAgreement.
25. Therepresentative oftheUnited States reiterated theUSviewthathisauthorities hadcompleted
allsteps required under Article XXIV oftheAgreement fortheAgreement toenter intoforce with
respect totheUnited States on1January 1996. However, hisdelegation waswilling tosubmit aformal
written notification ofthatfactandwould dosointhenearfuture.
26. Therepresentative ofJapan saidthattheJapanese Diethadapproved thenewAgreement on
Government Procurement on31Mayofthisyear. Adecision bytheCabinet wasnecessary forthe
deposit oftheinstrument ofaccession, which heexpected tobeforthcoming inthenearfuture.
H. RECOMMENDATIONS FORPROCEDURAL DECISIONS BYTHECOMMITTEE TOBE
ESTABLISHED UNDER THE AGREEMENT ONGOVERNMENT PROCUREMENT
27. TheChairman recalled that,atitsApril meeting, theInterim Committee hadinvited the
Secretariat toprepare draftdecisions onprocedural matters required under thenewAgreement, for
discussion atitsnextmeeting. These draftdecisions hadsubsequently beencirculated todelegations
inaNote bytheSecretariat of9June1995. Henoted that,intheWTO, some items, suchasthe
arrangements forobserver status aswellassuchmatters aselection ofchairpersons, frequency of
meetings andreports ofmeetings etc.,were treated aspartofmore general rules ofprocedures. It
would befortheInterim Committee todecide whether itwould wishtorecommend asetofmoregeneral
rulesofprocedure totheCommittee orwhether itwould prefer tolimititselftoprocedures oncertain
specific matters, suchastheonescontained intheNotecirculated bytheSecretariat, andtoleave other
procedural issues tobehandled onthebasis ofcustomary practice, ashadbeenthecaseunder the
Tokyo Round Code.
28. Therepresentative oftheUnited States saidthatitwashisdelegation 'spreference tocontinue
withcustomary practice andtodecide onprocedures asandwhen necessary, rather thandecide on
afullsetofrules ofprocedures fortheCommittee.GPA/IC/M/4
Page6
29. Concerning thedraft decision ontheParticipation ofObservers intheCommittee, the
representative ofJapan introduced anamendment toparagraph 4,changing theword "signatories" to
"Parties". Therepresentative ofCanada hoped tobeinaposition togivehiscomments atthenext
meeting andhence wasobliged totableareserve onanydecision forthetimebeing. Therepresentative
oftheUnited States saidthatitwashisdelegation 'sgeneral viewthatinterest inthenewAgreement
should beencouraged asmuch aspossible, which would primarily beeffected through thegranting
ofobserver status. HisGovernment tookaliberal viewwhen itcame toallowing other countries into
theproceedingsoftheCommitteeinanobservercapacity.Referringtoparagraph1ofthedraftdecision,
hethought thatthereshould bearôlefortheCommittee indetermining whether agovernment complied
withtheconditions specified inArticle XVII, paragraph 1(a)through (c)oftheAgreement. He
understood thisparagraph ofthedraftdecision tomean thatParties totheAgreement would havethe
opportunity toaskforinformation indicating thatagovernment wascomplying withtheprovisions
ofparagraph 1(a)through (c)ofArticle XVII oftheAgreement. Asregards paragraph 5,concerning
restricted sessions oftheCommittee, these occasions ought tobeveryrare. Therepresentative of
theEuropean Communities saiditwould behelpful ifthetextcould besimplified, withaviewtomaking
iteasier foranyWTO Member tofollow theproceedings oftheCommittee inanobserver capacity.
30. Nocomments weremade atthisstage onthedraftdecision onAccession totheAgreement.
31. InrespectofthedraftdecisiononNotificationofNationalImplementingLegislation,inparticular
itsparagraph 2,therepresentative ofJapan didnotseetheneedformaking useofachecklist ofissues
onthewayinwhich Parties hadimplemented theprovisions oftheAgreement, since most ofthe
provisions inthenewAgreement followed those oftheTokyo Round Code. Therepresentative of
theUnited States said,inthisrespect, thatsuchachecklist could behelpful, withaviewtomaking
thenotified legislation morereader-friendly. Thechecklist could taketheformofacover notedescribing
howtheimplementing legislation operated inaParty'sdomestic lawsystem andwould provide basic
information onhowitwasbeing implemented. Thechecklist usedforthispurpose under theTokyo
Code (document GPR/4) wastoodetailed andshould bereviewed, given thegreatly expanded number
ofentities covered under thenewAgreement. Therepresentative ofNorway agreed thatachecklist
inalessdetailed formwould beuseful, recognizing thatsome ofthisinformation could alsousefully
beintroduced intoanewpractical guide. Therepresentative oftheUnited States cautioned inthis
respect thatapractical guide would notmake achecklist ofissues redundant. Thechecklist should
essentially beacover note,which agovernment would attach totheformal notification ofitslegislation.
32. Asregards thedraft decision onModalities forNotifying Threshold Figures inNational
Currencies, therepresentative ofNorway, referring toGeneral Notenumber 9inNorway 'sAppendix I,
inquired whether thisNoteshould bereflected inthefootnote ofthedraftdecision. Therepresentative
oftheEuropean Communities saidthatthefootnote, which referred tothewayinwhich theEuropean
Communities calculated itsthreshold infurtherance ofthepanel decision onValue-Added Taxand
Threshold, applied totheTokyo Round Code andnottothenewAgreement.
33. TheChairman proposed thattheInterim Committee amend paragraph 4ofthedraftdecision
onObserver Status intheCommittee assuggested bythedelegation ofJapan; andtakenoteofthe
views expressed bydelegations asregards thedraftdecision onNotification ofNational Implementing
Legislation andthedraftdecision onModalities forNotifying Threshold Figures inNational Currencies.
Heinvited delegations tosubmit anydrafting suggestions totheSecretariat inadvance ofthenext
meeting, forcirculation tothemembers oftheInterim Committee, withaviewtotheInterim Committee
taking afinaldecision onthefourdraftdecisions atthatmeeting.
34. TheInterim Committee soagreed.GPA/IC/M/4
Page7
I. ESTABLISHMENT OFAPRACTICAL GUIDE TOTHE NEW AGREEMENT
35. TheChairman recalled that,atlastyear'sJunemeeting, theInterim Committee hadconcluded
thatthere wasagreement inprinciple ontheproduction ofapractical guide andhadagreed torevert
tothismatter atalaterstage, inparticular asregards thequestion ofthestructure andpresentation
ofsuchaguide. TheSecretariat hadcirculated aninformal noteon7November 1994onthestructure
andcontent ofaguide tothenewAgreement. AtitsApril meeting, theInterim Committee hadrequested
theSecretariat tostartpreparing anoutline forarevised practical guide, based onsubmissions from
delegations. Todate, nosuggestions hadbeenreceived fromdelegations. However, theSecretariat
hadprepared aNote, intended toprovide abasis forfurther discussion ontheoutline forapractical
guide, taking intoaccount thestructure ofthepresent Practical Guide andpoints made bydelegations
indiscussions attheNovember andApril meetings oftheInterim Committee. ThisNote hadbeen
circulated todelegations on12June, together withacommunication from theChairman, suggesting
astrategy onhowtomove theprocess forward. Itwassuggested that,rather thandiscussing these
matters indetail intheInterim Committee itself, themostappropriate wayofpursuing thiswork might
beforanumber ofdelegations towork together withtheSecretariat onthepossible structure ofanew
practical guide. Theresults ofthisinformal work, which would notcommit anybody, would be
communicated toallmembers oftheInterim Committee withtheaimofproviding abasisforfurther
reflection inthecapitals. Inprevious discussions onthisitemintheInterim Committee, mostofthose
delegations whowereinfavour ofseeking advice frompotential users inthepreparation ofanewguide
hadexpressed apreference fordoing soindividually incapitals.
36. TheInterim Committee soagreed.
J. INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
37. TheChairman recalled thatithadbeenproposed intheannotated agenda andtheAirgram
convening thismeeting thatthemorning of20Junebesetaside forapractical presentation ofthe
possibilities information technology heldforgovernment procurement. Delegations would havethe
possibility todemonstrate suchfacilities asaccess todatabases forprocurement opportunities intheir
capitals andelectronic commerce orprocurement.
38. Turning tothepartofthisagenda itemreserved foracontinuation oftheexamination ofcertain
issues,whichhadstartedduringthepreviousmeetings,theChairmanrecalledthat,atitsNovember1994
andApril 1995 meetings, theInterim Committee hadheldanin-depth discussion onthebasis ofa
questionnaire ontheuseofinformation technology ingovernment procurement (GPA/IC/W/4/Rev.1),
documents GPA/IC/W/7 andAddenda 1through 10,which contained theinformation received from
delegations inresponse tothisquestionnaire, document GPA/IC/W/18, which listed issues for
examination,anddocumentGPA/IC/W/19fromtheEuropeanCommunitieswhich,bywayofaresponse
tothelistofissues, contained anumber ofquestions andcomments.
39. Therepresentative oftheEuropean Communities saidthatitwasimportant tofocus onthe
differences inhowinformation technology wasemployed intheareaofgovernment procurement by
thevariousSignatories.Hewelcomedtheopportunityprovidedbytomorrow'spracticaldemonstrations
toallow some insight intothedifferent approaches. Referring totheSecretariat 'sNoteindocument
GPA/IC/W/18, heagreed thatadistinction should bemade between, ontheonehand, theuseof
information technology interms ofaccess toprocurement opportunities ortransparency andonthe
other handthecarrying outoftheactual procurement process electronically, electronic commerce as
itwassometimes called, which hadenormous implications fortheentire process inwhich procurement
wasdone. Itwasimportant toreview thepossible discriminatory effects ofusing electronic tendering
during thefullprocurement cycle. Itwaspossible thattheprocedures usedbyaparticular SignatoryGPA/IC/M/4
Page8
werebased onthedomestic situation. Itwould beeasier foradomestic supplier totapintothatsystem
thanforanyone else. Information technology should beusedtofacilitate doing business overlarge
distances. Ifitweretobeusedinamanner where oneSignatory would havedeveloped anentire system
inwhich allthetraditional suppliers ofaparticular authority wereparticipating, itsusecould create
anadditional barrier toentry foroutsiders, which would more thanoffset thebenefits resulting from
theuseofinformation technology. Important problems inensuring access toprocurement opportunities
orinensuring transparency existed, which underlined theneedforthecompatibility ofsystems, both
technically andinterms ofcontents. Oneshould ensure thatthesame typeofinformation would be
provided byallsystems. However, iftheWorking Group were totakeuptheissue ofelectronic
procurement seriously, theneedforensuring fulltechnical compatibility between systems andtheneed
toensure thatnonewentrance barriers were created wasevenmore important. Linked tothiswas
another aspect oftheintroduction ofinformation technology, which hadalready beenraised bythe
representative oftheUnited States inprevious meetings, namely thatinformation technology would
probably allow areduction intheminimum amount oftimerequired between thepublication ofanotice
ofintended procurement andthedatebywhich tenders would havetobesubmitted tothecontracting
authority. Suchareduction could putpotential suppliers located abroad inadisadvantageous position
vis-à-vis those established locally andpossibly evenbedetrimental tothem, while atthesame time
favouring locally-established suppliers. Thenon-discrimination element needed therefore tobekept
inmind. Hewasnotreferring tolegaldiscrimination inthesense thatdifferent procedures wereapplied,
butthesameprocedure could haveanimpact onnational andtraditional suppliers, which wasdifferent
from theoneithadonoutsiders. Hisdelegation would therefore likethiselement ofpossible
discriminatory effects tobebrought moretothefore,especially withrespect toelectronic procurement.
40. Therepresentative ofJapan saidthatitwashisdelegation 'sviewthatelectronic tendering should
beasupplementary rather thantheexclusive wayoftendering. Signatories whowereusing electronic
procurement domestically could perhaps share withother delegations theirexperiences soastolearn
more about itsuse. Hisdelegation wasaware oftheimportance ofcompatible standards inusing
information technology butwasnotsurethatthere wasaneedfordelegations tocommit toaspecific
standard.
41. Therepresentative ofCanada thanked thedelegation oftheEuropean Communities foritspaper
circulated indocument GPA/IC/W/19 andhoped thattheEuropean Communities itself would also
beresponding tothevarious questions raised inthispaper.
42. Therepresentative ofKorea wasconcerned thattheleveloftechnological development should
notcreate abarrier toparticipation inaprocurement market.
43. Therepresentative ofIsrael shared theconcerns regarding theproblems flowing fromtheuse
ofelectronic tendering, especially anyelement ofexclusivity, which boretheriskofbecoming very
soonasophisticated non-tariff barrier forsome countries. Hewondered whether thiskindofexclusivity
wascompatible withtheprovisions oftheAgreement onGovernment Procurement. There wasaneed
tomove forward slowly andgiveattention tothese problems.
44. Therepresentative oftheUnited States agreed thattomorrow 'spractical presentations would
allow aninsight intothedifferent approaches followed bythevarious Signatories andwould bethe
firststepinaprocess ofharmonization, identifying possible needs forstandardization. Healsoagreed
thataccess possibilities tocovered procurement should playamajor rôleinthisprocess. Delegations
needed tobeconvinced thataccess toprocurement markets would beenhanced bythedevelopment
ofinformation technologies. Henoted thatanyadvantageous position ofdomestic overforeign bidders
wasnottheresult ofelectronic commerce, butrather hadtodowithacultural focus ondomestic
procurement inaparticular country, reflecting theperception thatgeographical closeness wasan
advantage, notintheleastinmeeting deadlines. TheAgreement onGovernment Procurement containedGPA/IC/M/4
Page9
some procedural rulesaiming atminimizing these disadvantages forforeign bidders andthiswaswhat
theGroup should befocusing oninitsdiscussions oninformation technology. Henoted thattechnical
realities dictated thatthetimewhen theentire tendering process would becarried outelectronically
wasstillsome years away, inspiteoftheaspirations ofcertain procurement officials. Nevertheless,
theintroductionofelectroniccommerceintothefulltenderingcyclehadthepotentialofreducingbarriers
toentry rather thanerecting them. Heenvisaged thatinthefuture, allabidder would essentially need
tohavewould beacomputer hooked uptoanetwork, which would bepossible inevery corner of
theglobe inthenot-too-distant future. ThisCommittee needed toidentify itsobjectives andthe
modalities ofachieving them. Hereiterated thequestion which hehadraised inprevious meetings,
whether theAgreement initscurrent formneeded tobeadapted totakeaccount ofthedevelopments
ofnewtechnologies. Forexample, theprovisions intheAgreement ontheminimum deadlines were
allbased ontheassumption thattendering procedures would bepaper-based. However, new
technologies, which hadnotbeenveryfamiliar during thenegotiations, weredeveloping andneeded
tobetaken intoaccount. There wasaneedfortheGroup toreview theAgreement withaviewto
identifying those areas where changes might bewarranted toaccommodate these newtechnologies
andtoguarantee access tocommercial opportunities, subject tothenewtechnologies. While
acknowledging theconcerns expressed bydelegations interms ofaccess, henevertheless asked that
delegations recognize thattheintroduction ofnewtechnologies hadthepotential ofenhancing access
toprocurement opportunities.
45. Therepresentative oftheEuropean Communities agreed thatfullelectronic procurement was
notsomething which would happen inthenearfuture anditwasprecisely forthatreason thathe
wondered whether thetimewasripetoreduce deadlines intheAgreement aslongasthereweresuppliers
whostilldepended onslowmaildelivery. Heagreed that,atsome stage, theGroup needed toreview
possible changes totheAgreement toaccommodate technological changes, butforthemoment the
focus should beonensuring thatthesystems which were created provided equal opportunities for
everyone, including those whowere notyetabletotender electronically.
46. Therepresentative oftheUnited States agreed thatthereview ofnational practices anddomestic
databases ofSignatories intheareaofgovernment procurement withtheaimofmaking themcompatible
andharmonizing them totheextent possible toensure access wasapriority. Atthesame time, he
nevertheless hoped thattheGroup would notfocus onthisexclusively, butwould alsoexamine some
oftheprocedural issues hehadraised.
47. Therepresentative oftheEuropean Communities agreed thatthere wasalsoaneedtoreview
certain procedural rulesintheAgreement buttechnical andeconomic realities ofthismoment dictated
thatthiswasnotapriority fortheInterim Committee forthetimebeing.
48. Therepresentative ofJapan agreed thatthepractice ofexclusive electronic tendering applied
tothefullprocurement cycle wasnotsomething which would happen anytimesoon. Ifatall,electronic
procurement should, forthetimebeing, beconsidered asasupplement topaper-based tendering. One
oftheaimsoftheAgreement wastoexpand itsmembership, which might include many developing
countries, some ofwhich might nothavethepossibilities tohaveaccess tothelatest technologies.
Hecautioned thattheInterim Committee should notgotoofastinconsidering whatchanges inthe
Agreement might bewarranted bythedevelopment ofnewtechnologies, forfearofdiscouraging new
entrants.
49. Therepresentative ofCanada saidthatitshould betheInterim Committee 'sintent tomove
forward. Itwasnecessary tohaveamodern Agreement, which reflected thedesire ofgovernments
tobeabletoprocure moreefficiently andeffectively aswellasthecommercial interests ofthesuppliers.
Moving forward asefficiently aspossible wastoeverybody 'sbenefit. Hisdelegation hadthesame
concerns onthequestion ofaccess. Inmoving forward, hewould ensure thatCanadian suppliers wouldGPA/IC/M/4
Page10
notbediscriminated against ingetting access toforeign procurement markets andheexpected thesame
toholdtrueforother members vis-à-vis theirsuppliers. There were perhaps certain technological
challenges tohaving complete electronic procurement, butitwasclearthatthere wereways inwhich
theInterim Committee could move forward, particularly onnotification, which would notinvolve
complete electronic procurement. There were areas inwhich progress could bemade now, which
would potentially allow shorter, more efficient processes, forexample biddeadlines. Theissue of
equal access wasofcritical importance tohisdelegation anditwascertainly nothisdelegation 'sintention
tomove ahead recklessly, buthenevertheless encouraged members totakeabroad lookatthisquestion
andhehoped thatthepresentations tomorrow would show thatsolutions could befound which could
beapplied generally. Itwasincumbent upon theGroup toidentify theopportunities offered by
technological developments withaviewtoincorporating themintotheAgreement overtime. Itshould
betheInterim Committee 'sshort-term objective toexamine these opportunities, toexamine howthe
systems wereputinplace, andtocome upwithideas inthenot-too-distant future onhowthiswould
affect theAgreement. Abalance should befound between maintaining equal access toprocurement
opportunities andreaping thebenefits oftechnological developments.
50. Therepresentative oftheEuropean Communities recalled thatthefoundation oftheAgreement
wastoensure non-discrimination, equal opportunities inother words. Herecognized thatinformation
technologies could playanimportant rôleinensuring equal treatment, much more thanthepresent
system. Heonlywanted tocaution against imposing electronic procurement incases where thiswould
notensure equal treatment. Forinstance, introducing electronic procurement inonesector might not
bejustified, while inanother itwould. Hedidnotthink thatanyone would object tointroducing
electronicprocurementinthesectorofinformationtechnology,asasubstituteforpaper-basedprocedures,
since suppliers would obviously bewellcapable ofcoping withsuchtechnology. Whereas incertain
othersectors, forexample incertain sectors ofconstruction, imposing mandatory electronic procurement
would gotoofarforthemoment. Heagreed thatmuch could already bedone atthismoment inthe
areaofinformation technologies, including reviewing therules oftheAgreement, within, however,
theframework oftheunderlying principles oftheAgreement ofcreating more equal treatment.
51. Therepresentative oftheUnited States recalled thatgovernment procurement wasexcluded
fromthescope oftheGATT, byvirtue ofitsArticle III:8. Asimple national treatment requirement,
ascontained inArticle IIIoftheGATT, would notbeenough toensure equal treatment andnon-
discrimination intheareaofgovernment procurement. Signatories totheAgreement hadfound it
essential todevelop procedural guarantees toensure effective non-discrimination. Ifprocurement had
beencovered bythenational treatment obligation ofArticle IIIalone, hewould nothavehadmuch
confidence intheobligations which would existintheareaofgovernment procurement. There would
probably nothave been anAgreement onGovernment onProcurement, noreffective access to
procurement opportunities. Itwasprecisely these procedural rules oftheAgreement which ensured
non-discriminatory treatment. There wasaneedinfuture tocontinually examine theprocedures of
theAgreement onGovernment Procurement toaccount fornewtechnologies andtoensure that,if
necessary, theycould bemodified totakeaccount ofnewbarriers toaccess which might result, with
aview toensuring effective equal treatment. Inexamining these procedural rules, onewould also
havetotakeaccount ofthefactthatcertain ofthese procedures governed asystem which, infuture,
would perhaps nolonger bethepredominant oneingovernment procurement practices ofParties and
could inasense prove tobeaburden totheprocurement communities without facilitating access to
commercial opportunities forthem. Oneshould balance concerns ofmarket access withconcerns of
enhanced efficiency intheprocurement community.
52. Therepresentative ofJapan introduced hiscountry 'sdatabase usedingovernment procurement
whichwasdevelopedbyJETRO(JapanExternalTradeOrganization).Thisdatabasestarteditsoperation
inApril ofthisyearandcontained information onthecurrent Agreement onGovernment Procurement
aswellasontheJapanese Action Programme, which theJapanese Government hadundertaken someGPA/IC/M/4
Page11
years ago. Thedatabase listed alltheinformation contained inKanpo¯,theofficial gazette ofJapan,
intheJapanese language. However, information inEnglish wasalsoavailable andcould beaccessed
though theInternet; forexample relevant information contained innotices ofintended procurement.
53. Therepresentative oftheEuropean Communities asked whether theJapanese database included
procurements atlevels below thecentral government. DidtheEnglish language version ofthe
informationcontainedonthedatabasecoverallJapanesecontractopportunitiesunderthenewAgreement
onGovernment Procurement oronlycertain parts ofit?
54. Therepresentative ofJapan saidthatKanpo¯listed procurements ofthecentral government
andofcertain government-related entities liketheonescovered under thecurrent Agreement. The
database listed contract opportunities under thecurrent Agreement, notunder thenewAgreement.
55. Therepresentative ofCanada welcomed thefactthatthere wasanEnglish language version
available ontheInternet andhehoped tohavetheopportunity tobecome acquainted withitinthenear
future.
56. TheChairman concluded thatthereseemed tobeageneral desire among delegations toensure
thatinformation technology beusedinawaysoastoenhance access toprocurement opportunities
andthatcaution should beexercised toavoid anytrade-discriminatory effects oftheintroduction of
information technology inprocurement processes. Equal andnational treatment should besafeguarded.
Furthermore, theneedwasfelttoensure compatibility between information technology systems, with
aviewtoavoiding thecreation ofobstacles toaccess. Heproposed thattheInterim Committee continue
itsexamination ofdomestic information systems, while inparallel reviewing theprocedural provision
oftheAgreement. Herecalled inthiscontext tomorrow 'spresentation ofthevarious domestic
information systems.
57. TheInterim Committee tooknoteofthestatements made andagreed torevert tothismatter
atitsnextmeeting.
K. OTHER BUSINESS
(i) Certain draftlegislation intheUnited States
58. TherepresentativeofCanadasaidthatitwashisdelegation'sunderstandingthatdraftlegislation,
contained inHR1670, wasintroduced intheUnited States House ofRepresentatives, which would
modify certain procurement procedures. Thedraftlegislation introduced forinstance theconcept of
"maximum practical competition", andtheuseofsimplified acquisition procedures for"commercial
items". Hewould welcome anupdate onthisdraftlegislation from therepresentative oftheUnited
States atsome future dateandwondered whether hecould expand onthepotential implications ofthese
proposals, particularly asregards consistency withthecurrent andthenewAgreement onGovernment
Procurement, inparticular paragraph 1ofArticle XofthenewAgreement, which stipulated that
"....shallselect thesuppliers toparticipate intheprocedure inafairandnon-discriminatory manner".
Could therepresentative oftheUnited States provide aclarification oftheconcepts of"maximum
practical competition" and"commercial items"?
59. Therepresentative oftheUnited States saidthathisauthorities hadreviewed drafts ofthis
legislation tosatisfy themselves thattheywere compatible withhiscountry 'sobligations under the
current andthenewAgreement onGovernment Procurement. Forinstance, hisauthorities were of
theviewthattheproposed simplified acquisition thresholds forcommercial items would becompatible
withsome ofthemore flexible requirements under thenewAgreement, which didallow thepossibilityGPA/IC/M/4
Page12
ofshortened deadlines intheevent ofthepublication ofanannual notice ofplanned procurement.
Commercial items were"off-the-shelf" items. Theexisting procurement system, which hadbeenin
place foralongtimeinhiscountry, often overwhelmed bidders. Heemphasized thatrecent US
procurement reforms wereintended tovastly increase access forforeign suppliers. Forexample, the
draftlegislation concerning commercial items wasintended toencourage entities totakemore into
account whatwasavailable inthecommercial market place, when defining technical specifications.
Thiswasanadvantage forforeign bidders. Asregards the"maximum practical competition", hewould
prefer toobtain more information andcome backtothisissue atalaterstage. Thedraftlegislation
involvedissuesofselectivetendering,theintroductionofprequalificationandthepossibilityofnarrowing
thefieldofpotential tenders, taking intoaccount pastperformance, among other things.
60. TheInterim Committee tooknoteofthestatements made andagreed torevert tothisissue
atalaterstage.
DATE OFTHE NEXT MEETING
61. Itwasagreed thattheChairman would setthedateofthenextmeeting, inconsultations with
delegations, intheautumn. TheChairman saidthathewasthinking interms ofthesecond halfof
October.