RESTRICTED
WORLD TRADE GPA/W/13
7May1996
ORGANIZATION(96-1811)
Original: English Committee onGovernment Procurement
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY: CONSEQUENCES FOR THE GPA
OFTHE DEVELOPMENT OFINFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
INTHE FIELD OFPUBLIC PROCUREMENT
Communication from theEuropean Community
Thefollowing communication from thedelegation oftheEuropean Community, dated
25April 1996, hasbeenreceived withtherequest thatitbedistributed tothemembers oftheCommittee.
_______________
1. Informationtechnologywillplayamajorroleinpublicprocurement.Oneofthewaysofmaking
public purchasing procedures more efficient istopromote maximum transparency; using newmeans
ofcommunication willenable thisobjective tobeachieved more effectively. Thequestion tobe
addressed istherefore notwhether these technologies willhavearoletoplayinpractice inthepublic
procurement fieldbutwhatroletheywillplay.
2. Although theGPA alludes tonewtechnology, itwasdrawn upwithout thetopic specifically
inmind. Given theparticularly rapid paceofchange inthisarea,itwillsoonprove necessary toamend
certain aspects oftheAgreement. Thiswasforeseen bythedrafters oftheAgreement, whoconsidered
thatanysuchamendments should beaimed at"ensuring thattheAgreement doesnotconstitute an
unnecessary obstacle totechnical progress" (Article XXIV(8)). TheCommunity accordingly shares
theopinion already expressed bytheUnited States indocument GPA/IC/W/36 of21December 1995,
totheeffect thattheGPA should evolve inlinewithdevelopments inthefieldifitisnottobecome
toofarremoved from therealities ofpublic procurement.
3. TheUnited States mentions inthatdocument three points onwhich discussions could begin,
namelymoreextensiveuseoftherestrictedprocedure,thepossibilityofpublishingnoticeselectronically,
andshortening deadlines. TheCommunity agrees thatthese aretopics onwhich discussions willhave
tobegin inthenearfuture.
Asfarasthefirstpoint isconcerned, excessive transparency could admittedly bedifficult to
copewithforcertain types ofproduct (especially basic products), asthepurchasing entity could find
itself swamped withtenders. Thisisnotthecaseforallproducts, however. Furthermore, theaim
ofpublic procurement istosecure thebestvalue formoney byselecting thebestoffer. Increasing
thenumber oftenders canhelptoachieve this. Toomany tenders forproducts thataretoosimple
canundeniably result inextra costs anddelays. Butbefore recourse totherestricted procedure is
facilitated under theGPA, itshould beseenwhether technology cannot beusedtoalleviate theburden
onthepurchasing entity while guaranteeing non-discrimination. Suitable tools formaking arapid
selection oftenders onthebasisofsimple, effective andnon-discriminatory criteria could perhaps be
developed.
./.GPA/W/13
Page2
ThetextsoftheGPAwillfurthermore probably havetobeamended inorder tomake itclear
thatelectronic publication andelectronic transmission areallowed.
Once more efficient means ofcommunication havebeensetinplace, consideration could be
given tothepossibility ofshortening deadlines inorder tospeed uptheselection process. Itwould
havetobecertain, however, thatallsignatories totheGPAhadsetupelectronic transmission systems.
Weshould notforget herethatpossible newparties totheAgreement maynothavesuchsystems.
Thought willtherefore havetobegiven toways andmeans ofensuring thatelectronic systems with
different degrees ofsophistication cancoexist.
4. FortheCommunity, however, thefundamental question tobeaddressed istheneedtoensure
thatthedevelopment ofnewtechnologies doesnothavetheeffect inpractice ofhindering access to
contracts inthecountries oftheother signatories. Thisissue isclosely bound upwiththequestion
ofhowthenational treatment clause istobeinterpreted. Theemergence ofelectronic tendering can
paradoxically havetheeffect ofblocking access tocontracts inthecountries oftheother signatories.
Afewsimple examples willsuffice toexplain why.
Ifasignatory country weretodevelop anelectronic system which isaccessible toallsuppliers,
itwould formally becomplying withtheprinciple ofnational treatment. Butifthatsystem was
incompatible withthoseexisting intheothersignatory countries, theeffect inpractice could betorestrict
access forsuppliers from those other countries, whowould befaced withanunfamiliar system.
Electronic tendering canboost transparency, butthesystems themselves must alsobetransparent,
compatible andreadily accessible toallsuppliers.
Thiswould apply allthemore soifthedeadlines forresponding toinvitations totender were
shortened. Even ifthere wasnoapparent difference intreatment between domestic suppliers and
suppliers established inother signatory countries, thepractical effect, ifthedeadlines wereextremely
short, would betofavour domestic suppliers since theothers would firsthavetofindtheinformation
inanelectronic system which wasnottheirown. Itshould therefore always beborne inmind that,
ifitweredecided topursue thiscourse, itcould stillprove necessary tokeeplonger deadlines inorder
toensure thatcontracts aregenuinely opentointernational competition.
Lastly, electronic tendering doesnothing toreduce thelanguage barrier. Experience inthe
Community shows thatlanguage canbeamajor barrier which isnotovercome persethrough theuse
ofelectronic transmission. Itwilltherefore benecessary todevelop toolsthatmake itpossible toachieve
greater transparency inthisconnection despite language differences, which willremain. Electronic
transmission can,however, facilitate suchdevelopments.
These different problems already existatpresent, buttheuseofnewtechnologies can,in
particular byspeeding upthepurchasing process andmaking itlesstransparent, haveparadoxical effects
which willhavetobemonitored closely.
TheCommunity therefore takes theviewthatallthechanges thatcould bemade totheGPA
totakeaccount oftechnological progress should bebased onagenuine principle ofnon-discrimination
which goesbeyond theconcept ofnational treatment. TheUSsuggestions maybeunderstood asaiming
tomake theprocedural rules more flexible inthecaseofcontracts awarded partly withtheaidof
information technology. While theintroduction ofinformation technology canindeed make forgreater
transparency andcanjustify more flexibility incertain specific cases, itshould bebacked upby
reinforcement ofsome ofthebasic rules oftheGPA sothattheopening-up ofprocurement isnot
undermined.