From 5-7 March 2025, South Korea’s Public Procurement Service hosted an extraordinary conference featuring centralized purchasing agencies from over half of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) member states, from North America, Europe and Asia. The conference presentations, available for download here, addressed next steps for central purchasing bodies, including in sustainability, procurement-for-innovation and artificial intelligence (AI). The program was kindly coordinated by Paulo Magina and Erika Bozzay of the OECD, and was led by Korean Public Procurement Service (PPS) Administrator Lim Ki-keun (left center front in photo below).
In response to President Trump’s threats to impose severe, across-the-board tariffs on goods from the European Union (EU), EU policymakers have warned that the EU may respond by deploying its “trade bazooka,” the EU Anti-Coercion Instrument. This could have an important impact on U.S. vendors in EU public procurement markets.
The EU Anti-Coercion Instrument is an EU regulation, formally Regulation (EU) 2023/2675 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 November 2023 on the protection of the Union and its Member States from economic coercion by third countries, which provides the EU with a range of remedies to deploy in the face of international trade “coercion.”
The European Commission describes the Anti-Coercion Instrument “first and foremost” as “a deterrent against economic coercion.” Where “coercion” occurs, the tool provides EU policymakers with a “structure to respond in a well-calibrated way to stop the coercion,” through a “a wide range of possible countermeasures when a country refuses to remove the coercion.” Besides tariffs, those counter-measures can include “restrictions on access to . . . public procurement.” The Anti-Coercion Instrument “provides a legal framework for responding to coercion and sets down the means for the EU to investigate and take decisions.” It includes timeframes and procedures for stakeholders to work with the Commission before the EU launches countermeasures, and “provides a framework for the EU to request a third country to repair the injury caused by its economic coercion.”
Under the Anti-Coercion Instrument, “economic coercion” occurs when another country “applies or threatens to apply a . . . measure affecting trade or investment” in order stop or curb an action by the EU or a Member State, “thereby interfering in the legitimate sovereign choices of the Union or a Member State.” Before deploying the Instrument, the EU is to take into account the “intensity, severity, frequency, duration, breadth and magnitude” of the other nation’s measures, whether the other nation “is engaging in a pattern of interference seeking to prevent or obtain particular acts” from the EU, its Member States or another nation, whether the “coercive” nation’s measures encroach “upon an area of the Union’s or a Member State’s sovereignty,” and whether the “coercive” nation has failed to make good-faith efforts to resolve the matter. European leaders and economists have argued that the Trump administration’s attacks against the EU meet all of those triggers.
The Anti-Coercion Instrument includes, in Annex I, potential countermeasures which would impact public procurement. Those countermeasures could be deployed despite potential violations of “applicable international obligations concerning the right to participate in tender procedures in the area of public procurement” — in other words, even if by taking those measures the EU risked violating the World Trade Organization (WTO) Government Procurement Agreement, which opens the EU and U.S. public procurement markets. (The Anti-Coercion Instrument does not explicitly address the bilateral reciprocal defense procurement agreements which are vital to open defense markets between the United States and its NATO allies.)
The Anti-Coercion Instrument says that, with regard to public procurement, “goods, services or suppliers” from a targeted “coercive” nation can be excluded from public procurements in the European Union. Alternatively, bids (tenders) that include goods or services from “coercive” nations can also be excluded, or the scoring evaluation of those bids can be adjusted.
If the EU deploys the Anti-Coercion Instrument against U.S.-based vendors, goods and services in EU Member State procurements, the consequences could be severe. European Commission data show that U.S. vendors, goods and services enjoy a substantial share of the EU public procurement markets, directly and indirectly. The coming weeks will be critical as the EU decides whether to use the Anti-Coercion Instrument to respond aggressively to perceived “coercion” from the Trump administration.
President Trump has announced a series of tariff initiatives, including proposed 25% tariffs on goods from Canada and Mexico, 10% tariffs imposed on goods from China (White House fact sheet), and proposed “reciprocal” tariffs on goods from nations that impose higher tariff rates.
When foreign goods are imported for sale to the U.S. government, if proper procedures are followed, the goods generally should be free from tariffs, per longstanding U.S. regulations. For information on U.S. agencies’ exemptions from tariffs in their procurements, see the analysis compiled here.
On February 21, 2025, GW Law’s Government Procurement Law Program held a webinar on rising U.S. and EU protectionism, which discussed recent caselaw in the EU Court of Justice and the Trump administration’s tariff initiatives.
On December 9-11, 2024, GW Law’s Christopher Yukins met with classes of Professor Laurence Folliot Lalliot at the University of Paris – Nanterre, to discuss U.S. and comparative public procurement.
On December 9, 2024, in celebration of International Anti-Corruption Day, GW Law’s Christopher Yukins will join the International Anti-Corruption Academy (IACA) to discuss IACA’s future contributions to global efforts to fight corruption in public procurement.
Our work over the years with IACA has allowed us to explore how risk-based anti-corruption strategies complement – and strengthen – public procurement outcomes. Bid challenges (protests), for example, and contractor compliance, debarments and legislative oversight — all of these mitigate both the risks of failure in public procurement and the risks of corruption. The next step will be to integrate those risk-based anti-corruption strategies with international best practices, such as through the OECD and the European Union’s forthcoming revised procurement directives.
On November 10-12, 2024 academics and public procurement professionals from around the world gathered at Dublin City University for the inaugural International Conference for Advancing Public Procurement (ICAPP 2024), coordinated by colleagues from Florida Atlantic University and launched with the kind support of NIGP, The Institute for Public Procurement.
GW Law’s Christopher Yukins presented on issues of green procurement on the first day of the conference. The focus of this post is on several excellent presentations made during the second day, during the “legal issues” session chaired by Professor Tünde Tátrai of Corvinus University, Budapest.
Damages as a Legal Remedy in Bid Challenges (EU)
Alice Lea Nikolay, LL.M. of the University of Vienna (WU), from the Institute for Austrian and European Public Law, presented on “Damages as a Remedy – Recent Developments and Future Perspectives.” She presented on damages that may be available in a bid challenge (a “bid protest” in the United States) under the European Union’s procurement directives, and suggested how damages may be dealt with in the future under the EU’s evolving procurement law.
Bid Challenges (Protests) in Croatia
Ema Menđušić Škugor, PhD, Co-Managing Partner of Divjak, Topić, Bahtijarević & Krka in Zagreb, Croatia, presented on “The Mess of Redress in the Croatian Public Procurement System.” She explained that the Croatian public procurement system is a complex one, even without considering the redress mechanisms available to its participants. But its redress segment remains a separate story. Several authorities are separately competent and offer varying degrees of protection. Some are widely used, in particular the appeals mechanism before the State Commission for Supervision of Public Procurement Procedures and the administrative dispute which can be initiated before the High Administrative Court. However, these mechanisms seemingly suffer from a continuous lack of governmental recognition regarding their practical significance – the administrative fees for initiating procedures before the State Commission are the highest in the country, while the High Administrative Court itself challenged the award of its exclusive competence in public procurement matters before the Croatian Constitutional Court. On the other hand, some mechanisms are (despite their importance) scarcely present on the market due to persistent lack of resources – this primarily concerns the ex-ante and ex-post inspection review procedure by the Ministry of Economy as the authority competent for overseeing the entire local public procurement system. In short, the environment denotes a concerning lack of consistency. Moreover, it lacks strategic, as well as expert vision and political will to, firstly, consider the public procurement system as a whole and, secondly, propose a redress system corresponding to its needs. Her slides, presented at the International Conference for Advancing Public Procurement (ICAPP) 2024, aim to shine a light on the current shortcomings of the redress system in Croatian public procurement legislation, with the purpose of opening up a discussion towards actions and solutions to overcome them.
Understanding Kolin and EU Protectionism
Marko Turudić, a professor in the University of Zagreb Faculty of Law, presented on “Exclusion of Third Country Economic Operators from EU Public Procurement — The Aftermath of the Kolin Judgement.” He led a spirited discussion of the Court of Justice for the European Union’s recent decision in Kolin, which (see post) may open the door to more aggressive protectionism in EU public procurement.
Spurred by the report on The Future of European Competitiveness led by former Italian Prime Minister Mario Draghi, institutions across Europe are examining how to promote innovation through public procurement. On November 13-14, 2024, GW Law’s Christopher Yukins met with his colleagues in Europe about these ongoing initiatives.
Photo: C. Yukins, N. Meershoek, W. Jannsen, E. Manunza, Elior Korem
At the University of Utrecht’s School of Law, Professor Yukins met with Professor Elisabetta Manunza and her team to discuss academic cooperation between the EU and U.S. procurement research communities. Among other things, they discussed ongoing research with NATO’s Defense Innovation Accelerator for the North Atlantic (DIANA). University of Utrecht Associate Professor Willem Janssen and University of Auckland professor Marta Andhov have dealt often with issues of innovation through procurement in their award-winning podcast, BESTEK. Utrecht Assistant Professor Nathan Meershoek has written extensively on the challenges of innovation in defense procurement; NATO’s unit to foster innovative technology, DIANA, is one answer to those challenges.
DIANA was established by NATO to find and accelerate dual-use innovation capacity across the Alliance. DIANA provides companies with the resources, networks and guidance to develop deep technologies to solve critical defense and security challenges.
Professor Yukins also met with Stephan Corvers and his team in s-Hertogenbosch. The CORVERS consultants are legal experts in strategic public procurement, innovation and contracting. CORVERS has been asked to help assess best practices in procurement for innovation, from around the world, on behalf of the European Assistance For Innovation Procurement – EAFIP, an initiative financed by the European Commission (DG CONNECT) to provide local assistance to public procurers to promote innovation and best practices.
A few days after those meetings, the European Commission announced a series of initiatives to advance innovation in procurement. Those initiatives included a public consultation on possible updates to the EU procurement directives — including, importantly, a review of how the directives might be updated to foster innovation.
On November 14, 2024, GW Law student Justin Duffy (JD Class of 2025) presented on reverse auctions across the U.S. states. He discussed the recent federal rule endorsing electronic reverse auctions (prior webinar), and a proposed federal rule which would bar reverse auctions for construction services. Drawing from the strengths and weaknesses of those federal rules, Justin reviewed reverse auctions in various states’ procurement systems — noting which states are ahead of and behind the federal regulations, and what a provision on reverse auctions might look like in the ABA Model Procurement Code, which is undergoing an update. He was joined by Ben Koberna, who has many years of practical experience in implementing reverse auctions across the United States and the world.
Chris Yukins prepared a recorded briefing for Stevens Institute of Technology’s Systems Engineering Research Center (SERC) – Acquisition Innovation Research Center (AIRC) Research Council Meeting on November 13, 2024. In the briefing, Professor Yukins reviewed some of the prior and pending AIRC projects (including on DoD bid protests and mandatory debarment) on which he has worked with David Drabkin, former Senior Procurement Executive (SPE) for the U.S. General Services Administration and chair of the Procurement Roundtable.
