South Africa’s New Public Procurement Act – NRF Conference

Photo: Nelson Mandela Bridge, Johannesburg (South African Tourism)

South Africa’s National Research Foundation (NRF) (which coordinates with the nation’s research institutions) hosted a weeklong conference, September 3-6, 2024, to discuss South Africa’s new Public Procurement Act, Act No. 28 of 2024.

Prof. Geo Quinot

The Public Procurement Act was approved by South African President Cyril Ramaphosa in July 2024 and now must be implemented through regulations to be issued by South Africa’s Ministry of the Treasury under Section 63 of the new Act. A number of officials from the Ministry joined the Pretoria conference, which was coordinated by Professor Geo Quinot of Stellenbosch University and Shaun Scott, a leading procurement expert in South Africa.

Shaun Scott

The conference focused on two core issues under the new law: the methods of procurement that will be adopted under the new regulations, and how specifications should be addressed. As the discussion below reflects, those topics extended to related issues such as anti-corruption measures, a new bid challenge forum, and potential issues in South Africa’s international trade policies.

Colloquium Members

The two-day intensive conference, which was attended by several hundred participants from around the world, was book-ended by academic colloquia on methods of procurement and specifications.

Methods of Procurement

How procurement competitions will be run — the “methods of procurement” — is always a key issue under any procurement law. The new South African Procurement Act’s Section 24 is largely silent on what procurement methods South Africa is to use, and leaves it to the Ministry of the Treasury to choose the appropriate methods. (Shaun Scott and his team have compiled an extraordinary list of nearly 200 procurement methods that have been developed worldwide.) The methods ultimately selected in the implementing regulations must be in keeping with Section 217 of the South African constitution, which calls for fairness, equitability, transparency, competitiveness, and cost-effectiveness in the procurement system.

One key goal in choosing appropriate procurement methods will be to encourage innovation in procurement, and Professor Christopher Yukins of George Washington University Law School presented to the conference on some of the innovative procurement approaches that have been followed in the U.S. procurement system and elsewhere.

Prof. Sope Williams

Professor Sope Williams of Stellenbosch followed up to urge, as had Professor Yukins, that South Africa consider adopting “competitive dialogues” — multilateral competitive negotiations — as a method of procurement.

The UN Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) model law has embraced competitive dialogue (known under Chapter II as “requests for proposals with dialogue”), as have the World Bank’s Procurement Framework and the European Union’s procurement directives. In the U.S. government’s system over 60 percent of procurements are conducted using competitive dialogue, and extensive guidance on competitive negotiations has been promulgated under Part 15 of the U.S. government’s Federal Acquisition Regulation.

Competitive dialogue carries more risks of corruption than traditional open tendering, because multilateral negotiations (as Chris Yukins explained in his presentation) present more opportunities for corruption than traditional tenders. (The National Research Foundation’s own “tender box” is shown at left; these types of boxes were long used by bidders for delivering sealed bids.) Unlike traditional tendering, however, competitive dialogue allows the purchasing agency to assess offerors’ diverse prices and technical solutions to obtain best value, rather than simply awarding to the lowest bidder against rigid government specifications.

Gian Luigi Albano

The new methods may be shaped, in part, by technology. Section 28 of the new law calls for South Africa’s Public Procurement Office to implement a modern online procurement system, with open data. In his presentation to the NRF conference, LUISS university’s Gian Luigi Albano (CONSIP, Italy) noted that although it may not make sense to enable all procurement methods by technology, it will be important to determine early on which methods will be supported by the new integrated platform.


Editor’s note: Gian Luigi Albano and other experts joined for a webinar on the new U.S. reverse auctions rule on Wednesday, September 11, 2024

Anti-Corruption Measures

South Africa may be able to undertake more advanced methods of procurement, such as competitive dialogue, because of the anti-corruption strategies built into its new law. As a commission headed by South Africa’s former Chief Justice Raymond Zondo noted in its recent report on “state capture,” South Africa is emerging from a period of intense corruption, much of it centered on public procurement, under the administration of former president Jacob Zuma. As Devi Pillay of the Public Affairs Research Institute (PARI) explained, quoting from the commission’s report:

Former Chief Justice Raymond Zondo

State capture in the South African context evolved as a project by which a relatively small group of actors, together with their network of collaborators inside and outside of the state, conspired systematically (criminally and in defiance of the Constitution) to redirect resources from the state for their own gain.

This was facilitated by a deliberate effort to exploit or weaken key state institutions and public entities, but also including law enforcement institutions and the intelligence services.

News Report on Work of Zondo Commission

To a large extent this occurred through strategic appointments and dismissals at public entities and a reorganisation of procurement processes.

The process involved the undermining of oversight mechanisms, and the manipulation of the public narrative in favour of those who sought to capture the state. Moreover, the subversion of the democratic process which the process of state capture entailed was not simply about extracting resources but was further geared towards securing future power and consequently shaping and gaining control of the political order (or significant parts of that order) in a manner that was necessarily opaque and intrinsically unconstitutional.

President Cyril Ramaphosa

South Africa’s new Procurement Act attempts to address those corruption risks with new anti-corruption measures in Chapter 3, such as provisions on exclusion (Section 13) and debarment (Section 15), and a new Procurement Tribunal for bid challenges (Chapter 6). More broadly, as South Africa’s President Cyril Ramaphosa said, the new law seeks to eliminate “the problem identified by Chief Justice Zondo of fragmentation in procurement laws by creating a cohesive regulatory framework.”

Specifications: Preferences and International Trade

The issue of specifications — and more broadly, how bids will be assessed — raised collateral questions under South Africa’s new procurement law.

One important issue is how procurement preferences (such as those for small enterprises, and those based on race, gender or former military service) will be addressed. Procurement preferences have been a standard part of procurement systems around the world for centuries, as Professor Christopher McCrudden pointed out in his landmark work, Buying Social Justice. Chapter 4 of South Africa’s new procurement law shifts to new preference strategies (much like those in the U.S. federal system) based not on price advantages but rather on set-asides and mandatory subcontracting plans to favor preferenced groups.

Notably, while Chapter 4 includes strong preferences for certain groups, it has almost no provisions regarding facilitating strategies to encourage participation by small and disadvantaged businesses. These companion strategies to encourage participation by small and disadvantaged business are reflected, for example, in the European Union’s “Small Business Act” (inspired by a U.S. law of the same name).

Professor Tunde Tatrai

A separate but related question, addressed by Professor Tunde Tatrai (Corvinus University of Budapest) at the conference, is how South Africa will integrate into international and regional trade agreements regarding procurement, such as the World Trade Organization’s Government Procurement Agreement. International trade agreements — for example, the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership — have grown more accommodating of social preferences in covered procurement regimes. Even with its strong procurement preferences under the new law, therefore, South Africa may be able to join these international free-trade agreements in the coming years, and so increase access to its procurement markets for more international competition while opening opportunities abroad for South Africa’s exporters.

Conclusion

Although South Africa’s new Procurement Act contains some surprising gaps — as noted, the new law contains almost no details on what types of procurement methods are to be used, or on measures to facilitate small enterprises’ participation in procurement — complaining about gaps in the law may miss the broader point. As President Ramaphosa suggested, the law reflects a new direction in South Africa, a bridge away from the corruption that previously deeply tainted its procurement system. The recent conference at the National Research Foundation thus marked an important step forward in South Africa’s progress towards its future as a new nation.

Related Materials

IRSPP 10/NIGP Workshop in Charlotte, North Carolina

On August 22, 2024, Chris Yukins and Tom Daley (DLA Piper) presented to the International Research Study of Public Procurement (IRSPP) group’s tenth workshop, in Charlotte, North Carolina, as part of the NIGP (Institute for Government Procurement) annual conference.

Asked to address an emerging “technology” in public procurement, Tom and Chris discussed the rapidly evolving law surrounding “green procurement” (environmentally sustainable procurement). They assessed the law as a sort of flexible “technology” or “operating system” that bends and changes to reflect real-world conditions and offers a highly efficient means of sharing lessons learned across borders.

Special thanks to Professor Jane Lynch of Cardiff University who did such a wonderful job organizing the IRSPP workshop.

Stockholm Public Procurement Conference 2024 – U.S./EU Convergence on Debarment and Beyond

Stockholm City Hall photo: Julian Herzog

Andrea Sundstrand

David Drabkin, Daniel Schoeni and Christopher Yukins spoke at the “Upphandlings-Konferensen” (“Public Procurement Conference”) held in Stockholm on April 25-26, 2024. The conference was very kindly hosted by Professor Andrea Sundstrand of Stockholm University.

David Drabkin

Dave Drabkin and Chris Yukins’ presentation, drawing on their report on debarment for the Acquisition Innovation Research Center, addressed convergence of the contractor exclusion/debarment systems in the United States and the European Union. A recent decision by the Court of Justice for the European Union, Infraestruturas de Portugal SA, explained that the EU Public Procurement Directive should be read to mean that procuring agencies in the EU have clear first authority to handle vendor exclusions and to assess vendors’ misconduct and remedial measures — from the U.S. perspective, a critical step in building effective risk-based debarment regimes in Europe to allow agencies to manage supply chain risk. (For background on the Infraestruturas decision, see Adrian Brown‘s recent piece in the Public Procurement Law Review and Albert Sanchez-Graell’s insightful analysis.)

Daniel Schoeni

Daniel Schoeni’s presentation — which was very well-received by the assembly of Swedish procurement attorneys — reviewed the parallels between the EU and the U.S. systems. Drawing on his PhD thesis at the University of Nottingham, Dan Schoeni explained that while the legal frameworks in the U.S. and the EU are remarkably similar, their foundations and implementations vary widely because of their different histories, politics and perspectives.


King’s College, London / GW Law Symposium: Anti-Corruption and the New UK Procurement Rules

Live and Online – Free
Wednesday, May 25, 2022 – 14:00-17:00 UK
Streaming Online: 9:00-12:00 Eastern US / 15:00-18:00 CET

Join us at King’s College London for a discussion of proposed anti-corruption measures in the United Kingdom’s new procurement regime, post-Brexit.

Topics

King’s College, London – Somerset House – 25 May 2022

Moderator

Michael Bowsher

Panelists

  • Sue Hawley, Executive Director, Spotlight on Corruption
  • Gavin Hayman, Executive Director, Open Contracting Partnership
  • Albert Sanchez-Graells, Professor of Economic Law, University of Bristol Law School
  • Jessica Tillipman, Assistant Dean for Government Procurement Law Studies & Professorial Lecturer in Law, George Washington University Law School
  • Sope Williams-Elegbe, Professor and Head of Department of Mercantile Law, and Deputy Director of the African Procurement Law Unit, Stellenbosch University
  • Christopher Yukins, Lynn David Research Professor in Government Procurement Law, George Washington University Law School

Registration is for the online session; health conditions permitting, a limited number of spaces for the in-person session will be made available

Resources

Official

UK Cabinet Office, Transforming Public Procurement (Dec. 2020) (the “Green Paper, calling for public consultation)

UK Cabinet Office, Transforming Government Procurement: Government Response to Consultation (Dec. 2021)

The Queen’s Speech (May 10, 2022) (announcing new legislation)

Prince Charles Delivers The Queen’s Speech (May 10, 2022)

UK Government resource page on new procurement legislation.

Procurement Bill

UK Government Cost Impact Assessment

House of Lords — Collected Materials on Bill

House of Lords — Summary of the Procurement Bill (May 20, 2022)

House of Lords Debate (Second Reading of the Bill) (May 25, 2022)

Academic/COMMENTARY

Sue Arrowsmith, Constructing Rules on Exclusions (Debarment) Under a Post-Brexit Regime on Public Procurement: A Preliminary Analysis (July 24, 2020), https://ssrn.com/abstract=3659909 

Nigel Boardman, Review of Government Procurement in the COVID-19 Pandemic (May 2021) (independent report published by UK Cabinet Office)

Alison Jones, Combatting Corruption and Collusion in UK Public Procurement: Proposals for Post-Brexit Reform, 84 Modern L. Rev. 667 (July 2021), https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2230.12626

Albert Sanchez-Graells, UK Procurement Law Reform: Queen’s Speech Update (May 10, 2022).

Albert Sanchez-Graells, Initial comments on the UK’s Procurement Bill: A lukewarm assessment (May 2021)

Jessica Tillipman & Samantha Block, Canada’s Integrity Regime: The Corporate Grim Reaper, 53 Geo. Wash. Int’l L. Rev. 475 (2022), https://ssrn.com/abstract=4081297

King’s College, London / GW Law on Exclusion and Debarment (March 2019)

Open Contracting Partnership, Mythbusting Confidentiality in Public Contracting

John Pachter, Christopher Yukins & Jessica Tillipman, U.S. Debarment:  An Introduction (discussion draft 24 February 2019), published in Cambridge Handbook of Compliance (Cambridge University Press, Daniel Sokol & Benjamin van Rooij eds.).

UK Anti-Corruption Coalition, Our Ten-Point Improvement Plan for the UK Procurement Bill (May 2021)

Christopher Yukins & Michal Kania, Suspension and Debarment in the U.S. Government: Comparative Lessons for the EU’s Next Steps in Procurement, 19-2 UrT 47 (2019), https://ssrn.com/abstract=3422499


NASPO Study of State Procurement in the Pandemic – Key Lessons Learned

In a groundbreaking academic study coordinated by the National Association of State Procurement Officials (NASPO), private and public supply chain professors from across the United States conducted a nationwide survey of states’ responses to the pandemic. The study was based on over 100 hours of interviews conducted by the academic research team (Professors Robert Handfield (North Carolina State University), Zhaohui Wu (Oregon State University), Andrea Patrucco (Florida International University), Christopher Yukins (George Washington University) and Thomas Kull (Arizona State University)) with many states’ procurement staff, suppliers, and other state officials. Key takeaways from the study:

Assessing state procurement systems through a maturity model. Different states responded very differently to the pandemic, based in part on their organizational structures and preparations for the disaster. To help states better prepare, the researchers developed a “maturity model” to assess state procurement systems, in preparation for future catastrophes.

Courage and professionalism in the face of catastrophe. The researchers’ interviews with state procurement officials and suppliers “corroborate observations made in much of the disaster science research: disasters often bring out the best in us, and people rise to the occasion.” The study noted “how private citizens collaborated with entrepreneurial state employees to identify innovative and little-known PPE suppliers and often established innovative solutions to seemingly hopeless situations where PPE could not be found. Purchasing managers, staff members, and CPOs [Chief Procurement Officers] emerged as heroes. Our interviews revealed the pride and renewed sense of professional identity . . . . We observed a growing sense of camaraderie as people faced a common crisis.”

Centralization of the state procurement function was a key factor in success. The study’s results suggested “that increased centralized governance of state procurement led to a more effective response in tackling large-scale supply chain disruptions.” Centralized procurement “enabled increased coordination, improved leveraging of the volume of the state’s purchasing power, and provided for more efficient application of contracting expertise to a difficult market situation.” A centralized approach, the study found “also led to better coordination among disaster relief entities, PPE suppliers and hospitals, counties, and agencies requiring PPE to operate.”

Constitutional issues in federal-state confrontations over critical supplies. In principle, the federal government should have helped better coordinate states’ responses to the pandemic. In practice, however, during the early stages of the pandemic the federal government was repeatedly accused of abusing its powers under the Defense Production Act to seize and redirect emergency supplies that had been purchased by individual states — although, under the U.S. federalist system of government, the states bear first responsibility for the health and welfare of their citizens, constitutionally, practically, and politically. The study argued that “[s]erious consideration should be given to whether the Defense Production Act should be amended to recognize the deference owed by the federal government to the states under the Constitution, much as many other federal laws (such as those governing federal grants, use of National Guard troops, etc.) recognize and defer to the sovereign authority of the states.”