On October 9-10, 2024, the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework for Prosperity (IPEF) held a workshop on anti-corruption in public procurement in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. (Workshop materials.) The workshop was part of “Pillar IV” of the Framework, which aims to advance. The objective of Pillar IV of the Framework is to advance cooperation, stability, prosperity, development and peace within the region by focusing on “fair economy” issues, including anti-corruption. The workshop, coordinated by Annika Wythes of the UN Office of Drugs and Crime (UNODC), included representatives from many of the member nations of IPEF — Australia, Brunei Darussalam, Fiji, India, Indonesia, Japan, the Republic of Korea, Malaysia, New Zealand, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam.
Representatives from the Open Contracting Partnership and Open Ownership (which supports public access to beneficial ownership information) also contributed to the workshop. The UNODC report on outcomes of the workshop is available here.
Background
When the White House announced the launch of the IPEF in 2022, the Biden administration said that it would seek a “fair economy,” in “commitments to enact and enforce effective tax, anti-money laundering, and anti-bribery regimes that are in line with our existing multilateral obligations.” Those efforts were reflected in the “Fair Economy Agreement” entered into by the IPEF members, which included extensive measures to fight corruption in procurement, from bid challenges to debarment (including corporate compliance and remedial measures), and from open contracting to efforts to disclose contractors’ beneficial owners.
Report on IPEF Member States’ Anti-Corruption Practices
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.
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 byProfessor Geo Quinot of Stellenbosch University and Shaun Scott, a leading procurement expert in South Africa.
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.
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.
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.
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:
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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’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.
On November 3, 2022 panelists joined with Professor Geo Quinot and Professor Sope Williams from Stellenbosch University, South Africa, for a very interesting discussion of public procurement and international trade across the African continent.
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
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
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
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.).
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
Join GW Law for another free hourlong webinar, on President Donald Trump’s abrupt removal of four inspectors general and his announcement that a fifth will be dismissed shortly. In the last few months Trump has:
Fired Michael Atkinson, inspector general for the U.S. intelligence community, who passed forward to Congress the whistleblower complaint regarding Ukraine that helped lead to Trump’s impeachment by the House of Representatives.
Removed Glenn Fine, acting inspector general of the Department of Defense, who was slated to chair the federal panel Congress created to oversee the Trump administration’s management of the $2 trillion COVID-19 stimulus package.
OustedChristi Grimm as head of the Office of the Inspector General for the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), after she published a report critical of the Trump administration’s preparations for the COVID-19 pandemic.
Notified Congress on Friday, May 15, 2020 that Steve Linick, Inspector General of the State Department, will be fired effective June 15, 2020 (after the statutory 30-day notice period), after Linick reportedly launched an inquiry into Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, according to a statement issued by the chairman of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, Rep. Eliot Engel.
On the same day, removedMitch Behm, the acting Inspector General at the Department of Transportation, nominated Justice Department attorney Eric Soskin to be the permanent Inspector General, and designated Howard “Skip” Elliott as the Department’s Acting Inspector General. House Democrats had earlier requested an investigation into alleged favoritism shown by DOT in its dealings with the husband of Secretary of Transportation Elaine Chao, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, who is seeking reelection. When acting inspector general Mitch Behm was replaced, Democrats voiced concern that his removal was prompted by the requested investigation involving Secretary Chao.
An expert panel will discuss these actions against the inspectors general, which many have criticized as a collapse of the rule of law in Washington, opening the door to corruption in this and future administrations.
The panel will be moderated by Christopher Yukins, who teaches on anti-corruption in the Government Procurement Program at The George Washington University Law School, joined by:
Lisa Rein
Lisa Rein of the Washington Post will discuss President Trump’s recent actions against inspectors general across the federal government.
Jessica Tillipman teaches anti-corruption and government ethics law at The George Washington University Law School. She will discuss the role of inspectors general in the U.S. government under the Inspector General Act of 1978, and the balance that the Act draws between the power of the President and the independence of the inspectors general.
Clark Ervin
Clark Ervin, a partner at the law firm of Squire Patton Boggs who served as inspector general at three federal agencies during the administration of President George W. Bush, will discuss the role and independence of inspectors general historically, from the perspective of a former inspector general.
Noah Bookbinder
Noah Bookbinder is Executive Director of the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), and previously served as an attorney in the Justice Department’s Public Integrity Section. He will discuss the pattern of Trump administration moves against inspectors general, the implications for potential corruption, and possible pathways to reform.
The webinar “Trump’s Attacks on the Inspectors General” had over 200 registrants from five continents
A new threat has emerged in the pandemic: fraud in the supply chain for critical COVID-19 supplies. Governments the world over are fighting back against price gouging and defective supplies. What tools are available, and will they work? Join a free one-hour webinar with GW Law, as experts discuss these critical global developments in anti-corruption and procurement.
Moderators: Christopher Yukins, GW Law School (Washington); Jean-Bernard Auby (Professor emeritus, Sciences Po Law School (Paris)); Gabriella Racca (University of Turin); Laurence Folliot Lalliot (University of Paris Nanterre (joining from Dakar))
Jessica Tillipman, GWU Law School – Co-chair, ABA SIL Anti-Corruption Committee
On February 13, 2020, at 12:00 noon ET, the American Bar Association (ABA) Section of International Law (SIL) Anti-Corruption Committee will join with the ABA Public Contract Law Section (PCLS) Suspension and Debarment Committee, for an informal lunchtime session on developments in international debarment. The session will be moderated by Assistant Dean Jessica Tillipman, George Washington University Law School, Washington DC.
Christopher Yukins, George Washington University Law School (who co-teaches courses on anti-corruption with Dean Tillipman), will discuss emerging international models for debarment, and the impact that new electronic marketplaces may have on debarment globally. With regard to the U.S. experience, he has drafted a book chapter with John Pachter and Jessica Tillipman, for a forthcoming book on compliance by Cambridge University Press. Professor Yukins has also co-written a piece with Professor Michal Kania (U. Silesia – Katowice), comparing debarment in the United States and the European Union.
Pascal Friton, a partner in the BLOMSTEIN firm, Berlin, will discuss how the European Union’s member states are addressing exclusion and debarment, drawing on a piece he presented at the Thomson Reuters Government Contracts Year in Review in February 2019. He also will be speaking on the afternoon of Tuesday, February 18, 2020 at this year’s Year in Review conference.
Collin Swan, World Bank
Collin Swan, of the World Bank’s Office of Suspension & Debarment, will discuss his office’s debarment survey and the office’s ongoing research into other debarment systems (beyond the United States and the World Bank). See his FCPA Blog post on the survey.
Grace Sullivan, a third-year student at the George Washington University Law School, recently won first prize in the Public Contract Law Journal annual writing contest for her note (which was also accepted for publication in the Journal). Her note analyzes three case studies of foreign contractors debarred by the U.S. government: Chinese telecommunications giants ZTE and Huawei, and Russian cybersecurity firm Kaspersky. Ms. Sullivan will be presenting on her note at the March 2020 ABA PCLS Federal Procurement Institute in Annapolis, MD.
Dial-in Information:
If you are calling from the US, here are your instructions:
US Dial-in Number (local toll): (515) 606-5440
Access Code: 509353
If you are calling from outside the US, here are your instructions: