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:
Debarment – the exclusion of a firm or individual from working with a government – allows governments to protect themselves from the reputational and performance risks posed by unqualified firms and individuals. As a March 2019 conference at King’s College, London made clear, governments the world over are reforming their debarment systems, though often in strikingly different ways. The U.S. government is now moving to reform its debarment system, by more closely aligning the rules that govern debarments for grants and contracts. The rules would be revised “to improve consistency between the procurement and non-procurement procedures on suspension and debarment, based on recommendations of the Interagency Suspension and Debarment Committee,” under a pending Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) reform case No. 2019-015. Many have long argued for this reform, and a 2017 Public Contract Law Journal article by Robert Meunier and Trevor Nelson described the issue in detail. A report on the pending FAR case is currently due in January 2020, and the U.S. Office of Management and Budget anticipates that a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) will be published in February 2020. We will be tracking this issue closely in a special short seminar that George Washington University Law School offers online, on suspension and debarment.
On October 28, 2019, a training session was held in Tbilisi, Georgia on anti-corruption efforts. The session was convened by the European Union’s “twinning” project, “Strengthening Public Procurement Practices in Georgia,” and moderated by Ms. Dana Mitae, Legal Advisor and Consultant for the Department for Consulting, e-Procurement and International Affairs, Federal Procurement Agency of Austria, Austria. The session built on Georgia’s Association Agreement with the European Union, which calls in Chapter 8 for Georgia to incorporate important elements of the European Union’s procurement directives into Georgia’s own laws and institutions. The session was opened by Mr. Levan Razmadze – Chairman of State Procurement Agency of Georgia, and outside experts included Prof. Christopher Yukins, George Washington University (USA), Mr. Mihai Dragutescu, President of the Senate for Administrative Cases (Romania), and Ms. Maja Kuhar, President of the State Commission for Supervision of Public Procurement Procedures, Zagreb (Croatia).
Mihai Dragutescu, President of the Senate for Administrative Cases (Romania)
On April 30, 2019, the U.S. Department of Justice’s Criminal Division announcedrevised guidance for assessing corporate compliance systems. The guidance goes to what authorities abroad sometimes call corporate “self-cleaning” — efforts by private firms to identify and remediate improper behavior. (See, for example, Article 57 of European Public Procurement Directive 2014/24/EU.) The new guidance expands on the 2017 guidance (below), and elaborates on the Justice Department’s summary discussion of corporate compliance programs in the Justice Manual § 9-28.800.
The new guidance is noteworthy, though, for stressing (at pages 9-12) that a firm with an effective compliance system should maintain a strong compliance function, either in-house or through an outsourced vendor. As companies around the world move to implement compliance systems, they should recognize that enforcement authorities will often expect to see a robust compliance function in place, with the autonomy and authority necessary to address emerging risks of corruption and misconduct.
