David Drabkin and Christopher Yukins presented on October 3, 2024 at the International Public Procurement Conference 9, a regular event which was held this year in the emirate of Umm Al Quwain in the United Arab Emirates. (Because of a surge in armed hostilities in the Gulf, they presented virtually.) Messrs. Drabkin and Yukins discussed the congressionally mandated reports they did on bid protests and mandatory debarment for labor violations, through Stevens Institute of Technology’s Acquisition Innovation Research Center; those studies, they explained, are examples of how, as the OECD has noted, public procurement can be seen more broadly as a form of risk management.
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.
Congress directed that a report prepared for Stevens Institute of Technology’s Acquisition Innovation Research Center (AIRC) by principal investigators David Drabkin and Christopher Yukins be extended to provide training on potential exclusion and debarment of contractors that have violated U.S. labor laws. The training was done through a two-session webinar series coordinated by the Defense Acquisition University (DAU).
As DAU noted in launching the training, the Department of Labor has thousands of records on violations by federal contractors. The purpose of the training was to explain how to access and assess those records when evaluating contractors, including when assessing their present responsibility.
Expert roundtable on accessing and considering labor law violations, including senior officials from the Labor Department, debarment experts and senior contracting personnel.
David Drabkin (Procurement Round Table) and Christopher Yukins (George Washington University Law School) discuss two reports done for the Acquisition Innovation Research Center (AIRC), on U.S Defense Department bid protests (bid challenges) and mandatory debarment (exclusion). This presentation was prepared for the annual Swedish public procurement conference (“Upphandlingskonferensen“) in Stockholm, May 4-5, 2023, hosted by Prof Andrea Sundstrand of Stockholm University.
The U.S. General Services Administration (GSA) on June 26, 2020 announced the award of three contracts which will allow government users to make billions of dollars in purchases directly from “electronic marketplaces” online. The contracts were awarded to Amazon Business, Overstock.com and Fisher Scientific. This “commercial platforms” initiative, detailed in Government Contractor pieces available here and here, could radically reshape public procurement in goods and services, as government users will be able to make “micro-purchases” (typically up to US$10,000) directly from these commercial platforms.
Join a webinar to discuss these developments on Tuesday, June 30, 2020 at 12 noon Eastern. Info. Registration.
This is a three-year pilot (or “proof-of-concept“) initiative. The estimated total value of these contracts is $6 billion annually, and GSA announced that it expects these online platforms to be available in 30 days.
Now that GSA has made awards on the pending solicitation, contractors may choose to join the online marketplaces which could regularize access to approximately 4.5 million federal personnel.
While the cap on micro-purchases is normally $10,000, that cap has increased to $20,000 in the pandemic, and GSA and the Office of Management & Budget (OMB) (within the White House) have urged Congress to increase the limit to $25,000 for purchases through GSA’s approved portals. Although as noted GSA estimates that $6 billion in sales could go to these new electronic marketplaces, micro-purchases across the federal government total several times that amount.
GSA and OMB have urged Congress to increase the micro-purchase threshold to $25,000 for purchases through GSA-approved portals
While the transactions through these electronic marketplaces will be directly between vendors and federal users, GSA will earn a .75% referral fee on every sale, or $45 million on a conservative estimate of $6 billion in sales every year. This fee matches the “industrial funding fee” charged by GSA for sales through the Multiple Award Schedules contracts, though the electronic marketplaces apparently will entail little workload and few legal obligations for GSA. This fee to a centralized purchasing agency may prove attractive to other centralized purchasing agencies, both in the United States and abroad, when those other agencies consider entering into similar arrangements with Amazon or other online marketplaces.
Micro-purchases by users on the commercial platforms will carry almost no regulatory requirements.
Unlike traditional federal contracts, the micro-purchases on the commercial platforms under Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Subpart 13.2 will carry almost no regulatory requirements. This means that buyers and vendors working through the commercial platforms will be able to avoid the competition and transparency normally required for federal procurements, and will not need to meet socioeconomic requirements such as the Buy American Act.
The initiative has raised questions regarding cybersecurity. The U.S. government is imposing tighter cybersecurity requirements, such as the Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification (CMMC) being implemented at the U.S. Department of Defense. While the awarded contracts should exclude certain products from vendors such as Kaspersky Labs and Huawei, other security issues may arise as security standards change.
Department of Homeland Security – Best Practices Guide on “Combating Trafficking in Counterfeit and Pirated Goods”
Questions have also arisen regarding counterfeit goods on the commercial platforms. GSA has announced that it intends to follow best practices guidance regarding counterfeit goods published by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.
Because of these and other risks, the new initiative may result in a spike in debarments. Unlike traditional federal contracts, vendors joining the online marketplaces and selling directly to federal users will not go through the same careful vetting for price, quality and qualification (responsibility). Individual government officials using these marketplaces may not have the requisite skills to assess quality and past performance. As a result, the government may seek to exclude vendors, through debarment or otherwise, if they pose serious corruption, reputational or performance risks.
The next month could prove a pivotal time for this initiative. Contractors will need to assess whether and how their federal market strategies may shift if federal users turn to this new sales channel. For government agencies it may also be a time of assessment, as agencies weigh whether federal customers—specifically, non-procurement personnel—should be specially trained to take on more authority for direct micro-purchases.
GWU Law will be hosting a free hour-long webinar on GSA’s “commercial platforms” initiative on Tuesday, June 30, 2020, at 9:00 Pacific, 12 noon Eastern and 18:00 CET.
As a result of its January 2020 trade deal with China, under which the United States agreed to find new ways to stop counterfeit goods in online marketplaces, the Trump administration has stepped up its fight to stop counterfeit goods from China – and that fight may have a direct impact on a pending GSA procurement (no longer under protest) to open commercial online marketplaces to federal purchasers.
In a
recent piece,
Jason Miller of Federal News Network asked whether President Trump’s January
31, 2020 Executive Order, Ensuring Safe & Lawful E-Commerce for US
Consumers, Businesses, Government Supply Chains, and Intellectual Property
Rights, may affect the U.S. General Services Administration (GSA) “electronic
marketplaces” acquisition.
Counterfeit goods (photo: USCBP)
GSA’s “electronic marketplaces” procurement was previously stalled by a protest by Overstock.com at the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO). The grounds for that protest may never be known, since the protest was withdrawn on February 24, 2020. The “electronic marketplaces” procurement would allow federal officials (users – not necessarily contracting officials) to make billions of dollars in micro-purchases (generally below $10,000) directly from the awardee commercial e-commerce platforms.
President Donald J. Trump (Official White House photo by Shealah Craighead)
Section 1. Policy. E-commerce,
including transactions involving smaller express-carrier or international mail
packages, is being exploited by traffickers to introduce contraband into the
United States, and by foreign exporters and United States importers to avoid
applicable customs duties, taxes, and fees.
* * * *
It is the policy of the United States Government that any person
who knowingly, or with gross negligence, imports, or facilitates the
importation of, merchandise into the United States in material violation of Federal
law evidences conduct of so serious and compelling a nature that it should be
referred to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) of the Department of
Homeland Security for a determination whether such conduct affects that
person’s present responsibility to participate in transactions with the Federal
Government.
It is the policy of the United States Government, as reflected
in Executive Order 12549 of February 18, 1986 (Debarment and Suspension), and
elsewhere, to protect the public interest and ensure the integrity of Federal
programs by transacting only with presently responsible persons. In
furtherance of this policy, the nonprocurement debarment and suspension system
enables executive departments and agencies to exclude from Federal programs persons
who are not presently responsible. CBP implements this system by
suspending and debarring persons who flout the customs laws, among other
persons who lack present responsibility. To achieve the policy goals
stated herein, the United States Government shall consider all appropriate
actions that it can take to ensure that persons that CBP suspends or debars are
excluded from participating in the importation of merchandise into the United
States.
It is the policy of the United States Government that express consignment operators, carriers, hub facilities, international posts, customs brokers, and other entities, including e-commerce platform operators, should not facilitate importation involving persons who are suspended or debarred by CBP.
Peter Navarro
Senior White House trade adviser Peter Navarro said this on CNN on the same day:
The DHS will
immediately begin working to combat trafficking in counterfeit and pirated goods
by: aggressively applying civil fines and penalties to bad actors, suspending
and debarring repeat offenders and treating foreign sellers of goods as
responsible parties subject to sanctions.
As this new
report documents, the private sector can do much more to combat counterfeit and
pirated products trafficking. It sets forth a set of private sector
“best practices” that include: significantly enhanced third-party
marketplace vetting; limits on high-risk products such as prescription drugs,
infant formula and airbag components; rapid notice and takedown procedures; and
pre-sale identification of third-party sellers. The administration also
wants e-commerce platforms to provide clearly identifiable country of origin
disclosures, which brick-and-mortar retail providers are required to
provide but online sellers often are not.
These best
practices are not meant as mere suggestions. The federal government will use
all means necessary to encourage rapid adoption and to monitor progress.
Taken together, these announcements suggest:
GSA’s assessment of the electronic marketplaces bidders may include the “best practices” outlined by Peter Navarro. Navarro called on Amazon and other e-commerce platforms to fight counterfeits in the wake of the recent U.S. trade agreement with China, and he again cited those “best practices” in an interview with the Washington Post, in which he sharply criticized Amazon and others for not having adequate protections against counterfeiters. GSA’s “Statement of Objectives” for the electronic marketplaces procurement already calls on the e-marketplaces to control supply chain risk; the revised solicitation was not explicit as to whether these new anti-counterfeit concerns would also be part of the technical evaluation and/or the contracting officer’s responsibility assessment for award.
The Trump administration’s focus on preventing counterfeits suggest that federal users buying directly with government purchase cards may be required, or at least strongly encouraged, to use the e-commerce platforms eventually approved under GSA’s “electronic marketplaces” initiative. Federal users, in other words, may be discouraged from making direct purchases outside the GSA-approved platforms.
Mass debarments of vendors on the e-commerce platforms — which are very possible, because the government has no other ready means (e.g., past performance or technical evaluations, responsibility determinations, etc.) to protect itself when federal users make rapid purchases from the e-commerce platforms — may begin with Customs and Border Protection (CBP) debarments:
CBP may target for debarment any third-party vendor on an e-commerce platform that “knowingly, or with gross negligence, imports, or facilitates the importation of, merchandise into the United States in material violation of Federal law.” While the Executive Order focuses on counterfeits and contraband, in principle a wider array of importing firms may be at risk if they facilitate violations of federal law.
The e-commerce platforms themselves may be targeted for debarment, on the same grounds. Since each user micro-purchase is a new purchase, debarment (a bar against purchasing) may in effect disable an e-commerce platform from selling to further federal purchasers.
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.
