Please join the American Bar Association (ABA) Section of Public Contract Law’s Bid Protest Committee for our March 2024 meeting on “Agency-Level Protests.” Topics include:
Executive Order 12979 and the history of agency-level protests;
Factors to consider when deciding whether to bring an agency-level protest;
Jurisdictional and standing issues affecting agency-level protests;
Where and when to file an agency-level protest;
What happens to the contract award while an agency-level protest is pending;
What, if anything, the protester is provided in terms of an administrative record; and
How agency-level protests are decided and reported.
We hope that you can join us for this highly informative presentation. Lunch will be provided for those who RSVP for in-person attendance. Government personnel will have the option to pay $10 for lunch.
Panelists:
Christopher Yukins, Lynn David Research Professor in Government Procurement Law, GW Law (author, ACUS report on proposed agency-level protest reforms, and AIRC congressionally mandated report on DoD bid protests)
Scott Flesch, Member, Miller & Chevalier Chartered
Lt. Col. Bruce Mayeaux, U.S. Army, Deputy Chief Contract & Fiscal Actions Division
Rachel Park, Integrity Officer, Office of the U.S. General Services Administration Suspension & Debarment Official and Agency Protest Official
This was a contribution to a special edition of the University of Nottingham’s Public Procurement Law Review on defense procurement in light of the war in Ukraine. What follows is the abstract, including the British spelling:
Rather than summarising the US national procurement regime for defence—the approach taken by many valuable contributions to this special edition, regarding other nations—this article defers to the existing literature and instead places the US practice of defence procurement law in a broader context, especially in light of Russia’s war against Ukraine. The US experience is that civilian and military purchasing are largely interchangeable, and that hard lessons learned from both quarters, such as in the procurement of supplies in a battle zone and the elimination of trade barriers, could be used to advance the cause of Ukraine and its democratic allies in the current war. The moral imperatives presented by the war in Ukraine are obvious, and this brief piece concludes that legal practitioners in our discipline, even if they are not specifically defence experts, can share a common skillset crucial to preserving democracy and rebuilding Ukraine, despite this terrible war.
This article was first published by Thomson Reuters, trading as Sweet & Maxwell, 5 Canada Square, Canary Wharf, London, E14 5AQ, in the Public Procurement Law Review, 32 Pub. Proc. L. Rev. 445 (2023), and is reproduced by agreement with the publishers. For further details, please see the publishers’ website. The manuscript version of the article is available here on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN).
Gian Luigi Albano of Italy’s centralized purchasing agency, CONSIP, joined Keith McCook (a senior procurement attorney in South Carolina government) and GW Law’s Christopher Yukins on November 10, 2023 to discuss the law-and-economics of framework agreements (which in the U.S. system are known as “indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity” contracts).
They spoke at the 10th anniversary meeting of the National Association of State Procurement Officials (NASPO) Law Institutein New Orleans. The Law Institute is a regular gathering of chief procurement officers (CPOs) and state public procurement attorneys from around the United States.
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.
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.”
U.S. Perspectives on the UK “Green Paper” — Post-Brexit Public Procurement Reforms
On March 10, 2021, Chris Yukins submitted comments to the UK Cabinet Office in response to the United Kingdom’s plan for transforming its public procurement laws after Brexit, in the “green paper” entitled Transforming Public Procurement. These comments respond to consultation questions posed by the Cabinet Office, and provide a U.S. perspective on the proposed reforms.
While our UK-based colleagues Sue Arrowsmith, Anne Davies and Ruairi Macdonald, Jane Jenkins, Michael Bowsher QC and Albert Sanchez-Graells, among others, have published very useful comments on the green paper, these comments focus on points of special interest and concern for the U.S. procurement community — and especially on points of potential cooperation between the United States and the United Kingdom. The two nations have cooperated very effectively in related areas of legal regulation, such as corporate compliance; the green paper presents other areas of potential intergovernmental cooperation, which could improve procurement outcomes, open trade opportunities, and enhance anti-corruption efforts in both nations.
Transforming Public Procurement is the Cabinet Office’s plan (or “green paper”) for a new public procurement legal regime in the United Kingdom after Brexit. Lord Agnew, the Minister of State for the Cabinet Office, called this “an historic opportunity to overhaul” the United Kingdom’s “outdated public procurement regime” – a “dividend,” as it were, “from the UK leaving the EU,” to rebuild the procurement system to make it easier for “innovative companies to win business” and to improve public goods and services by making it simpler “to exclude suppliers that have performed poorly in the past.” Id. at 5-6.
The comments deal with specific questions thematically, with reference (as appropriate) to parallel procedures in the U.S. government’s procurement system, and – most importantly – to how the United Kingdom’s proposed reforms may affect ongoing cooperation with the United States as our two nations reaffirm their special relationship.
In a guest post in the International Economic Law and Policy Blog, Professors Andrea Biondi and Michael Bowsher QC, King’s College London, Professor Christopher Yukins, George Washington University, Dr Luca Rubini, University of Birmingham, and PhD candidate Gabriele Carovano, King’s College London, addressed a European Commission “White Paper” which proposes (among other measures) to exclude foreign competitors from EU procurements if those vendors receive government “subsidies” (very broadly defined) that boost their ability to compete for public contracts in the European Union.
The European Commission’s proposal could harm U.S. vendors that receive support from the U.S. government — such as COVID-19 relief — because European competitors might claim that U.S. firms were receiving barred government subsidies.
The European Commission’s proposal would define government “subsidies” to include any “financial contribution by a government . . . of a non-EU State . . . which confers a benefit to a recipient . . . and which is limited, in law or in fact, to an individual undertaking or industry.” The commentators pointed out the European Commission’s proposal could badly harm U.S. vendors that receive “subsidies” — which some might argue includes CARES Act relief (related to COVID-19) from the U.S. government — in no small part because European competitors could claim that vendors from abroad were receiving subsidies, and thus in effect disable competition from the United States and other nations.
On June 17, 2020, the European Commission published the “White Paper” that called for “levelling the playing field as regards foreign subsidies.” The White Paper has several modules, only one of which (Module 3) addresses public procurement directly. Module 1 would establish a general regulatory instrument to address distortive effects of foreign subsidies, and Module 2 would specifically address distortions caused by foreign subsidies which facilitate the acquisition of EU companies.
The academics submitted their comments to the European Commission as part of the public comment process. While they were generally supportive of Modules 1 and 2, the academic commentators were sharply critical of Module 3, which the Commission described as follows:
Foreign subsidies could also have a harmful effect on the conduct of EU public procurement procedures. This issue is addressed under Module 3. Foreign subsidies may enable bidders to gain an unfair advantage, for example by submitting bids below market price or even below cost, allowing them to obtain public procurement contracts that they would otherwise not have obtained. Under this Module, the White Paper proposes a mechanism where bidders would have to notify the contracting authority of financial contributions received from non-EU countries. The competent contracting and supervisory authorities would then assess whether there is a foreign subsidy and whether it made the procurement procedure unfair. In this case, the bidder would be excluded from the procurement procedure.
The academic commentators noted:
While foreign subsidies may distort the market regarding undertakings (Module 1) and the acquisition of undertakings (Module 2), foreign subsidies in public procurement markets in effect reduce the costs of public services – and so should be separately assessed. Distortions that may be caused by foreign subsidies (displacing higher-cost local producers, for example) are regularly resolved through sustainability measures allowed by the European procurement directives. . . . The framework proposed under the White Paper may . . . displace the legislative regime contemplated by the existing procurement directives, and thus up-end the careful policy decisions that are reflected in those directives.
. . . Module 3 would exclude – disqualify – vendors from public procurements in the European Union, on the grounds that the vendors have received a subsidy from a foreign government. In practical terms the proposal would revise the European Union’s procurement directives by adding an additional ground for exclusion – foreign subsidy – without a normal legislative process. In doing so, the proposal could raise costs for Member States, impair competition in procurement markets across the European Union, open the door to strategic interference by competitors, delay and disrupt ongoing procurements, deprive Member States of best value in their public procurements, and undermine Europe’s relations with key trading partners internationally.
. . . [T]he proposal would defer to the European Union’s obligations under free trade agreements, but assumes – incorrectly – that those obligations are well-defined under instruments such as the WTO Government Procurement Agreement. They are not. For example, the United States covers tens of billions of dollars in preferences by a single sentence in the GPA annexes, which states that the United States’ obligations do not extend to “any set aside on behalf of a small- or minority-owned business.” If the European Commission and Member States, in implementing the proposed measures, read that reservation narrowly and excluded U.S. vendors because other procurement preferences were considered government subsidies not reserved under the GPA, trade relations with the United States and other important trading partners could be badly disrupted.
GW Law Webinar Discussed European White Paper
The White Paper was addressed in a GW Law webinar on EU-U.S. trade, and was discussed in detail in an October 8, 2020 webinar sponsored by Wolters Kluwer, the publishing house. While the public comment period on the White Paper has closed, Eddy De Smijter, Head of the International Relations Unit in DG Competition at the European Commission, made clear during the October 8 session that the Commission continues to welcome informal comments on the proposal.
