Our colleagues at the Public Procurement Research Group at the University of Nottingham, led by Professors Sue Arrowsmith and Peter Trepte, will be hosting the ninth of their “Global Revolution” conferences on June 17-18. Academics and practitioners from around the globe (including a team from GWU Law School) will join the program for one of the world’s leading conferences on emerging developments in public procurement law.
On February 20, 2019, Dr. Colette Langos, a Senior Lecturer at the University of Adelaide, made a very interesting presentation at GWU Law School, on developments in Australia’s bid protest procedures. She explained that these latest reforms, outlined in her attached slides, were an important part of Australia’s accession to the WTO Government Procurement Agreement.
Presentation given by Daniela Panus, Public Procurement Agency, Republic of Moldova, at a conference in Chisinau on December 7, 2018.
Defense_Security_UE_Michal_Kania_Final_version – Published
Visiting Fulbright scholar Professor Michael Kania (Silesian University) will present on European Defense Procurement at George Washington University Law School, Law Learning Center 006, 2028 G Street NW, Washington, DC, from 6-8 pm on Tuesday, November 6, 2018. His presentation is linked above. If you would like to attend this open seminar, please reserve a space with Cassandra Crawford, ccrawford@law.gwu.edu.
Editors Jonathan Davey and Amy Gatenby have issued a sixth edition of The Government Procurement Review — an excellent resource for those researching national laws in procurement, across borders.
SSRN Link: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3176223
60 GOV’T CONTRACTOR ¶ 138 (2018)
7 Pages Posted: 10 May 2018
Date Written: 2018
Bid protests — vendors’ challenges to contracting officials’ errors, either before or after award — have been an established part of federal procurement for at least a century. Protests (sometimes called “challenges” or “remedies proceedings” abroad) are a recognized bulwark against corruption in the United States, and have become a standard part of procurement systems around the world, often at the urging of the United States. But new proposals being considered for U.S. government procurement in practice could dramatically limit bid protests, in the name of streamlining the procurement process. This drastic change to U.S. procurement practices could violate international agreements under which the United States has agreed to maintain an effective bid protest system, and could raise new risks of corruption in procurement.
Russia’s S
pecial Procurement Investment Contracts (SPIC).
From the Public Procurement Institute (Moscow, www.roszakupki.com):
SPIC is an agreement between investor and the Russian Federation and/or region of the Russian Federation under which investor commits to invest certain amount of money in creation, development or modernization of production facilities at the territory of Russia while the government guarantees freezing of tax burden and stability of normative requirements to products for the duration of an investment project and is obliged to apply stimulating measures to the investor, including tax benefits. And procurement idea is that starting from September 1, 2016 SPIC investors are entitled to claim the right to sell up to 30 % of produced merchandise under public procurement procedure on a non-competitive basis.
Background paper: investment-contract-russia
On October 5, 2016, Benedetta Audia (UNOPS) is to present training on UN procurement, presentation-un-procurement-gw-benedetta-audia-oct-5, at George Washington University Law School, 2000 H Street NW, Room L402. Admission is free.
An interesting comment by Jean Grier on the ongoing EU-U.S. debate over procurement trade data, and the impact that debate is having on TTIP negotiations. Ms. Grier was previously the lead negotiator on procurement for the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, and is an internationally recognized expert on procurement and trade.
Editor’s note: Michael Bowsher is the coordinating co-chair of the September 19, 2016 conference at Kings College London, which will address procurement issues after Brexit; registration is free, at http://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/opening-transatlantic-procurement-markets-tickets-25739851589. Michael’s contribution below is part of a very interesting review of regulatory issues that may emerge from Brexit.
___________________________________
Procurement
Michael Bowsher QC of Monkton Chambers considers the potential implications for the EU procurement regime, a key area for criticism from those who have campaigned to leave the EU.
“At a very simple level, it is hard to see politicians, administrators or courts wanting the disposal of the money raised from taxpayers to be done without some transparent framework in which to operate. Perhaps even more fundamentally though, these are not just the EU’s rules (which of course reflected many of the UK’s demands). Any modern trade agreement between industrialised nations includes a chapter regarding the opening up, and therefore also the regulation of, government procurement markets. The EU rules themselves are actually the expression in the EU of the requirements of the WTO’s Government Procurement Agreement (GPA). The UK or England and Wales could join the WTO without joining the GPA, but it would be very strange if it did given the list of countries that are already signed up.
“Finally, it already seemed likely that the EU would soon legislate to provide for the means of closing its own government markets to countries that did not provide reciprocal access. If that happened, we would have to put in place something comparable to the GPA rules just to continue trade for this 20% or so of the EU market, and those GPA rules require something very like the EU directives with some appropriate remedies. So, while there will be a lot of change, some elements of the current system are likely to remain.
“In the short term, there will be an immediate impact on projects, research and so forth funded by the EU, or in some way related to the EU. Those dependent on those projects and research that are funded may be immediately affected. The volume of government funded work generally may reduce and this will affect the practice of procurement law, although history shows that this can be unpredictable. Quite often when there are more people chasing less work, there is more concern as to how that smaller pie is distributed and more disputes over the result.”