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the Minister of State for the Cabinet Office, called this “an historic opportunity to overhaul” the United Kingdom’s “outdated public procurement regime” – a “dividend,” as it were, “from the UK leaving the EU,” to rebuild the procurement system to make it easier for “innovative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.
The attached paper, prepared shortly before President Biden was inaugurated, discussed key trade issues for the incoming administration in public procurement. The piece reviewed major trade measures in procurement taken during the Trump administration – most of which were predictable from the time Trump was elected. The paper turned to the major trade challenges that face the Biden administration, in areas as diverse as climate change, cybersecurity and the protectionism in post-Brexit Europe, and then assessed how the Biden administration might address these challenges, especially given Joe Biden’s support for “Buy American” policies during the 2020 campaign. The paper also assessed how the new administration might cooperate on these difficult issues with the United States’ allies abroad. The paper concluded that the Biden administration’s main challenge was restoring confidence abroad in the United States as a responsible trading partner in procurement; once that goal was met, the paper argued, the more technical issues of trade in procurement would be much easier to address.
The paper’s concerns that the new administration might take a protectionist turn, per Joe Biden’s campaign promises, soon proved well-founded. On January 25, 2021, only a few days after entering office, President Biden signed an executive order calling for strengthened “Buy American” policies in U.S. procurement. Commenting on the order, The Economistwrote that while the order was “protectionist in spirit,” the United States’ existing trade commitments “mean that Mr Biden’s measures may not have much effect.” For background on the executive order– including the history of the Trump administration trade policies in procurement, and questions raised by the new order — please see the slides attached here.
The denouement to the Biden executive order suggests that, in the short term at least, the Biden administration will not go beyond the tighter Buy American Act requirements imposed by the Trump administration
The denouement to the Biden executive order suggested that, while it called for closer scrutiny of waivers and exceptions to the Buy American Act, in the short term at least the Biden administration would not go beyond the tighter Buy American requirements launched by President Trump in July 2019 under Executive Order 13881. President Trump’s order calling for stricter “Buy American” requirements was published as a proposed implementing Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) rule on September 14, 2020 (85 FR 56558), and the final FAR rule was published on January 19, 2021 (86 FR 6180). The final Trump rule, in keeping with his executive order, aggressively tightened domestic content requirements under the Buy American Act. President Biden took office the next day, on January 20, 2021. President Biden issued his “Buy American” executive order (EO 14005) several days later, on January 25, 2025. On or about that same date, the Biden administration undertook a FAR review to assess whether the Trump regulations needed to be reconsidered. By February 25, 2021 (roughly one month later) the Biden administration concluded that no further changes were needed to the “Buy American” regulations. FAR Case 2021-004, closed 2/25/21. The Biden administration thus appeared to close the book on further changes to the FAR “Buy American” rules, at least temporarily — perhaps at least until the broader policy reviews called for by the Biden order (such as a review of the “Buy American” exception for commercial information technology) are concluded.
From “GSA’s Commercial Marketplaces Initiative: Opening Amazon & Other Private Marketplaces To Direct Purchases By Government Users,” by Christopher Yukins, Kristen Ittig, Abraham Young & Eric Valle (Thomson Reuters – Briefing Papers, December 2020)
The authors — Chris Yukins, Kristen Ittig, Abraham Young and Eric Valle — will join a webinar on the GSA “commercial platforms” at noon Eastern on Monday, March 22, 2021 — register here
The U.S. General Services Administration (GSA) opened a new chapter in public procurement by awarding three contracts—to Amazon Business, Overstock.com, and Fisher Scientific—which will allow federal users to buy directly from online electronic marketplaces, with sales anticipated to total $6 billion annually. This proof-of-concept effort, dubbed the “commercial platforms” initiative by GSA, marks a radical departure from traditional procurement practices because it will allow individual Government users (not necessarily procurement officials) to make “micro-purchases” (generally up to $10,000) using Government purchase cards. By removing the federal procurement system as an intermediary in the purchasing process, and in essence outsourcing the selection of available sources to private providers of electronic platforms, GSA’s initiative has both reshaped procurement and potentially redrawn a marketplace.
This paper reviews the purpose and history of GSA’s commercial platforms initiative, which began with a mandate from Congress to explore electronic commerce options and evolved through long exchanges with industry, users, and other stakeholders. In assessing the reasons for the initiative, the paper notes a longstanding concern that users’ needs were not being met by the traditional procurement system. The paper discusses GSA’s decision to steer the initiative to existing commercial platforms and reviews key elements of the solicitation used to frame the “no-cost” contracts with the online marketplaces. Because Amazon Business was by far the most prominent of the awardees—indeed, Amazon had played an ongoing role in pressing for the procurement—and vendors may want to sell through the commercial platforms to reach federal customers, this paper focuses on Amazon Business’ procedures in discussing how vendors might join the commercial platforms. The paper concludes with a series of Guidelines that vendors and other market participants might use, as they enter this new corner of the federal marketplace.
Response from Michael Tregle, Buyer Incentives and Administrative Burdens in the Commercial Platforms Initiative – In response to the published piece, Mike Tregle argues that “GSA may have gone a step too far by devolving buying authority down to end-users. In partial rebuttal . . . I will address the impact such a change may have on best value determinations and the related administrative burdens of oversight and management of the program. The [commercial platforms initiative], as currently implemented, may in fact reduce overall value while increasing the risk of waste and the administrative burdens on agencies.”
King’s College London and GW Law will be presenting a free webinar on the European Commission’s “White Paper” on foreign government subsidies, which would impose new EU measures to address foreign subsidies, including in public procurement.
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.
Global challenges related to the climate changes as described in the Paris Agreement influence various aspects of public policies across the world. This leads us to observe in the U.S. presidential candidate Joe Biden’ s New Green Deal, and in Europe, where for example the New Industrial Strategy for Europe calls for the support and implementation of the green aspects in public procurement. Also, the New European Green Deal and the Just Transition Fund should have a significant impact on the public procurement market and regulations.
Although Green Public Procurement (GPP) is still a non-mandatory legal instrument, the European Commission has opted for this solution as an effective measure in the EU’s efforts to become a more resource-efficient economy. GPP can help stimulate a critical mass of demand for more sustainable goods and services which otherwise would be difficult to get onto the market.
The new European initiatives are important not only for European public authorities and contractors but also for U.S. enterprises interested in Transatlantic cooperation.
The Institute of Law at the Univeristy of Silesia, Association ‘’Pro Silesia,’’ with the support of the George Washington University’s Government Procurement Program, invite you for a 90-minute, free webinar concerning current challenges and opportunities for green public policies and their influence on public procurement markets in the USA and the European Union, with discussions with leading specialists from both sides of the Atlantic.
Agenda and Speakers:
Prof. Jerzy Buzek, Member of the European Parliament, President of the European Parliament in the years 2009–2012, Prime Minister of the Republic of Poland in the years 1997–2001
New Green Deal and Just Transition Fund
Prof. Alexandra Harrington, University of Albany School of Law, Assistant Director of the Global Institute for Health and Human Rights (USA), Adv.Magdalena Stryja, University of Silesia in Katowice, Just Transition Research Group (Poland)
Intersections between Global Governance Regimes and Climate Change Law
Prof. Christopher Yukins, George Washington University, Washington D.C. (USA)
The U.S. experiences with the support of environmental aspects in government contracting.
Dr Wojciech Hartung – Counsel, Domański Zakrzewski Palinka (DZP) (Warsaw)
European Green Deal and Just Transition Fund reflections on the European Public Procurement legal regime
Adv. Katarzyna Kuzma, DZP, Public Procurement Law Association (Poland)
The support of the green effects in the new Polish Public Procurement Act
Question and Answer Session
Moderator:
Prof. Michał Kania, University of Silesia in Katowice
Speakers Biographies:
Prof. Jerzy Buzek – Member of the European Parliament continuously since 2004, and in the years 2009-2012 – its president. In the European Parliament prof. Buzek is a member of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy. In 2016, Euractiv recognized him as one of the three most influential people of European energy policy. He was ranked by the Rzeczpospolita daily as the best Polish MEP in 2008 and 2018.
In the years 1997-2001 he served as the Prime Minister of the Republic of Poland; his government carried out reforms of administration, education, health, pensions and mining. Professor Buzek also introduced Poland to NATO and started negotiations on its membership in the European Union. Knight of the Order of the White Eagle.
Prof. Alexandra Harrington – author of the book International Organizations and the Law and the forthcoming International Law and Global Governance: Treaty Regimes and Sustainable Development Goals Interpretation. Alexandra is the Director of Studies for the International Law Association Colombian branch, a member of the International Law Association Committee on the Role of International Law in Sustainable Natural Resource Management for Development, and an adjunct professor at Albany Law School. She also provides guest lectures globally on topics related to international law, environmental law, global governance and sustainable development. Prof. Harrington has served as a consultant for entities such as the Commission for Environmental Cooperation of the North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation and UN Environment.
Prof. Harrington’s publications address a variety of fields relating to international law, including environmental law, legal issues relating to climate change, natural resources regulation, international organizations, international human rights law, international child’s rights, international trade law, corporate social responsibility, and criminal law. Prof. Harrington routinely presents her works at domestic and international conferences.
Adv. Magdalena Stryja performs the function of the Chair of the Science and Development Committee with the District Bar Association in Katowice. She is Poland’s first member of the international organization: Centre for International Sustainable and Development Law. Magdalena is a member of the interdisciplinary Polish Research Group Just Transition, which aims at developing and implementing the concept of fair transformation with a view to transforming the economy, lifestyle, culture and social values in Silesia in the face of climate change. She is a member of the University of Silesia-based Bioethics Research Group dealing with legal and bioethical aspects of medicine and animal protection as well as environmental and climate protection. She is also a member of The Labour Law and Social Policy Research Group at the Institute of Legal Sciences at the University of Silesia.
Magdalena delivers lectures on labour law and social policy. Her research interests also encompass legal aspects of climate change, including the social aspects of retraining employees.
Prof. Christopher Yukins – serves as co-director of the government procurement law program at George Washington University Law School, and has taught there on contract formations and performance issues in public procurement, bid protests and claims litigation, state and local procurement, Anti-corruption issues, foreign contracting, procurement reform, and comparative and international law. He has testified on issues of procurement reform and trade before committees of the U.S. Congress and the European Parliament. He is a visiting professor at the Université Paris Nanterre, where he lectures annually, and has taught a week-long course on procurement issues and corruption at the International Anti-Corruption Academy (Austria).
Prof. Yukins has spoken as a guest lecturer at institutions around the world, and he was a contributing editor to the UN Office on Drugs and Crime manual, Guidebook on Anti-Corruption in Public Procurement. He is an active member of the Public Contract Law Section of the American Bar Association, and is a member of the Procurement Roundtable, an organization of senior members of the U.S. procurement community. He is a faculty advisor to the Public Contract Law Journal, is a member of the editorial board of the European Procurement & Public-Private Partnership Law Review and is on the advisory board of The Government Contractor. He has worked on a wide array of international projects on capacity-building in procurement, and he was an advisor to the U.S. delegation to the working group on reform of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) Model Procurement Law. Together with his colleagues, he runs a colloquium series on procurement reform at The George Washington University Law School. In private practice, Professor Yukins has been an associate, partner and counsel at leading law firms; he is currently counsel to the firm of Arnold & Porter.
Dr Wojciech Hartung – counsel at the Polish law firm Domański Zakrzewski Palinka, advises on infrastructure projects carried out under the Public Procurement Law or using partnership structures, i.e. PPP, concessions and other forms of co-operation between public and private partners, specialises in public-public cooperation (in-house procurement) issues. They have been addressed in his PhD dissertation on the “Independence of a basic local government unit upon the organisation and provision of municipal services in light of European law and Polish legal order’’. Wojciech is a Member of a working group set up by the Ministry of Development to review the law on public-private partnerships and to draw up a government policy in this respect. Until March 2009 dr Hartung acted as the Director of the European Union and International Co-operation Department at the Public Procurement Office. Wojciech was also Polish representative on the European Council’s Working Group on Public Procurement and on the Advisory Committee for Public Works Contracts set up by the European Commission. Wojciech is a member of Public Procurement Law Association.
Adv. Katarzyna Kuzma – partner at the Polish law firm Domański Zakrzewski Palinka and heads the team providing services relating to Polish and European public procurement law. She has extensive experience in advising both public and private entities operating in various sectors (including construction and engineering services, environmental protection, pharmaceutical and energy) on projects carried out in the traditional form (public procurement) and those based on partnership structures in the broad meaning of the term (PPP, concessions).
The advice Katarzyna renders covers all stages of procedures (including representation before the National Appeal Chamber and common courts) and performance of public contracts, including inspections and financial adjustment procedures. She actively promotes implementation of compliance systems in the area of public procurement, with special focus on bid rigging. Katarzyna is also the Vice-President of the Public Procurement Law Association.
Michał Kania – professor at the Silesian University in Katowice, legal adviser with 15 years of experience, member of the Just Transition Research Group. Michał is also an active member of the Public Procurement Association and legal consultant with the specialization in Public-Private Partnership and public procurement law, Visiting Fulbright Scholar at the George Washington University (2018-2019), Fellowship of German Academic Exchange Service at the Ludwig Maximilian University in Munich (2017), speaker at the Polish and international conferences, initiator and lecturer at the Postgraduate Studies in Public-Private Partnership and Public Procurement at the Silesian University in Katowice, independent adviser for the Polish Ministry of Development for the concept of the new Polish Public Procurement Act, adopted on 11 September 2019, plenipotentiary of the President of the University of Silesia for PPP projects.
This year has seen an unprecedented rise in trade barriers – both direct and indirect – involving public procurement. Join a free 60-minute webinar sponsored by George Washington University Law School’s Government Procurement Law Program, to hear leading experts on emerging trade barriers affecting grants and procurement.
These measures, driven in part by the broadening role of foreign firms in the U.S. government’s supply chain, and in part by the specific challenges posed by Huawei and other Chinese high-technology firms to U.S. security, impose substantial compliance burdens on contractors and grantees in U.S. procurement. For many in the U.S. government, it would be “nothing less than madness to allow Huawei to worm its way into one’s next-generation telecommunications networks,” and Section 889 and parallel initiatives (such as the “Clean Network” initiative) are intended to shield the United States.
In practical terms, the Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification (CMMC) and Section 889 may make it very difficult – if not impossible – for foreign vendors to compete in U.S. markets
In practical terms, the CMMC and Section 889 may make it very difficult – if not impossible – for foreign vendors to compete in U.S. markets, raising questions under the United States’ international free trade agreements and reciprocal defense procurement agreements. (The vulnerabilities in the U.S. government’s information technology supply chain are the subject of an upcoming GAO report, and a separate private-sector study is assessing barriers to procurement trade generally.) Although the Trump administration, bowing to industry pressure and the Defense Department’s concerns, extended the Section 889 implementation deadline to September 30, 2020 for Defense Department contractors, the compliance burdens remain quite serious.
Donald Trump in Ypsilanti, Michigan
Trump Administration’s “Buy American” Order for Medicines – and the Biden Plan: From its start, the Trump administration has adopted a broad range of “Buy American” measures, including a recent change to federal grants rules which says that grantees should, when possible, buy U.S. goods. Although even some supporters have criticized the Trump administration’s “Buy American” efforts as ineffective, Trump’s protectionist rhetoric has undoubtedly affected the international debate over free trade in procurement.
In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, on August 6, 2020 President Trump issued an executive order for “on-shoring” the manufacture of essential medicines bought by the U.S. government. The order calls for limiting U.S. market-opening commitments under the World Trade Organization (WTO) Government Procurement Agreement (GPA) and free trade agreements – a process which could trigger months of renegotiations with trading partners and result in limiting U.S. access to foreign markets. Jean Heilman Grier, former procurement negotiator at the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, has written on the Executive Order.
Impact of the Pandemic: Of course controversial trade measures have been driven in part by the COVID-19 pandemic.
By Rosario “Charo” Gutierrez (USAF)
Robert Anderson co-wrote an article with Anna Mueller of the WTO on the constraints and flexibility afforded by the WTO’s Government Procurement Agreement. For their part, co-moderators Laurence Folliot Lalliot and Christopher Yukins co-wrote a piece in Concurrences, the competition periodical, on the pandemic’s lessons for international markets, including especially the pandemic’s disruptive effect on protectionism. While the pandemic exacerbated economic nationalism and trade barriers, the pandemic also pointed up the sometimes mortal dangers of cutting off international supply chains.
European Trade Measures: Roland Stein (of the BLOMSTEIN firm, Berlin) and Professor Michal Kania (University of Silesia/Poland) will discuss important developments in access to European procurement markets:
White Paper — Possible Exclusion of Subsidized Foreign Firms: Following on 2019 guidance from the European Commission to member states on abnormally low bids from vendors from outside the European Union, in June 2020 the Commission issued a white paper on “levelling the playing field as regards foreign subsidies.” The white paper launches an EU-wide consultation on how to address foreign subsidies which distort EU procurement markets; among other measures under consideration, member states might exclude vendors that receive foreign subsidies. The white paper notes that the EU continues to assess the proposed International Procurement Instrument, a measure which has received cautious support from European industry and which would allow member states to raise new barriers against vendors from nations (including potentially the United States and China) that do not cooperate in EU efforts to open procurement markets.
Exclusion for Non-Domestic Content: Article 85 of EU Directive 2014/25/EU, which governs utilities’ procurement, says that a bid may be rejected if more than 50% of the products being offered would come from nations that have not entered into a free trade agreement with the EU (such as China) – a rarely enforced restriction which, as codified in German law, was recently applied by an important German court, the Brandenburg higher regional court.
