Trump Administration’s Fight Against Counterfeit Trade May Impact GSA’s Electronic Marketplaces Initiative — Which Is No Longer Stalled by Protest

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 The grounds for that protest may never be known, since the protest was withdrawn on February 24, 2020.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)

The January 31, 2020 Executive Order, which press reports made clear was aimed at counterfeit goods on Amazon and other online marketplaces, said this in relevant part:

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.

European and Australian Defense Procurement — Legal Perspectives

Wednesday, February 19, 2020, 9 am – GWU Law Learning Center – Room LLC006 – 2028 G Street NW

Join Andrea Sundstrand (Stockholm University) and Colette Langos (University of Adelaide) to discuss developments in Europe and Australia in defense procurement. Professor Sundstrand will discuss how defense procurement is treated under European law, including under the leading decisions of the Court of Justice for the European Union. Colette Langos will present a “snapshot” of the law and policy landscape surrounding Australian defense procurement. The session is free, and light refreshments will be served.

Session will be held downstairs at the GWU Law Learning Center, 2028 G Street NW

Colloquium: What Happens If the U.S. Leaves the WTO Government Procurement Agreement?

Tuesday, February 18, 2020, 9 to 11 am – GWU Law School, Law Learning Center, 2028 G Street NW, Room LLC006

WTO Government Procurement Agreement Members and Observers

According to press reports, the Trump administration is mulling an executive order that would trigger U.S. withdrawal from the WTO Agreement on Government Procurement (GPA). This free colloquium will assess the United States’ potential withdrawal from the GPA, which would deprive U.S. suppliers of a key point of access to public procurement markets internationally — although the GPA, experts note, has set global standards and opened an estimate $1.7 trillion dollars annually in business opportunities. The United States could forfeit access to important public procurement markets in Canada and many other countries, and the United States could lose its leadership role (which dates back to World War II) in shaping global standards in public procurement, even as more countries (such as Brazil) are joining the GPA.

Colloquium will be held downstairs at the GWU Law Learning Center – 2028 G Street NW (photo: Google)

Resources

Jean Heilman Grier, Consequences of Potential U.S. Withdrawal from GPA (Djaghe.com)

Robert Anderson & Christopher Yukins, Withdrawing the United States from the WTO Government Procurement Agreement (GPA): Assessing Potential Damage to the U.S. and Its Contracting Community, 62 Gov. Contractor para. 35 (Feb. 12, 2020)

Acetris Health LLC v. United States (Fed. Cir., Feb. 10, 2020) (Dyk, J.)

Panelists

Jean Heilman Grier is a leading internationally recognized expert on the World Trade Organization’s (WTO) Government Procurement Agreement (GPA), bilateral and regional agreements, international trade negotiations and international procurement systems. She has more than 30 years of experience in international trade as a U.S. trade negotiator, lawyer, adviser and consultant, including as the government procurement negotiator for the U.S. government. For a decade, she represented the United States in the WTO Committee on Government Procurement where she played a leading role in the revision of the GPA and accessions to the Agreement. Since 2013, she has been the Trade Principal with Djaghe, LLC., where she advises and provides technical assistance to governments, international organizations, businesses and trade groups on international procurement and trade issues. She writes extensively on international procurement and other international trade topics, and maintains a blog, Perspectives on Trade, at http://trade.djaghe.com; there, she recently published a piece on the impacts that the United States leaving the GPA could have.

Robert Anderson

Robert Anderson is a teacher and independent researcher on matters relating to the multilateral trading system, competition policy and government procurement. He previously worked in the Secretariat of the World Trade Organization from 1997 through 2019, and held the position of Counsellor and Team Leader for Government Procurement and Competition Policy in the Organization from 2005 through 2019.

Current academic positions include that of Honorary Professor in the School of Law at the University of Nottingham (United Kingdom). Mr Anderson also is an external faculty member at the World Trade Institute, the University of Bern (Switzerland); the University of Rome Tor Vergata (Italy); and the Catholic University of Lyon (France). He also has been a guest speaker, on multiple occasions, in relevant courses of the George Washington University Law School (United States).

Roundtable Participants: Michael Bowsher QC (Monckton Chambers, London) – Andrea Sundstrand (University of Stockholm) – Pascal Friton (Blomstein, Berlin) – Paul Lalonde (Dentons, Toronto) – Colette Langos (University of Adelaide) – Christopher Yukins (GWU Law School)

Program information: Cassandra Crawford, ccrawford@law.gwu.edu

Training at United Nations ILO International Training Center – Turin

United Nations ILO Training – Sustainable Procurement

On 4 February 2020, Professor Yukins taught students from the sustainable procurement masters’ program at the UN training center in Turin, Italy. His slides — an introduction to U.S. procurement — are attached.

Brazil Update: Government Will Seek to Exclude Health and Defense Sectors from GPA

BY RICARDO CAMPELLO – Guest Author

A major Brazilian newspaper has reported that the Brazilian Federal Government wants to exclude from Brazil’s commitments under the WTO Government Procurement Agreement (GPA) Brazilian procurements for defense and health-related goods and services (link to the article in Portuguese). It is also said that, for now, Brazil`s accession proposal contemplates only procurements by the federal government. State and local governments’ procurements would not be included.

Compared to other procurement defense markets, Brazil`s is not that big. In 2019, the budget of the Federal Government`s Ministry of Defense was approximately USD 25 billion, but more than half of this was used to pay personnel expenses (according to the Federal Government`s website: http://www.portaltransparencia.gov.br/funcoes/05-defesa-nacional?ano=2019). The money spent with goods and services (not necessarily weapons or defense-specific) was around USD 3 billion.

Ricardo Campello –
GWU Law LLM Candidate

The budget of the Brazilian Ministry of Health is bigger — around USD 35 billion in 2019 (according to the Federal Government`s website: http://www.portaltransparencia.gov.br/funcoes/10-saude?ano=2019). This is due mainly to Brazil`s public healthcare system, called “SUS,” under which citizens are entitled to receive almost any treatment for free (including drugs, medical devices and medical procedures). A substantial portion of these funds goes to pay for healthcare-related goods and services. It is a huge procurement market.

The official reason for the exclusion of these sectors is that they are too strategic. But strategic how? The newspaper piece does not clarify. Is it a question of national security strategy?  Or are these sectors strategic for industrial policy purposes? And is this true for absolutely all procurements of these departments of the Federal government? Also, why would enhancing competition and, consequently, reducing corruption and the government`s procurement costs – all potential outcomes from Brazil`s accession to GPA – not be desired in these strategic sectors? The GPA has flexibilities for developing countries to protect their industrial bases by making the transition to the GPA’s free markets smoother. Why not use these tools instead of excluding entire procurement sectors from coverage?

Finally, the newspaper piece also noted that discussions regarding GPA coverage between the Federal Government and GPA members is just part of the necessary negotiations. Brazil’s Congress will have to approve Brazil`s accession to the agreement as well. As one can see, the Brazilian government’s announcement that it will seek to join the GPA is just the beginning of a long and complex negotiation process, both internationally and nationally. There is a lot more to come.

Editor’s Note:  For the United States, trade with its allies in defense items – materiel, services and research/development – is normally opened (and opened comprehensively) through separate reciprocal defense procurement agreements.  Thus, while the United States may resist Brazil’s efforts to protect its public health markets under the GPA, the United States may prove willing to reserve defense issues to negotiation of a separate Brazil–U.S. reciprocal defense procurement agreement, which has been raised as a possibility by industry.

One Week in March. Two European Conferences on Public Contracts.

London – March 16, 2020

GWU Law is a proud supporter of two international conferences on emerging issues in transatlantic public contract administration, at King’s College, London on March 16 and at the University of Warsaw on March 18. Both conferences are free.

Warsaw – March 18, 2020

GWU Law Supports Student Submissions to Law Journals for Publication

For GWU Law students interested in publishing excellent papers, the Law School maintains a special service for students, described below, excerpted from an email from the head of the Law Library, Associate Dean Scott Pagel:

George Washington University Law School, Washington, DC

I am writing to share information about a new service that the Law School will be offering to our students and recent graduates, effective immediately. 

In order to promote student scholarship and to subsidize student efforts to be published, the Dean has agreed to permit students to submit a manuscript to up to 25 journals using the Law School’s Scholastica account.  This offer also will be extended to alumni/alumnae for a period of six months following their graduation.  As those of [the faculty] who use Scholastica know, it charges for each submission.  This is where [faculty] assistance is required.

In order for a student to participate in this program, she must have a full-time faculty member as a “sponsor” for the manuscript.  The faculty member will be expected to read the manuscript and ascertain whether it is likely to be accepted for publication by a journal.  The faculty member also will be expected to meet with the student to discuss which journals are appropriate targets for submission of the manuscript.  Please note that students are not limited in the number of manuscripts that they may submit, but they must obtain sponsorship from a full-time faculty member for each manuscript.

[After a full-time faculty member has discussed the manuscript] with the student, [the faculty member should] simply send [Dean Pagel] her name and email address and [he] will take it from there.  [He] will add the student to [the] Scholastica list, contact the student, and monitor use of the service.

The full policy is downloadable here:

Students in the GWU Law Government Procurement Program also may want to contact the procurement-focused journals listed on our program page, https://www.law.gwu.edu/government-procurement-law.  And as always, Mary Kate Hunter, the lead librarian for the program, is a wonderful resource too. 

In Startling Reversal, Brazil Announces It Will Seek to Join WTO Government Procurement Agreement

In a surprising break from decades of protectionism regarding its public procurement markets, Brazil has announced that it will seek to join the World Trade Organization (WTO) Government Procurement Agreement (GPA). Accession to the GPA (see J. Heilman Grier, The WTO Government Procurement Agreement (Djaghe 2020)) could open Brazil’s public procurement markets, which have been estimated to total over US$150 billion annually, to competition from other GPA members; it would also give Brazilian exporters access to the public markets in other GPA members, including the United States. If it overcomes concerns in Brazilian industry and succeeds in acceding (China’s accession has been pending for over a decade), Brazil would be one of the first major low-cost producers to join the GPA, which could cause shifts in public procurement markets worldwide.

George Washington University Law School LLM candidate and Brazilian attorney Ricardo Campello commented:

Ricardo Campello

The Brazilian Minister of Economy, Mr. Paulo Guedes, announced yesterday (January 21, 2020) during the World Economic Forum in Davos that Brazil will formally request to join the GPA as a full member (since 2017, Brazil has had an “observer” status). The announcement was reported in Brazil`s biggest newspaper for corporate matters, called “Valor Econômico” (link to the article in Portuguese). As reported, the request is being prepared and can be submitted soon, maybe even before the end of the Forum. Joining the GPA will help Brazil to incorporate best procurement practices and will also be a full attack against corruption, said Mr. Guedes. When asked about the possible impact to local companies, Mr. Guedes answered that Brazil can no longer have this type of mentality which only contributes to the exploitation of Brazilian consumers and taxpayer funds by local companies. In this regard, it`s mentioned that the fact that Brazil will soon no longer be able to have price preferences in favor of local suppliers against European companies, due to the free-trade agreement signed between Mercosur and the European Union, contributed to the decision to join the GPA. This is the first time Brazil`s government officials have expressed the country`s intention to join the GPA as a full member. As Brazil`s Senate is currently discussing the country`s new procurement system, it would not hurt to consider the GPA’s requirements in such discussions.

Robert Anderson, formerly Senior Counsellor and Team Leader for Government Procurement at the World Trade Organization and now Honorary Professor at the School of Law of the University of Nottingham (UK), commented as follows:

Robert Anderson

The announcement yesterday by the Brazilian Minister of the Economy, Mr. Paulo Guedes, during the World Economic Forum in Davos, that Brazil will seek to join the WTO Agreement on Government Procurement (GPA) represents a huge step forward for Brazil. Joining the GPA will align Brazil’s procurement system with best practices internationally, provide Brazilian suppliers with unfettered access to huge markets for goods and services in the US, Europe and elsewhere, and send a powerful signal to the global community regarding Brazil’s determination to grapple successfully with past corruption and supplier collusion problems in its procurement system. It will establish Brazil as an important thought and practice leader in this area across Latin America and the developing world. The announcement also shows the continuing vitality of the GPA itself, which was modernized in 2012 and continues to gain new members, year by year. Minister Guedes’ announcement will be enthusiastically welcomed by advocates of good governance and procurement reforms across the globe.

Request Denied by GAO for Documents in Pending Protest Regarding GSA “Electronic Marketplaces” Procurement

On January 15, 2020, Overstock.com, Inc., a competitor in the pending U.S. General Services Administration (GSA) procurement for “electronic marketplaces” reportedly protested the reissued (and revised) solicitation at the U.S. Government Accountability Office. Per GAO’s rules on the public availability of records, 4 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 81, Professor Yukins submitted a formal request to GAO for electronic versions of the redacted materials filed in the referenced pending bid protest (attached).  These records were requested so that information and analysis regarding the subject procurement – a multi-billion dollar procurement to open commercial electronic marketplaces to federal users – can be made available to the public.  If these records are not released, key information on this major procurement may be blocked from the public for roughly three months – the 100-day period for a GAO bid protest to be decided.

On January 22, 2020, GAO denied the request, saying that it is estimated that the documents will not be available until the proceedings are concluded, projected to be on or about April 24, 2020, over three months later. In practical terms, this means that the thousands of vendors and customers which need to prepare for the new electronic markets to be opened by GSA’s procurement may need to wait months for information on the ongoing procurement and protest — even though that information (because redacted) is otherwise publicly releasable.

Roger Waldron, Coalition for Government Procurement

Editor’s Note: On January 24, 2020, the Federal News Network published an op-ed by Roger Waldron of the Coalition for Government Procurement which concluded: “. . . there are broad implications for the procurement system associated with the e-Marketplace acquisition, and those implications extend into other areas of importance, like supply chain security, socioeconomic programs, and the protection of proprietary data. Yukins is right. Absent the release of these [GAO protest] records, ‘key information on this major procurement may be blocked from the public for roughly three months – the 100-day period for a GAO bid protest to be decided.’ So too, from the perspective of Coalition members, it highlights that more review and reflection on the acquisition is needed. “

ABA Committees To Hold Joint Meeting on Developments in International Debarment – February 13, 2020 – Call in

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, BLOMSTEIN, Berlin

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.

Additional resources

Grace Sullivan, GWU Law

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:

International local-toll dial-in numbers:  https://www.freeconferencecall.com/wall/sil_anticorruption/

Link to connect to call via computer: join.freeconferencecall.com/sil_anticorruption