Christopher Yukins / GW Law: Well folks, and welcome to this latest in our series of webinars on various issues that arising in the public procurement community around the world. We're very, very happy that you can join us for this webinar. It's going to be a very interesting discussion of both colleen, which is a very important decision in the Court of Justice for the European Union, and also we're going to be discussing developments in Us. Protectionism. Since the dawn of the Trump administration.
Christopher Yukins / GW Law: My name is Chris Eugens. I'm a professor in the Government Procurement law program at George Washington University Law School. I am with Jessica Tillman, with Steve schooner. I run this Webinar series. We have a recording that's going to be available this program today. It'll be available later today on publicprocurementinternational.com and also importantly, on the Gw. Law government procurement law program. Youtube page.
Christopher Yukins / GW Law: we're going to have questions and answers today. If you have questions as we're going through the program. Please feel free to use the Q. And a function. That's the best way for questions to be posted, and the panelists will be responding to those. I can't respond to the questions as nimbly as I'd like to. So I've asked our panelists to feel free to respond to those questions directly, and if necessary. We'll just reserve the questions until discussions until the end.
Christopher Yukins / GW Law: We have a collection of academics and officials and former officials here. So we are the the normal admonition that the speakers statements are in the personal capacity isn't really necessary, but I do want to say that the statements here, by any speakers are in their personal capacity.
Christopher Yukins / GW Law: We're going to have a webinar next week on organizational conflicts of interest. At the end of the Biden Administration a rule was published, a proposed rule was published on organizational Conflicts of interest.
Christopher Yukins / GW Law: This is an issue, a legal issue that really has been had its roots in Us. Law since the 19 sixties, but has really taken off over the last few years in the European Union
Christopher Yukins / GW Law: with decisions like the Fabricom decision in the Court of justice for the European Union, and it's becoming a hot issue around the world. So we'll have a webinar on that next Wednesday. It'll be at 12 Pm. Eastern, and the information is available on our blog page. You can quickly find our blog page if you just look for beyond the far. But the website address is noted here at the bottom. The slides from today's presentation, I should note.
Christopher Yukins / GW Law: are available on publicprocurementinternational.com. They were posted this morning.
Christopher Yukins / GW Law: So we have over 500 registrants today from 70 countries. Really delighted that we could use this opportunity to reinforce the international public procurement community which has grown so rapidly over the last few decades. Really, we're very privileged to be able to be part of this, and and to to pass information, pass share lessons learned as we go forward as really an international community in public procurement.
Christopher Yukins / GW Law: I'm going to go through a few introductions of our panelists this morning. We're going to then talk about the court of Justice's decision in the colleen case. Then we're going to talk about the trump administration tariffs which have an impact
Christopher Yukins / GW Law: on public procurement and have some really interesting tactical aspects to him that Gene Greer will be discussing in more detail, and then we'll have if we have time. We're going to try and finish in about an hour. If we have time, we're going to have a discussion. Just a brief note of of recollection for Alan Green, our colleague, who passed away last month. Alan was the author of International Government Contract law. He's a very. He's an internationally recognized lawyer.
Christopher Yukins / GW Law: With this text he and I built a course on foreign government contracting, and we taught that for about 10 years or so so Alan will be very much missed, and my hope is I'm working with his family so that we can continue the book
Christopher Yukins / GW Law: as a go forward with a book that Alan did so much to put together on international government contract law.
Christopher Yukins / GW Law: I'm going to introduce Anna Lekimia, who's our co-moderator in just a few minutes. But for now I want to pass on to our other panelists.
Christopher Yukins / GW Law: The group here is just extraordinarily skilled in talking about various aspects of this really really difficult issue of protectionism
Christopher Yukins / GW Law: cross between the European Union and the United States. I want to 1st cite Jean Howman Greer, who is our going to be talking about
Christopher Yukins / GW Law: us? Perspective on these transatlantic developments? She has more than 25 years of experience in international trade. As a Us. Trade negotiator, lawyer, and advisor, she served as a senior procurement negotiator for the offices of the Us. Trade representative for 10 years. In that role she represented the United States in the Wto. Committee on Government Procurement and the negotiation of the Revised Wto agreement on Government
Christopher Yukins / GW Law: procurement
Christopher Yukins / GW Law: which we're going to be referring to is the Gpa. The Gpa. Is the acronym for the agreement on Government procurement. She also helped negotiate accessions to those agreements, and that's she actually joined my comparative law class earlier this week to talk about that. She also negotiated other government procurement agreements, other government agreements, intergovernmental agreements that have free trade components with regards to procurement.
Christopher Yukins / GW Law: She's published extensively in law journals and other publications. She maintains a blog on international trade issues@trade.jage.com and jage is spelled DJAG. HE. So jage.com currently she's a principal trade consultant with Jage, and she advises and provides technical assistance to governments and other entities on international procurement and trade issues.
Christopher Yukins / GW Law: She's she's the author of the International Procurement System, which my students and I refer to regularly. It's the leading text on international trade and procurement.
Christopher Yukins / GW Law: We're also joined by Professor Albert Sanchez Grails from the University of Bristol. He's a professor of economic law at the University of Bristol Law School in the United Kingdom. He's a member of the European Procurement Law Group. He specializes in European economic law with a main focus on competition, law, and public procurement which he wrote his Phd. Thesis, which was published by Hart.
Christopher Yukins / GW Law: He's currently a member of the Uk's Cabinet office on open contracting advisory on the Cabinet
Christopher Yukins / GW Law: Cabinet Office, open contracting Advisory Group, and just note that I'm hoping to be able to pull Albert into a Webinar series. We have an open contracting this summer, an international Webinar series, and he's a member of the English National Health Service of the Nhs. Independent, patient choice and Procurement panel
Christopher Yukins / GW Law: at Bristol. He's been a professor since 2019, and before joining Bristol he had academic positions, the University of Leicester and the University of Hull, and the law faculty of Comilla's Pontifical University in Spain. We're very very happy to have Albert, as always.
Christopher Yukins / GW Law: Roberta Carrantis joins us as well. He's from the University of Turin. He's a full professor with the law department at the University of Turin. He's working on public procurement with a focus on sustainable public procurement and on remedies on the European Union Ministry of Comparative Law, with a focus on judicial protection. He was a coordinator of sustainability, procurement and international European and national systems.
Christopher Yukins / GW Law: The sapiens program, a very prestigious program, helping develop young scholars in public procurement issues and sustainability. He's a member of the EU trade and investment policy, International Training network. He was a director for many years
Christopher Yukins / GW Law: of the United Nations Master's program in public Procurement Management for Sustainable Development at the International Training Center through the International Labor organization there in Turin he's a vice chair of the Procurement Review Board of the European Space Agency, and together with the late Professor Steen, Thrama, he founded the European Procurement Law Series.
Christopher Yukins / GW Law: Rob Anderson also joining us. He's a part-time academic, independent consultant and trainer on matters relating to competition, policy, government procurement, intellectual property, and the multilateral trading system. He previously worked on the Secretary of the World Trade organization and held the position of senior counsel and team leader for Government procurement and competition policy. In the course of his career. He has led workshops and seminars, or delivered presentations in over.
Christopher Yukins / GW Law: Excuse me, in over 90 countries worldwide. It's just amazing history. He holds the title of Honorary professor in the School of Law at the University of Nottingham, in the United Kingdom.
Christopher Yukins / GW Law: He currently serves as an external faculty member in the International Public Procurement Management Program at the University of Rome, Tor Vergada in Italy, and its sister program at the University of Belgrade in Serbia. He's an editor of 3 books, and he's the author and co-author of more than 100 published articles in academic, legal, and professional journals.
Christopher Yukins / GW Law: Kind of embarrassing. That Rob is a better academic than I am.
Christopher Yukins / GW Law: Marco Toridik is an associate professor at the department of Administrative Law at the University of Zagreb, faculty of Law. The subject of his public specific interest is primarily administrative procedure and administrative dispute, regulatory agencies and public procurement at the faculty of law. He introduced regulation electronic communications and public procurement and elective courses, as well as a series of lifelong education courses
Christopher Yukins / GW Law: on the same topic. He's a mentor of 2 doctoral theses, public procurement law, and is a national correspondent of the European Procurement and public-private Partnership Law Review, published by Lexion in Berlin.
Christopher Yukins / GW Law: and I'm very, very happy that Marco can join us. He's very much part of the next generation building this international procurement community. It's an honor to have you, Marco. Thank you.
Christopher Yukins / GW Law: Okay, so we're going to be talking. I looked around for a good photo that would illustrate what we're talking about. We're talking about a this is a beautiful picture looking out across a construction project that was clearly built by Colin, and looking across the beautiful rolling countryside of Turkey. This is a Turkish company coming, and the case that we'll be talking about. Colleen had to do with colleen
Christopher Yukins / GW Law: competing for a Member State procurement, and we're going to be talking about that in more detail
Christopher Yukins / GW Law: to give a little bit of background and.
Robert Anderson: Anna, you ready.
Annamaria La Chimia: Yes, I am. Can you hear me?
Annamaria La Chimia: Can you hear me? Okay.
Christopher Yukins / GW Law: I can, and I apologize. I am a zoom moron. I didn't see you there. I'm really sorry. Let me
Christopher Yukins / GW Law: you a short intro, and then you can go ahead and start Professor Ana Maria Lechemia Red Law at the University of Rome, La Sapienza, and for the Americans really don't know anything about this stuff. That's the number one university in the University of Rome system.
Christopher Yukins / GW Law: She moved to England for graduate studies. She completed an Llm. In international economic law and a Phd. At the School of Law at the University of Nottingham. She joined the School of Law as a lecturer in September 2,006, and was ultimately named to becoming a full professor in 2019. Since 2020 she's been the director of the Public Procurement Research Group at the University
Christopher Yukins / GW Law: at the University of Nottingham. It's a world leading center of research and teaching, public procurement, law and policy, and very, very nice partner to our program. For instance, her colleague, Luke Butler, will be joining me in a few weeks to talk about European defense procurement in our class. I'm really very grateful for this ongoing cooperation. She's also a research fellow at Stellenbosch University in South Africa. So with that, Anna, you have such a wonderful, wonderful record. But I'm going to hold up the train here, so if I could, I'll just turn the substance over to you.
Annamaria La Chimia: Perfect. Thank you so much, Chris, and before I start, let me, I think I speak on behalf of all the panelists, and thanking you for organizing this event, for arranging the slides, uploading them, sharing the material. And I think that in an era when countries are inward looking, and just think about themselves. Academia is important. That remains and stays open.
Annamaria La Chimia: and to collaborate to reach out and over the years you've been an example for all of us doing this. So thank you very much for your ongoing constant cooperation and prodding us to to participate to this webinar. So today we discuss a topical issue the role the public procurement can, should, will play in international trade, and
Annamaria La Chimia: amidst talks of new trade barriers and the rise of new protectionism, it is important to understand where government stands as regards government procurement, what will they do with their public procurement spending? Let's remember procurement lucrative business over 14% of Gdp
Annamaria La Chimia: and via public procurement. So whether this market is open or not to international and regional competition is important.
Annamaria La Chimia: Now, in a recent press release the European Commission stated that the EU plans to review the public procurement rules
Annamaria La Chimia: to allow for the introduction of a European preference in public procurement for critical sectors and technologies, so they need to protect EU companies to both ensure security of supply and protect companies from unfair competition is a motive that emerges clearly
Annamaria La Chimia: from recent EU documents, political documents, future program statements. Even the Draghi report, as you put there on the slides, talks about the need to create some sort of preference for EU companies.
Annamaria La Chimia: and it is important to remember that this is a light motive that goes on for quite a while within the European Union. So there is both this need to protect certain sector, but also to protect
Annamaria La Chimia: European companies from unfair competition from 3rd countries.
Annamaria La Chimia: So, for example, in 2019, the Commission assess should guidance on guidance on the participation of 3rd countries, bidders and goods in the EU procurement market in 2020 it issues a white paper on leveling the playing field as regards foreign subsidies.
Annamaria La Chimia: and more recently has adopted the Ipi instrument and the Foreign Subsidies regulation that we we will hear John Marie talking about this instrument. Very, very soon
Annamaria La Chimia: and more recently, as lately recent easy J. Case law has made the headlines because,
Annamaria La Chimia: has consolidated the Commission's plans, and the Commission approach and the Commission approach on 3, rd on the access to the EU procurement market of 3rd Country National. And so you mentioned calling, and indeed, this is the case that we will talk about today.
Annamaria La Chimia: But as we will see, Colin, it's very much grounded on EU law on the EU Directives, article 43 of the 2,015 directive of the 2014 to 25 directive, which is the parallel of article 25 of the 2014 to 24, directive
Annamaria La Chimia: on public contracts. Very soon we are expecting another judgment of the Ecj. On these similar issues. So a very, very interesting, very topical, very topical issues to discuss today. Now for those of you who are not very familiar with the Colling case very, very
Annamaria La Chimia: briefly. And I wonder, Chris, if you could change slide, please.
Annamaria La Chimia: So very, very briefly, this is we're talking about case 6, 5, 2 of 2,022 this case concerns the award of public contract for constructions of a railway infrastructure in Croatia.
Annamaria La Chimia: The request for a preliminary ruling was made in a proceeding between the company governed by Turkish law, Colin and the State commissions for supervision of public procurement procedure in Croatia.
Annamaria La Chimia: The judgment was delivered by the Ecj. On the 20 second of October 2024. Now, what is that very interesting about this case? And I have to be brief because time is ticking. So Colin was one of the tender. The contract was awarded to an Australian, a consortium led
Annamaria La Chimia: by an Australian company. Colin complained that
Annamaria La Chimia: certain that the award was illegitimate. Because certain requests for clarifications and documents were made after the tender was submitted now, and therefore calling us whether the principles of treatment of suppliers, non-discrimination, and the correct procedure within the U Directive were breached to rule on whether
Annamaria La Chimia: Collin, that was a foreign, national, 3rd Country national, could at all invoke the application of EU law for those of you who don't know. EU law, of course, only applies to its Member States, except in certain specific circumstances that are in this case highlighted. In Article 43 of the Directive, and in Article 20
Annamaria La Chimia: of the public contracts directed. Now, interestingly, the courts decide really to answer the question as to whether the Turkish Company had any legitimate claim under EU law.
Annamaria La Chimia: and they said that it was necessary to examine whether the provision of EU law applied in this specific case. And in the present case the court said
Annamaria La Chimia: in really a nutshell. The court decides that I have no jurisdiction, because EU law does not apply against suppliers from 3rd countries, that the EU has not entered a procurement agreement with the court based this judgment on Article 43 of the directive, which is a parallel to Article 45, and I wrote a very brief
Annamaria La Chimia: commentary on Article 25 of the Public Contracts Directive, published in the edited collection by Professor Sanchez. In this commentary I say that Article 25 really acts as a gateway to the European Union procurement market because
Annamaria La Chimia: it guarantees the right to enter the EU market and to benefit from the principle of equal treatment, non-discrimination, transparency, but it guarantees such rights
Annamaria La Chimia: only to certain suppliers. And this is what is very important. Who are these suppliers? Only those suppliers and goods, only those from countries who have entered an agreement with the EU. So really.
Annamaria La Chimia: article
Annamaria La Chimia: 25, and the parallel article 43 are there to allure other countries to enter into agreement with the EU, and as a sort of muscle of the 27, and an expression of the coherence, the internal and the external power of the EU institution. So these articles are there to guarantee the rights of
Annamaria La Chimia: operators and goods services from countries the Us. Entered an agreement with
Annamaria La Chimia: but at the same time they preclude countries they preclude suppliers from countries that you are not entered an agreement with from benefiting from the principles within the directive. And here I think this is also. What is interesting is that
Annamaria La Chimia: access is not outright precluded, and I think this is what our panelists will discuss later on. Access is not outright precluded. Contracting authorities will be able to decide. But
Annamaria La Chimia: these suppliers will not be able to benefit from EU law to invoke EU law. And this is really where is you know, this is the difference between suppliers from countries that have entered an agreement with the you and those that have not.
Annamaria La Chimia: And I think with this I've summarized as best as I could, and as quickly as I could the case, and now I shall hand it over to Jean Marie for some reflection. A further reflection on the case.
Christopher Yukins / GW Law: We could just a quick, quick second on if you could. Just we talked a little bit, and Jean's going to be talking about this in more detail. But could you talk about what, how things are supposed to proceed practically from here, now that the court has said that vendors outside the European Union outside don't have those rights. How are procuring entities or contracting agencies supposed to handle this.
Annamaria La Chimia: I think that this is now is going to be the problem for contracting authorities, because there is some confusion as to who has access, and who has not a right to access. The point is that it will be up to contracting authorities to decide. Yeah, it will be up to contracting the authorities to decide, but they have to be very careful, because they have to run the right
Annamaria La Chimia: to those operators that come from countries. There. They, you has got an agreement with so very clear guidance will have to be issues by the European Commission to make sure that no one is excluded.
Annamaria La Chimia: At the same time it will be, I guess, a matter of national law to decide for access, and this only insofar, as the you, of course, doesn't enter any new agreement on procurement, because the moment that the EU enters an agreement on procurement with a 3rd State, then that agreement will prevail, and a EU law will preempt the field
Annamaria La Chimia: from national authorities. So there will be, I think, a bit of uncertainty for the future for contracting authorities as to what position they have to take
Annamaria La Chimia: my feeling is that it will be very much an issue of the market. The best supplier who will be the best supply supplier in the market, whether contracting authority will still want to accept 3rd country suppliers into their own market. But the the key is that there is no
Annamaria La Chimia: right in terms of your obligations.
Annamaria La Chimia: which is, which is what really makes you procurement law so strong.
Christopher Yukins / GW Law: Thank you very much, Anna.
Christopher Yukins / GW Law: Jean.
Jean Heilman Grier: Thank you, Chris. I think it's useful starting in discussing the colleen case to understand.
Jean Heilman Grier: And how do you approaches of government procurement and trade agreements.
Jean Heilman Grier: It has a vast public procurement market, and it has entered a number of agreements. The Wto Government Procurement Agreement, the Gpa. And numerous free trade agreements, and, like all parties to these agreements, the EU specifies precisely what procurement is covering under the agreements.
Jean Heilman Grier: and but in doing so, it often on the basis of reciprocity withholds the right for a party to participate in certain procurement, unless the party provides reciprocal access for the EU in its own procurement.
Jean Heilman Grier: For example, the Us. Does not cover transportation services under its Gpa. Commitments, so the EU withholds the right for the Us. Suppliers to participate in such procurement in the EU.
Jean Heilman Grier: But notwithstanding these legal restrictions, and I think this is the important point in terms of the colleen case is that the EU generally provides de facto access to all of its procurement. Whether a country has entered into an agreement with it, or is providing reciprocal access. So the colleen case comes in to the situation, saying, Okay, the EU has
Jean Heilman Grier: up to now basically allowed anyone to participate.
Jean Heilman Grier: A few Member States have some more restrictive laws that just follow the Gpa. And Ftas. But now that you have with the colleen case, the procuring entities now have to deny
Jean Heilman Grier: countries that have not entered an agreement with the EU, or have in procurement that may be under the agreement, but they don't have rights to it, cannot give demand, or cannot provide equal treatment to those suppliers.
Jean Heilman Grier: And I think, as Anna has mentioned, it's going to be an interesting discussion to see how they actually end up implementing this provision. And this coaling case fits into sort of a trend in the EU, because in the EU has been reconsidering in recent years its open procurement market and trying to find ways to get other countries to provide reciprocal access to it.
Jean Heilman Grier: and in 2022 it implemented what Anna referred to as the Ipi. The international procurement instrument which is designed to encourage reciprocity. It basically offers the Commission to investigate the procurement in another country.
Jean Heilman Grier: If that country thinks it's discriminating against EU suppliers, and after an investigation the Commission can either ban the country's suppliers or it could restrict its participation in EU procurement.
Jean Heilman Grier: The EU has taken its 1st case under this Ipi, and it was against China's procurement of medical devices, and in
Jean Heilman Grier: January the Commission issued it good
Jean Heilman Grier: discriminating against suppliers, even though China's not
Jean Heilman Grier: into the PA and the other agreement, and the Commission is now looking at what kind of remedies it should should do earlier, posted a blog posting on this case, and I'll put that in the Q&A section
Jean Heilman Grier: So while the Ipi could be an important tool for the EU, it has some limitations, because it has to be based on investigation targeted at a particular country, and probably at particular
Jean Heilman Grier: segments of its procurement. In contrast, the colleen case applies to all procurement undertaken by the EU. Another trade tool that the EU has also recently adopted is the foreign subsidies regulation which is aimed at precluding tenders from suppliers that have received foreign
Jean Heilman Grier: subsidies, and in that under that regulation it's taken. Initiate 3 cases or examining 3 procurement in 3 different
Jean Heilman Grier: procurements, and in each case it was a Chinese company that was participating, and they withdrew. So they haven't had to go to the point of of actually taking action. So I'll stop here and turn it over to the academics to discuss the impacts of choline.
Christopher Yukins / GW Law: Thanks very much. She, Albert.
Albert Sanchez-Graells: Thank you very much. I think I might be the only one here that doesn't really like colleen, so I'll just try to make it short and punchy, and then go away for anyone interested in the detail. My full thoughts are here in the chat, so I think 1st to me it was not a given at all that the court of justice should have, or even that could have answered the question. It was not given.
Albert Sanchez-Graells: This was a case where a contracting authority chooses a bidder, then the decision is appealed on the basis that they have not done their due diligence. Decision is squashed, contracting authority, goes back to the preferred bidder and says, Can I please have the documents? And the question is, can you do it at that late stage? So it was very much a case about good administration.
Albert Sanchez-Graells: and when the question is put to the court of justice, they say, Oh, let's forget about that which, by the way, is really important. In trying to determine we do procurement properly, we do our due diligence. We have a long saga of cases about clarifications, documentation, and so on. But let's not set aside and look at the fact that the disgruntled bidder is Turkish, and then we go out of the way to provide a clarification
Albert Sanchez-Graells: without looking at the brother system. So both Ana Maria and Jean have mentioned that this was under the Utilities Directive, and one of the things that is important to say is that the Utilities Directive itself has mechanisms to disadvantage goods coming from jurisdictions that are not reciprocal.
Albert Sanchez-Graells: where, if more than 50% of the goods in the contract come from 3rd country jurisdictions you can correct, for example, for price, or you can create a disadvantage in the tendering. So there's already a mechanism to correct for the tolerated 3rd country access. But the court of justice doesn't look at it.
Albert Sanchez-Graells: The court of justice doesn't think about the logic of the Ipi or the Foreign subsidies regulations. If it was true that the EU Procurement Directives work exactly like the Trade Agreements act that I think Chris has put in the chat. Then we wouldn't need calling. It would be obvious that unless you have access you're out.
Albert Sanchez-Graells: But that's not been the European approach. It's not only that de facto we've allowed for access, but what the directive has said is, if you come from a 3rd country that has an agreement. We need to treat you like. We treat domestic producers, but it has never said explicitly, nobody else has access, or everybody else has to be discriminated against.
Albert Sanchez-Graells: So there's different ways in which you can understand it. So I think it was a decontextualized grabbing for a question. I have lots. I'm very cynical, but I have lots of questions about how that was raised who whispered into the Advocate General's ear to say, you actually need to answer this thing. Was it the European Commission? Was it the 3rd country? We don't know, because it's not a transparent process. But let's leave that aside.
Albert Sanchez-Graells: I think that to me the big problem with Colin is that it just doesn't do what it should have done right if you take it as read that unless you have guaranteed access to the European market through the Gpa. Or a bilateral agreement, then you don't have access. Then that's what the Court of justice should have said right. So the only reading of the directive is to say.
Albert Sanchez-Graells: no access for anyone that doesn't have an international right to access, because otherwise the logic just doesn't hold. What the court of justice comes to say is that if you extend the no less favorable access to 3rd countries, then you're diminishing the economic benefit that the Gpa. Members and the bilateral members obtain from their agreements. But the logic only holds. If then, you also don't allow for de facto participation.
Albert Sanchez-Graells: because otherwise you could claim simply by tolerating Brazilian, Chinese, and anybody else to come forward. We are diminishing the practical benefit that American and Canadian and other companies derive from participating in the Gpa. Which then takes us to the logic of the Gpa. Itself. The Gpa. Also doesn't mandate its members to discriminate against non-gpa members.
Albert Sanchez-Graells: So the Gpa. Is about mutual concessions. But there's no hard protection clause that says European Union for you to comply with your commitments. It's not only that you give access to those that benefit from the commitments, but you need to reject access from anybody else. I don't think the Gpa. And I would be interested in Rob's thoughts would have been
Albert Sanchez-Graells: go if that was a requirement, because there will be lots of countries that have close trade agreements with parties that were not ready, and have not yet entered the Gpa. So I think that the whole logic of the trade dimension is ignored.
Albert Sanchez-Graells: and the other thing that is ignored is that procurement rules do many things. We have lots of conversations, but they are an instrument of good administration, and by the court of justice, saying, well, each contracting authority can come up with its own way of how they're going to discriminate a little bit against the other ones, and people will not have access to remedies to check that. It's creating potentially a black hole
Albert Sanchez-Graells: of accountability and a black hole for the enforcement of the procurement rules. And it's going to create lots of problems that I think Marco is probably going to reflect on. So these are my 5 cents. This is a bad judgment that they didn't need to issue. I really wonder what the final you know. The origin that whisper was. I will probably die without knowing, but it bugs me at night. Thank you.
Christopher Yukins / GW Law: Thank you, Albert. Thank you very much.
Roberto Caranta: So well, so we go back to the fold of those that are not so much
Roberto Caranta: against calling.
Roberto Caranta: Well, my point is that you can't judge the present international situation by the standards that we have used
Roberto Caranta: in the past 30 years since 1995, and if a few months before.
Roberto Caranta: At that time the whole world was moving toward opening markets.
Roberto Caranta: It was a really a moment with the fall of Communism
Roberto Caranta: when there was just one ideology.
Roberto Caranta: There was this philosopher Fukushima. He wrote a book, the end of history.
Roberto Caranta: There is only one ideology, capitalism, liberalism. There is no, never going to be a conflict anymore.
Roberto Caranta: Well, I guess he was wrong badly.
Roberto Caranta: There is conflict, and this conflict has shown that supply chains are fragile.
Roberto Caranta: but it's not just about conflict.
Roberto Caranta: No one is fully subscribing to a neoliberalist approach
Roberto Caranta: the people. Republic of China is not.
Roberto Caranta: It is more on the lines of a Colbertist model.
Roberto Caranta: pushing and helping its companies on the world stage.
Roberto Caranta: So well. There were, let's say, hopes, high hopes
Roberto Caranta: for those being young in those ages myself.
Roberto Caranta: It was really beautiful peace in Europe, Europe united, and so on, and so forth.
Roberto Caranta: But okay, the world is a different place.
Roberto Caranta: And so there are a number of instruments.
Roberto Caranta: Jean has already mentioned them. I would just disagree
Roberto Caranta: on one aspect here with Albert. The court is referring to the international procurement instrument.
Roberto Caranta: and in more than just 1 point.
Roberto Caranta: The EU is basically starting, trying to protect.
Roberto Caranta: It's market, not just his market.
Roberto Caranta: It's economy.
Roberto Caranta: The net 0 Industry act is really about shoring the supply chain and possibly reassuring production, using
Roberto Caranta: public procurement as one possible tool. So I wouldn't see calling in isolation in
Roberto Caranta: a narrow history of our public procurement in Europe in the past 30 years. I would
Roberto Caranta: to point at the wider picture.
Roberto Caranta: I would like to point at a changing, fastly changing.
Roberto Caranta: And I'm not saying, Oh, it's good that it's changing.
Roberto Caranta: I'm just saying that.
Roberto Caranta: Well, we needed to adapt to changing conditions.
Roberto Caranta: Diesels diesels didn't.
Roberto Caranta: And they basically went extinct. But birds, of course, they were managing to adapt.
Roberto Caranta: And of course this is going to be shown in the revision of the directives.
Roberto Caranta: I really hope that
Roberto Caranta: the issues, the real issues Marco will be referring to. Or now, you bloody, apply this judgment
Roberto Caranta: will be solved, if not in the forthcoming case, King Dao by the new Directive.
Roberto Caranta: But most probably the new Directive will also include a European preference.
Roberto Caranta: Why? Including a European preference, because the whole ideology as a change them.
Roberto Caranta: I'm not particularly happy about the present conditions of the world
Roberto Caranta: getting older. I tend to think that when I was young it was much better.
Roberto Caranta: But concerning, let's say, world politics.
Roberto Caranta: Well, after 1989 was much better than it is now. Thank you a lot.
Christopher Yukins / GW Law: Thank you very much, Roberto, and with that we'll turn it over to Marco Oops. Sorry, Marco.
Marko Turudic: Okay.
Christopher Yukins / GW Law: I should really have a research assistant doing this stuff because I'm clearly incompetent. Go ahead, Marcus.
Marko Turudic: Hi, everyone, I'm going to raise a couple of practical issues. So bear with me. So the court states that in the colon judgment, of course, that national authorities cannot interpret the national provisions transposing the Utilities Directive and also applying to economic operators of 3rd countries. But this also has to apply to the General Directive and Remedies Directive. Furthermore, it admitted into a.
Marko Turudic: if admitted into a public procurement procedure. The court states that 3rd country economic operators can be treated, not, must, can be treated with at least transparency and proportionality in mind.
Marko Turudic: which can be read as allowing the possibility of ignoring those principles, but the principles of transparency and proportionality must be mandatory, as their absence would definitely violate national constitutions of the Member States and Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
Marko Turudic: It seems to me that this part of the common judgment creates an obligation to establish a system of parallel appeal grounds for 3rd party economic operators allowed to participate in a public procurement. Procedure paragraphs 65, and 66 of the judgment read together do not allow the application
Marko Turudic: of the majority of articles of national public Procurement acts to 3rd country economic operators, and especially do not allow 3rd country economic operators to claim a breach of an article of a National Procurement Act that represents a transposition of any of the EU directives on public procurement, including, I believe, the Remedies Directive. But what does all of this mean in practice, I'll give you a Croatian example. So
Marko Turudic: the majority of articles of the Croatian Public Procurement Act represent a direct transposition of EU public procurement directives, like the definition of economic operators, technical specifications, selection, criteria, and so on. But some of the articles are, and I emphasize, probably national in origin. For example, the articles establishing the Appeal procedure as an administrative procedure
Marko Turudic: are the contracting authorities now expected to know exactly what is the basis for each article of the Creation Public Procurement Act.
Marko Turudic: But even though the articles establishing the Appeal procedure as an administrative procedure are probably national, it can be argued that they are also transposing the Remedies Directive. So how will we make the separation here? So can they be applied to 3rd country economic operators or not if we decide they can.
Marko Turudic: 3, rd and I believe we should. 3rd country economic operators should be able to submit appeals to our appeal body. But on what appeal grounds? This is the main question.
Marko Turudic: Most of the relevant articles of the Croatian Public Procurement Act are transpositions of EU public procurement directives. So therefore, economic operators from 3rd countries cannot use their violation as grounds for appeal. If they are permitted to appeal. If they are permitted to participate, they can appeal solely on grounds of certain principles, as indicated by the Colin judgment. Not clearly enough, I must emphasize.
Marko Turudic: But does this also mean that breaching these principles is also a breach of EU law, because a lot of these principles have their origin in EU treaties and EU law.
Marko Turudic: so the issue of remedies is notably complex, and it must be the responsibility definitely of Member States to establish new remedy rules applicable to 3rd country economic operators.
Marko Turudic: However, in doing so, Member States must be really careful and be cautious of the common judgment.
Marko Turudic: We have a recent development also our competent ministry, Ministry of Economy for competent ministry for the public procurement system in Croatia, issued an opinion on the Colin case in January this year, stating that they will do nothing, and they will wait for the commission to do something, and the Commission stated in a round table in Zagreb a week ago that they are going to wait for the judgment in the kinda case. So we're going to have a lot of a lot of waiting
Marko Turudic: till till we get some guide guidelines that the contracting authorities are are surely missing.
Marko Turudic: and what what they need to emphasize also that in the 4 4 months since the colon Judgment this seems like ancient history. Now
Marko Turudic: there have been no public procurement procedures, at least in Croatia, where 3rd country economic operators were excluded in the tender documentations in the tender documentation as it should be, there have been certain informal suggestions to 3rd country economic operators that they shouldn't participate. But nobody has dared to put the words in the tender documentation.
Marko Turudic: So additionally, the rules for participation and remedies are being left to the appeal, body and courts to establish which is not a good situation to be in. So this highlights one of the more problematic aspects of the judgment. And I think this is something we need to talk about a bit more. The legitimate, the conflict of legitimate interests of the concerned parties.
Marko Turudic: What do I mean when I mentioned this this conflict of interest? Well, 1st of all, we have the contracting authorities, and they have a legitimate interest in attracting more tenders and securing lower prices, thus excluding 3rd country economic operators is not in their favor, and and this is something we have been seeing in the past 4 months.
Marko Turudic: The EU has a legitimate interest in signing reciprocal free trade agreements and establishing a level playing field in the public procurement. Common market, of course, but also EU based. Economic operators have a legitimate interest in ensuring fair competition within the EU and in 3rd countries. So this indicates that calling had a minimal impact. So 3rd country economic operators still participate
Marko Turudic: and they are dealing with a lot of legal uncertainty. So, and I will conclude with this, contracting authorities have 2 options. They can either prioritize legal certainty by excluding 3rd country economic operators resulting in less competition, or they can prioritize increased competition. Accepting the trade-off of greater legal uncertainty. As we have seen thus far, contracting authorities have opted for the latter approach. Thank you.
Christopher Yukins / GW Law: Much, Marco. Then I'll turn it over to rob.
Robert Anderson: So 1st of all, warm thanks to you, Chris, and to Anna, for organizing this super interesting and timely forum.
Robert Anderson: So I will begin by saying that, taking due note of the of the significant points that have been made by Albert and and Marco and others.
Robert Anderson: I would I still have a more favorable view of the colon decision than some I mean, basically, it seems to me that it says that if if country, if suppliers from
Robert Anderson: countries outside the EU are to have assured access to EU public procurement markets. Then they'll have to either join the Gpa. Or negotiate some other appropriate arrangement for market access, and I think that's a reasonable position.
Robert Anderson: and I think that over time over time the decision will have the effect of encouraging other countries to join the Gpa. That's a good thing.
Robert Anderson: I. Still, I take the point that there are some some issues that will need to be clarified. I think that will happen over time.
Robert Anderson: Now, turning to the situation in the Us. Which will be, I guess, the the main focus for the rest of our Webinar. We need to begin by noting the White House memorandum
Robert Anderson: on its America 1st trade policy, which was issued on January 20, th the 1st day of the new administration, and this calls for a review of the impact of all Us. Trade agreements.
Robert Anderson: and notably it. It singles out the Wto agreement on government procurement, and the review is to ensure that such agreements are being implemented in a manner that favors us domestic workers and manufacturers, and so forth.
Robert Anderson: so this, to me is a clear signal that the time has come for a robust defense of the Gpa's role as a multipurpose trade agreement supporting market access, but also, and crucially
Robert Anderson: fostering good governance and encouraging market oriented reforms globally. And just to be a little bit more specific about that, let's please recall that currently several major transition economies from Central Asia and Latin America and elsewhere in the world are in line, have started the process of exceeding to the Gpa.
Robert Anderson: And if that objective can be pursued and can be achieved subject to the appropriate market access terms. This will be a major benefit to international suppliers based in the Us. Based in the EU Canada, etc.
Robert Anderson: all the major existing Gpa parties. So my point is, there's a lot to be gained. The Gpa. Has an importance that transcends its current impact in terms of balance of payments and things like this.
Robert Anderson: Okay, now, turning to the bigger picture.
Robert Anderson: sure, we have to acknowledge, and I think you will develop the point in the coming slides. The current threats regarding the use of tariffs do pose risks for the stability and viability of the multilateral trading system. Now, of course, the risk here is not limited to public procurement markets. Rather it extends to trade in goods
Robert Anderson: much more broadly and and just. In passing I will note, I think, that
Robert Anderson: the main legal challenges to the tariffs to the extent that they come will not be under the Gpa. There's a clause in in the Gpa. Article 4, 7, which excludes customs duties from the application of the agreement's non-discrimination provisions. That's because the Gpa. Is fundamentally intended to do, to deal with public procurement policy per se.
Robert Anderson: Also in in as a bit of context, I need to note that the entire Wto dispute settlement system is currently in a weakened state.
Robert Anderson: and this is something which has developed over time. It is definitely not
Robert Anderson: just the result of of recent actions under the new Administration. Rather
Robert Anderson: for for years, for many years now, under Republican and Democratic Presidents, the Us. Has refused to fill vacant positions in the Wto's applet body. Sort of Appeal court.
Robert Anderson: and this has this, this has created something known as the possibility of appealing disputes
Robert Anderson: into the void. That means you appeal to the
Robert Anderson: appeal to the dispute, to the applet body. But the applet body no longer exists in a functioning way. And so this makes it very difficult to pursue ultimate resolution of disputes. So that's that's another concern.
Robert Anderson: So there's to sum up, there's a lot going on here
Robert Anderson: again, my view is that Colon is basically a reasonable and even helpful development over the long term, though recognizing that
Robert Anderson: different different issues will need to be clarified over time.
Robert Anderson: and more broadly, the time has come for a robust defense of both the Gpa. And the multilateral trading system. This is going to involve a mix of negotiations, because all signals are that the Us. Administration wants negotiations.
Robert Anderson: and we'll be making demands, for example, concerning reciprocity in agreements and other countries will have to respond to that.
Robert Anderson: But we also need to bear in mind
Robert Anderson: the cost of protectionism in the public procurement, and other sectors, and I would just
Robert Anderson: I would just like to underline that the cost of protectionism in the public procurement sector. And this is a point that I've been developing with you, Chris.
Robert Anderson: are not limited to missing out on the traditional gains from trade that academics write about. Rather, we should be noting that protectionism in the public procurement sector is really harmful.
Robert Anderson: carries major risks in terms of fostering corruption, fostering supplier collusion in public procurement markets. When you close markets. Nothing facilitates corruption and collusion like a closed internationally closed market.
Robert Anderson: and the Gpa. Is now kind of providing, serving other roles than it was originally envisioned to serve. For example, an important dialogue is going on on fostering the use of green public procurement as a tool to deal with environmental challenges.
Robert Anderson: It's the Gpa. Now serves as a forum for sharing of perspectives amongst the participating countries. And so it has this important role of
Robert Anderson: reinforcing good public procurement practices and market opening which again transcends its kind of original role as a as
Robert Anderson: a market access tool.
Robert Anderson: Thanks.
Christopher Yukins / GW Law: Very much, Rob.
Christopher Yukins / GW Law: So just to just take a moment for the audience outside the United States, because I think it'd be difficult. Sometimes it's difficult to see what's going on in the United States. The United States is going through a very, very divisive period. There's tremendous, tremendous political upheaval going on now in Washington and through the United States.
Christopher Yukins / GW Law: and what Rob has done is he's reinforced norms on free trade, and that's going to be very much a part of what you see in the American dialogue, the political dialogue over the coming years. It's a stressing of norms that are considered important, because only by reaffirming the norms. Can we solve the more tactical questions on a day-to-day basis? So thank you, Rob.
Christopher Yukins / GW Law: so we're going to have to go over time a little bit, but if I don't talk about the Trump Tariffs, I'm going to get killed in the next Bar Association meeting. So for the Americans I have to walk through this stuff, because otherwise I have a lot of angry folks in the contracts field
Christopher Yukins / GW Law: and want to talk a little bit about how the mechanics of that, because they're very important. And just so for the non-americans. Just so you think I'm not doing this is actually Trump's official portrait. Just so you know, this is his official portrait. I didn't find this like on a website somewhere. This is his official presidential portrait.
Christopher Yukins / GW Law: There are 3 types of tariffs that he's put out, and one is reciprocal tariffs. I'll talk about those in more details which to address what are viewed as unfair trade practices in other countries. Then there are country specific tariffs. There were supposed to be 25% tariffs imposed against Canada and Mexico in the beginning of February, and then the trump administration deferred those for 30 days there were 10% tariffs imposed
Christopher Yukins / GW Law: against China in that same slew over that weekend at the beginning of February. And then there have been product product specific tariffs imposed on steel aluminum. The steel and aluminum tariffs are important because they're going to have an impact at the bottom of the supply chain, and an open question is whether how that will affect
Christopher Yukins / GW Law: Federal Federal procurement, which is typically done at the top of supply chain with highly, with highly finished manufactured items.
Christopher Yukins / GW Law: So, as Rob alluded to, and as Gene will discuss in more detail, there's a report due on April first, st and that was announced by the President in the 1st few hours of office. He and he called for this report
Christopher Yukins / GW Law: on trade agreements and foreign subsidies, and it's important. And Gene's going to emphasize the foreign subsidies. The reference to foreign subsidies in that direction
Christopher Yukins / GW Law: echoes almost exactly the foreign subsidies regulation. It's as though the Americans read the foreign subsidies regulation, and now they're trying to determine whether or not they should apply it reciprocally against Europe, and Jean will talk about that in more detail. That's the blue part of this slide. The red part of the slide is what came out in just the last few days in February. And it's these are criteria that are to be applied by the Us. Trade agencies
Christopher Yukins / GW Law: in assessing the other nations for possible reciprocal tariffs. So basically deciding which nations should be targeted by the United States, and looking to see whether or not those other nations are imposing higher tariffs, whether they have unfair tax schemes that raise barriers to us businesses. Whether or not there are other unfair, perceived, unfair barriers like regulatory requirements.
Christopher Yukins / GW Law: The 4th is, whether or not their exchange rates have been in the United States perspective manipulated in a way that hurts Americans, and the other is any other practices that the trade leaders find
Christopher Yukins / GW Law: offensive or troublesome. So that's a February direction from President Trump to undertake this study. That's what the red is about.
Christopher Yukins / GW Law: What's kind of amazing is that our colleague, Simon Evanett. In November, several months ago he anticipated the February Directive. Simon Evanett is an extraordinary international trade economist, and his Global trade alert published this report in November, anticipating what the Trump Administration was going to do in February, and importantly, by anticipating it, he also was able to anticipate
Christopher Yukins / GW Law: which nations will be the focus of attention. He created a red flag system, and it's hard to read. This chart, next to Simon's picture on the top identifies South Korea as the top of the pyramid, the most likely to be the subject of attention by the trump administration, and he used the 5 red flags. So you see how those red flags I've just reproduced this portion of his report, where, if there's a trade surplus between the United States and South Korea, enjoy substantial trade surplus.
Christopher Yukins / GW Law: Whether or not there are exchange rate issues, whether or not there's Us. Exports at risk, whether or not there's been a focus on the Us. Trade representative in past reports on this nation, and whether or not there's a perception of excess tariffs, so that the South Koreans have tariffs higher than the United States, and using that, Simon and his group, his team came up with 5 red flags for South Korea. So anticipating that means that even though the February direction from the President didn't say which nations should be targets.
Christopher Yukins / GW Law: Simon has essentially predicted which nations may well be targets. A very interesting academic exercise, very interesting use of an academic analysis to try to foresee where policy may go.
Christopher Yukins / GW Law: Now, I just want to go through the mechanics, which are important both from a policy standpoint and a political standpoint. So the 1st thing which is surprising to all us procurement lawyers, because we've never had to really deal with high tariffs is. Oh, my gosh! There's an exception from tariffs for us. Procurement. When the Us. Government is buying goods, those goods are presumptively
Christopher Yukins / GW Law: tariff free in an article we published a few days ago in the Government contractor. There's an image of it there on the right, and it's available in public procurement International. That article. We talked about the mechanics of how to handle this under the Federal Acquisition Regulation and the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation supplement, just as a flag for everyone. The procedures, the processes are more complete under the defense. Federal acquisition
Christopher Yukins / GW Law: supplement. They're better enunciated in the defense regulations.
Christopher Yukins / GW Law: and that can be important as you're trying to navigate this exception. It means, in essence that contractors that are shipping goods that might be bought by the Us. Government
Christopher Yukins / GW Law: have to give notice to the Us. Government, and then the contracting Officer and the Customs Service are supposed to cooperate in ensuring that the tariffs aren't imposed. There can be a claim for compensation if tariffs are imposed and it's possible. If, for example, there's a delay cost lower in the supply chain. If higher tariffs, for example, slow the delivery of steel, and therefore slow the delivery of manufactured items.
Christopher Yukins / GW Law: There may be delay or disruptions, claims as well. So this is opening up. And 1st of all, it's creating a need for contractors to focus on the exception. But it's also opening up the possibility of a lot of collateral litigation because of the additional costs that are caused by the tariffs.
Christopher Yukins / GW Law: Interestingly, yesterday, the Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the Justice Department, who handles the false claims unit. He gave a speech to the Federal Circuit Bar Association, and he said that there will be enhanced enforcement through the Us. Government on false Claims act issues involving tariffs, which means that makes it even more important that contractors take preparatory steps, that they flag for contracting officials, that they should be exempt. What's left open are issues, for example.
Christopher Yukins / GW Law: how state and local governments, how tribal governments should be handling this because it creates substantial additional costs for them, and they are not exempted.
Christopher Yukins / GW Law: The exemption probably comes from the reciprocal defense procurement agreement that the United States has entered into over the last decades. Those reciprocal defense procurement agreements call for an exemption from tariffs. They say that goods coming in should be tariff free.
Christopher Yukins / GW Law: Now this opens up, this whole scenario opens up, and I want to flag for our for our audience abroad. It opens up some very dangerous terrain here.
Christopher Yukins / GW Law: What it means is that if Swedish defense, materialism, and being imported into the United States. Even if the United States has imposed tariffs against the European Union, those Swedish war material coming into the United States
Christopher Yukins / GW Law: will be tariff free reciprocally, though it's possible that the EU or the Member States
Christopher Yukins / GW Law: might just ignore the reciprocal defense procurement agreements. So, for example, the EU is not a member of the reciprocal defense procurement agreements it's possible, and how it will unfold is very difficult to predict. But it's possible that American war material going to Sweden might face tariffs so asymmetrical tariffs involving defense material, a political hot button. Let me guarantee you, that is a political hot button that we need to be aware of and anticipate and think around.
Christopher Yukins / GW Law: Okay. So the other materials that might be available that there are available. Other materials are available again on public procurement, international more background, including detailed background on how these on how the exemption might be exercised. With that we're going to close. And again, I'm sorry we're going a little over time, but want to close with some observations from sheen gear looking forward on Us. Trade policy involving procurement and sheen.
Jean Heilman Grier: Okay, I will try to be brief.
Jean Heilman Grier: since time is running. But let me just sort of address the Us. Government procurement policy and the prospects in the coming days or weeks. You know, if we look at the last 8 years, during both of Trump One and Biden, there was extensive measures to protect us, procurement, tightening of domestic content, requirements, price preferences, mandates in infrastructure laws, and
Jean Heilman Grier: there was many things taken to treat to protect the us procurement market for domestic suppliers. It seems now that that's maybe has kind of run its course, and there may not be a lot more room for tightening the Us. Procurement rules.
Jean Heilman Grier: But I think, instead, and picking up from both Rob and Chris's comment, what we're looking now at and seeing is reciprocity. That's the keynote to the trump trade policy, and I think we'll see it, and we'll sort of see it in the procurement context. Well, first, st
Jean Heilman Grier: first, st the tariffs, as Chris mentioned, they're looking for reciprocal tariffs in which they want us tariffs raised to match whatever the foreign country's tariffs are, and secondly, they're looking at reciprocal trade agreements or negotiating agreements based on reciprocity. And that's a position that the incoming Us. Trade representative
Jean Heilman Grier: has indicated. He wants to pursue which is reciprocal agreements. And so what would that mean in the procurement context?
Jean Heilman Grier: If you look at what happened during trump won when they negotiated basically one trade agreement which was the revision of the Nafta, the North American Free Trade Agreement, and in that context the Administration tried to apply what was called a dollar for dollar policy in which they basically told Mexico and Canada, the other 2 parties to the Nafta, that
Jean Heilman Grier: that the Us. Would open us procurement to them at the dollar level of the procurement that those 2 countries covered. Now, obviously the Us. Has a vastly larger procurement market than either country, and so Canada said no, and they said, If that's the condition for joining the or covering procurement under the renegotiated Nafta, they were not going to participate.
Jean Heilman Grier: So they pulled out of any procurement commitments in the new agreement. Mexico and Mexico just rolled over its nafta obligations with no new market access. And so that issue just kind of went away, but I would expect, if there's any
Jean Heilman Grier: renegotiation of the Gpa.
Jean Heilman Grier: Which could come out of this study, that
Jean Heilman Grier: that Rob mentioned. The Us. Could be looking at
Jean Heilman Grier: at a reciprocal, you know, dollar for dollar kind of match with his with his trading partners.
Jean Heilman Grier: I think the bigger concern. And and I think this was alluded to is that the Us. Pull out of the Gpa. It came very close during the trump, one administration at the very end of its term
Jean Heilman Grier: to saying, Okay, we're not going to be a party to the Gpa. And the question is really whether
Jean Heilman Grier: the trump Administration would care if foreign. If Us. Companies lost access to foreign procurement markets.
Jean Heilman Grier: And obviously, if large companies are affected, that may change their calculation. But what would happen to us companies. If the Us. Pulled out first, st as in the you know, as was the case in the EU, until the Colleen decision.
Jean Heilman Grier: the Us. Can often participate in a lot of procurement in other countries that are parties to the Gpa. Or other or even other agreements, because those countries, once they open their procurement, they don't put any
Jean Heilman Grier: restrictions in place, and they let anyone participate.
Jean Heilman Grier: And Canada, for instance, has been doing that, although they're now considering their own reciprocity provisions which could mirror those the Us. Has put in place. So what you could see is that the Us. Could continue to participate in many countries procurement. But the EU now has the 2 tools, both the Colleen decision and the Ipi, which could be used against the Us.
Jean Heilman Grier: So I think I think for the moment I'll stop here.
Jean Heilman Grier: and see if we have questions.
Christopher Yukins / GW Law: Sure on time, Gene. Just a quick question. How would reciprocity work? Since the since the Us. Procurement market is so large compared to, you know, to other procurement markets. If we, if we have dollar for dollar reciprocity, how mechanically would that work.
Jean Heilman Grier: That's a very good question. And that was one that was discussed when the potential withdrawal was an issue no one knows, because if you have, you know, if you're looking at a foreign market, that's, you know, a quarter of the Us. Market.
Jean Heilman Grier: you know. Do you tell? Do you let them participate until the Us. Has has procured that amount for the year. I think it would be probably really impossible to administer, so I don't know. I wouldn't begin to guess how they might do it, but it would be very difficult.
Jean Heilman Grier: And then, if you had other countries with different levels of, you know, procurement, and so they would cut off it at, you know, a hundred 1 million, somebody else at, you know, 2 billion. I wouldn't want to be a Federal procurement official.
Christopher Yukins / GW Law: So that the audience.
Jean Heilman Grier: But I'm not sure the Trump Administration had put, but
Jean Heilman Grier: I doubt the Trump Administration thought about that when they were considering the withdrawal.
Christopher Yukins / GW Law: Well, so the audience understands. So Jean was negotiating trade agreements involving procurement for a decade on behalf of the Us. Government, and she's doing it with a stated goal of reciprocity. But, as she's explaining now, reciprocity traditionally was tempered by comedy.
Christopher Yukins / GW Law: Thanks very much, thanks to the audience.
Christopher Yukins / GW Law: Have a great day. Take care bye, bye.
Jean Heilman Grier: Okay. Thanks.
Roberto Caranta: Thank you. Bye, bye.
Robert Anderson: See you all soon, I hope.