RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONGPA/M/13
13 July 2000
(00-2885)
Committee on Government Procurement
MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON 8 MARCH 2000
Chairman:  Mr Dick Mak (Hong Kong, China)
1. The following agenda was adopted:
A. Election of the Chairman for 2000
B. Application for observer statusC. Modifications to the Appendices to the Agreement
(i) Notifications
(ii) Loose-leaf system of Appendices
D. Least Developed CountriesE. Accessions:
(i) Kyrgyz Republic
(ii) Latvia
(iii) Iceland
(iv) Chinese Taipei(v) Panama
F. Newly acceded WTO Members
(i) Bulgaria
(ii) Estonia
(iii) Slovenia
G. Streamlining the Accessions Process
H. Review of National Implementing Legislation
I. Negotiations under Article XXIV:7J. Date of the Next Meeting
A.
ELECTION OF THE CHAIRMAN FOR 2000
2. The Committee elected Mr. Dick Mak (Hong Kong, China) as its Chairman for 2000.
3. In expressing appreciation for the Committee's confidence in him, the Chairman said that he
was honoured to accept his election to the chairmanship of the Committee but wished to inform theGPA/M/13
Page 2
Parties that he could only do so on the understanding that he might have to step down in the autumn
when he expected to be posted to Hong Kong, China.
B. APPLICATION FOR OBSERVER STATUS
4. The Committee agreed to grant observer status to the Government of Jordan , pursuant to the
decision it had taken on this matter (GPA/1, Annex 1) and in response to the request received from
that country (GPA/W/103).
C. MODIFICATIONS TO THE APPENDICES TO THE AGREEMENT
(i) Notifications
5. The Chairman said that, since the October 1999 meeting, Hong Kong, China had proposed
modifications to its Appendix I (GPA/W/102 and 105) .  These modifications had entered into force on
4 February 2000 (WT/Let/328) and 17 February 2000 (WT/Let/332), respectively.
6. Regarding the proposed modification by Japan to its Appendix I, notified in
document GPA/W/91, the Chairman said that the delegations of the United States, the European
Community and Canada had each communicated their objection to the modifications taking effect
(GPA/W/95, 96 and 97, respectively).  The questions  put to Japan by these delegations regarding this
modification (GPA/W/97, 99 and GPA/W/100 and Add. 1, respectively) and Japan's responses thereto
(GPA/W/104 and Add.1, GPA/W/107 and 108, respectivel y) had been circulated to all Parties.
7. The representative of Japan said that his delegation had held consultations with the
delegations of the United States, the European Community and Canada regarding this matter.
8. The representative of the United States said that his delegation hoped to conclude the
consultations on this matter once the evaluation of the answers received from Japan had been
completed.
9. The Committee took note of the statements made and agreed  to revert to this matter at its next
meeting.
(ii) Loose-leaf system of Appendices
10. The Chairman said that the Loose-leaf System of Appendices had been certified on
1 March 2000 and circulated to all WTO Members (WT/Let/330).  In addition, the Secretariat had
circulated a note describing the procedures for future changes to the loose-leaf system (GPA/W/110).
D. LEAST DEVELOPED COUNTRIES
11. The Chairman said that, pursuant to a request by the Committee on 8 October 1999, the
Secretariat had circulated a note containing a draft declaration on the treatment of least developed
countries.  The declaration had not been adopted as some delegations had indicated that they needed
more time to consider it.  In the light of the larg er initiative regarding least developed countries under
consideration in the context of the General Council, he suggested that the Committee could come
back to this matter in the light of developments  and at the request of any delegation.  The Committee
so agreed.GPA/M/13
Page 3
E. ACCESSIONS
(i) Kyrgyz Republic
12. The representative of the Kyrgyz Republic said that discussions had been held with some
Parties regarding the draft offer of 11 May 1999 (GPA/SPEC/4).  His delegation would provide
further information relating to its offer and would also respond to questions put by the United States(GPA/SPEC/7).
(ii) Latvia
13. The representative of Latvia said that her delegation had received comments from two Parties
since the submission of the initial offer in June 1999 (GPA/SPEC/5).  Her delegation would
appreciate receiving comments from other interested delegations as soon as possible.
14. The representative of the United States said that Parties' delay in responding to the offer from
Latvia was disappointing and showed the need for improving the accession procedures.
15. The representatives of the European Community and Switzerland said that the Latvian offer
was a good basis for initiating bilateral consultations.
(iii) Iceland
16. The representative of Iceland said that his delegation had held bilateral consultations with the
delegation of the United States on the basis of the revised offer submitted on 18 February 2000
(GPA/W/73/Rev.1).  Consultation s would also be held with the delegations of Canada and
Switzerland on the offer.  Iceland's answers to the questions put by these delegations had been
circulated in document GPA/SPEC/6.
17. The representatives of the United States and Canada  said that Iceland's revised offer was a
major improvement over the initial offer and that their delegations looked forward to resolving a few
outstanding concerns as soon as possible.
(iv) Chinese Taipei
18. The representative of Chinese Taipei said that his delegation had held bilateral consultations
with Korea in January 2000 and would also hold consultations with Canada in the near future.  His
delegation hoped that the issues pending with these Parties would be resolved in the near future.
19. The representative of Korea said that his delegation hoped to reach a conclusion on the
outstanding issues as soon as possible.
20. The representative of the United States said  that Chinese Taipei had recently adopted new
domestic legislation.  The provision of information on this legislation in a WTO language would be a
useful input to the work on the accession of Chinese Taipei.1
(v) Panama
21. The representative of Panama said that some delegations were still considering the responses
that his delegation had provided in the context of the bilateral consultations.  The bilateral
consultations with some other Parties would continue on the basis of Panama's current offer
(GPA/SPEC/3/Rev.1).
                                                     
1 Circulated subsequently in document GPA/36.GPA/M/13
Page 4
22. The representative of the European Community said that a number of points remained
outstanding regarding sub-central level government entities, in particular, regarding the Panama Canal
Authority which used to be included in the offer of the United States until it was transferred to
Panama.  Her delegation felt that the bilateral negotiations had progressed as far as was possible on
the basis of the present offer.  They expected to receive a revised offer from Panama before resumingthe bilateral negotiations.
23. The representative of the United States said that his delegation had had several rounds of
consultations with Panama and felt that the submission of a revised offer by Panama would be useful.
His delegation looked forward to making progress on a number of issues which it had raised with
Panama including the coverage of the offer relating to the Panama Canal Authority.
F. NEWLY ACCEDED WTO M EMBERS
(i) Bulgaria
24. The Chairman said that he had written a letter to the delegation of Bulgaria on
24 February 2000, seeking information regarding the steps envisaged by the Bulgarian authorities
with a view to initiating the process of acce ssion to the Agreement in accordance with the
commitment that Bulgaria had undertaken in the context of its accession to the WTO
(WT/ACC/BGR/5, paragraph 79 and Protocol, Part I, paragraph 2).
25. The representative of Bulgaria said that the recent reforms involving the drawing up of new
procurement legislation and the restructuring of government administration had affected the
preparation of Bulgaria's initial offer.   The process of internal consultations had  been initiated in
early 1998 by the circulation of an initial draft entity list to the Bulgarian government agencies
concerned but this process had been interrupted by legislative or governmental changes.  InNovember 1998, a new Law on Government Administration, providing for major restructuring of the
government administration, had been passed.  In  June 1999, a new Law on Government Procurement
had been adopted, replacing the Law on Government and Municipal Procurement of 1997.  As a result
of legislative reforms, the number of institutions and agencies listed as primary users or recipients of
budget allocations had been reduced.  A major government restructuring had taken place at the endof 1999.  Some ministries had been merged, their functions had been changed, readjusted or
redistributed and new government agencies had been set up as subsidiary bodies to the ministries.
The work on the preparation of the draft offer had been resumed in early 2000.  The draft offer would
be submitted to the Committee once it had been approved by the Council of Ministers.
26. The representatives of the European Community and the United States
 said that, while they
appreciated the difficulties faced by Bulgaria in preparing a draft entity list, Bulgaria should submit its
application for accession together with information on the new law on government procurement so asto initiate the accession process without further delay.
(ii) Estonia
27. The Chairman said that the Protocol of Accession of Estonia to the WTO included a
commitment that, upon accession to the WTO, Estonia would initiate negotiations for membership in
the Agreement on Government Procurement by tablin g an entity offer.  If the results of the
negotiations were satisfactory to the interests of Estonia and the Parties to the Agreement, Estonia
would complete negotiations for membership in the Agreement by 31 December 2000
(WT/ACC/EST/28).  Estonia became a WTO Member on 13 November 1999.
28. The representative of Estonia said that the preparations for initiating the accession
negotiations, including the drafting of an offer, were in their final phase.  Moreover, the newGPA/M/13
Page 5
government procurement law was currently being redrafted.  Information on the legislation would be
provided as soon as it had been passed by the Parliament.
(iii) Slovenia
29. The Chairman recalled that the Working Party on the Accession of Slovenia to GATT had
taken note of a commitment by the representative of Slovenia that his Government would accede to
the Agreement on Government Procurement as soon as national legislation dealing with the subject
had been enacted, but not later than three years after the date of accession (L/7492).  Slovenia became
a Contracting Party to GATT on 30 July 1995.  He had written a letter to the delegation of Slovenia
seeking information on developments regarding Slovenia's accession to the Agreement.
30. The representative of Slovenia said that he reaffirmed his Government's commitment
regarding the accession to the Agreement.  His delegation was of the view that, in order to fulfil its
commitments under the Agreement, it was necessary to  bring the domestic legislation into compliance
with the Agreement.  A revision of the Procurement Law of 1997 was currently before the Parliament.
The adoption of the new law would enable Slovenia to apply the requirements and obligations under
the provisions of the Agreement.  The Slovenian authorities would begin the preparatory work
regarding Slovenia's accession to the Agreement immediately after the adoption of the Law.  His
authorities envisaged the submission of the relevant information on the procurement regime ofSlovenia as well as the draft offer within the next few months.
G. STREAMLINING THE ACCESSIONS PROCESS
31. The Chairman said that, at the request of the Committee, the Secretariat had prepared two
notes relating to the streamlining the accessions pr ocess, respectively on the establishment of an
indicative time-frame for accession negotiations and reporting on the progress of work (GPA/W/109)and on the provision of information relating to accession to the Agreement based on a checklist of
issues (Job No. 5761).
32. The representative of Latvia said the establishment of an indicative time-frame for the
accession negotiations and reporting on the progress of work would be very helpful in reducing the
duration of the accessions process which, as the case of Latvia had shown, could be unnecessarilylong.  For instance, the indication of a time-frame for the provision of comments on offers might give
Parties an impetus to provide their comments mo re rapidly than had been the case in the past
accession negotiations.
33. The representative of the United States, joined by the representatives of Canada
 and
Switzerland, said that the present practice of accessions involved duplication of efforts and waste of
time in between meetings.  The procedures suggested in the two notes were an excellent starting-point
for looking at the question of accession procedures from the standpoint of Parties as well as ofacceding countries.  They would be an important contribution in terms of both developing and
implementing an agreed framework for the accession process.   By agreeing on an indicative timetable,
Parties would implicitly commit themselves to make  an effort to move the process along according to
that time-frame.
34. Regarding the overall time-period suggested in the note on an indicative time-frame
(GPA/W/109), the representative of the United States, joined by the representatives of Canada
, the
European Community, Latvia  and Switzerland , said that the suggested 15-month period for the overall
process was unrealistic.  The representative of the European Community, joined by the representatives
of Canada and the United States , said that the time-frame would be indicative and would have to be
applied with flexibility to individual accessions.  Her delegation preferred a period of two years as ageneral rule with exceptions depending on the complexity of the accession and the size of the
procurement market.  The representative of Latvia said that the time-frame should take into accountGPA/M/13
Page 6
the frequency of the meetings of the Committee, th e main opportunity available to delegations of
acceding countries to meet and discuss with Parties' experts.
35. The representative of Latvia, joined by the representative of the European Community , said
that the proposed time-frame might not be sufficient for the preparation of offers on Annex 2 and 3
entities.  Consultations with domestic authorities at sub-central levels, particularly in countries thathad federal structures, and gathering information on their activities took time.
36. Regarding the specific points in the suggested indicative timetable, the representative of the
United States, supported by the representatives of Canada
, the European Community  and Switzerland ,
said that it might be useful to have informal plurilateral consultations on the basis of the responses tothe checklist of issues by the acceding country and before the tabling of its offer.  The purpose of
these consultations would be to share information on  the scope of the initial offer, to outline the
expectations of the Parties and to hear the views of the acceding country.  Plurilateral consultationswould also be useful in terms of assessing the needs and identifying any specific actions that should
be taken by the acceding country.  The representativ e of the European Community said that it would
be useful to the acceding country to meet and disc uss with all the Parties at the same time instead of
having to go over the same ground individually with each of the interested Parties.  The representative
of Switzerland said that the holding of plurilateral consultations before the submission of the offer
could give the acceding country a sense of what the Parties to the Agreement expected to see in the
offer.
37. Regarding the draft checklist of issues for provision of information (Job No. 5761), the
representative of the United States said that the list of suggested questions was useful.  His delegation
would provide its specific comments, for instance as  regards the addition of an introductory paragraph
on any legal or administrative actions that would need to be taken by the acceding country and any
relevant technical cooperation needs.
38. The representative of Canada said that the list of questions should be shorter.  The questions
should be put in a way which would allow countries  to provide some broad open-ended descriptions
of their procurement system.  While it was important to have a description of a country's actualsystem in sufficient detail, the focus of the ques tions in the checklist should be forward-looking and
should be aimed at eliciting information on the action plan envisaged by a prospective party regarding
the way in which it would make its procurement system consistent with the provisions of the
Agreement.  Her delegations comments would be provided in writing.
39. The representative of the European Community said that the approach of having a large
number of detailed questions in the checklist would help in completing the preparatory work as much
as possible by charting out up front the existing situation.  It would not be appropriate to formulate thequestions in a manner which would require acceding countries to speculate on matters on which they
had not yet drawn up legislation.  One of the purposes of the plurilateral discussion would be to
discuss the changes that would be needed to ensure compliance with regard to the specific provisions
of the Agreement.
40. The representative of the United States said that the checklist was a tool for the development
of a concrete and effective work plan for the accession process and for implementing the Agreement
effectively.  It was therefore important for the checklist to have sufficient details and precision to
allow an acceding country to understand what was required of it.  In the recent accessions, individual
Parties had submitted long lists of questions, sometimes repeating the same questions or putting
redundant questions.  The present proposal would allow an acceding country to look at a consistent setof questions, responses to which all Parties would have access.  This would not add any burden to the
accession process beyond what already existed and would make the process more systematic.GPA/M/13
Page 7
41. The representative of Hong Kong, China enquir ed whether the original Parties to the GPA
had been asked to provide the detailed information as was required in the proposed checklist.
42. The representative of the European Community said that the process of review of national
implementing legislation (GPA/1/Add.1) involved the provision of the same level of information from
the Parties to the Agreement.  The answers to th e checklist would assist acceding countries to also
fulfil this requirement after their accession to the Agreement.
43. With regard to technical cooperation  relating to accessions, the representatives of the United
States and Canada  said that any needs of acceding countries and the appropriate action that would be
required regarding the effective implementation of the Agreement could be identified during
accession negotiations.
44. The Committee took note of the statements made and agreed  to revert to the matter at its next
meeting.  It was also agreed that the Secretariat would revise the note on an indicative time-frame for
accession negotiations in light of the comments made at the present meeting.  As for the checklist of
issues, Parties would have a month to submit any specific comments.2  After this, the Secretariat
would revise the draft checklist of issues and circulate it to delegations.3  A period would be allowed
for comments by Parties and, if no comments were received by the given date, the checklist of issues
would be considered as adopted by the Committee.4
H. REVIEW OF NATIONAL IMPLEMENTING LEGISLATION
45. In accordance with the agreed procedures and the schedule for the review of national
implementing legislation, the Committee reviewed the legislation of Hong Kong, China (GPA/27);
and Norway (GPA/10) on the basis of the writte n questions put by Canada to these Parties
(Job Nos. 1458 and 1459, respectively).  It was agreed that the oral replies of Norway andHong Kong, China provided at the meeting would be circulated in writing.  Parties were invited to
submit any further questions that they wished to put to Hong Kong, China and Norway by
1 May 2000.
5  The delegations of Hong Kong, China an d Norway would provide written responses to
these questions by 15 July 2000.6
46. The Committee also reverted to the on-going review of the national legislation of Canada,
Korea and the United States.  The written replies from Korea to questions put by Canada
(Job No. 5328) were circulated as Job No. 617.  It was agreed that Korea and the United States would
provide replies to the follow-up questions that had been put to them by Canada (Job Nos. 1456
and 1460, respectively).7
47. The Committee agreed that, at its next meeting, it should take up any outstanding points with
respect to the legislation of Canada;  Hong Kong, China;  Korea;  Norway;  and the United States.  It
would also initiate the review of the national implementing legislation of Israel (GPA/34) andSingapore.
8  In accordance with the agreed procedure for the review, Parties would be invited to
submit their written questions to these delegations by 1 July 2000 and copies would be made available
                                                     
2 Comments received from the delegations of the United States, the European Community and Canada
were circulated as Addenda 1, 2 and 3 to Job No. 5761.
3 Circulated as Job No. 5761/Rev.1.
4 Issued as GPA/35.
5 Questions from the United States to Hong Kong, China and Norway were circulated as Job Nos. 3825
and 3824, respectively.
6 Replies from Hong Kong, China to questions put by Canada were circulated as Job No. 4437.
7 The reply from Korea to a follow-up question from Canada was circulated as Job No. 4248.
8 Notification of implementing legislation not yet submitted.GPA/M/13
Page 8
to the Secretariat which would circulate them to other Parties.9  Israel and Singapore would provide
written responses to these questions by 15 August 2000.
I. NEGOTIATIONS UNDER ARTICLE XXIV:7
48. Reporting on the informal consultations held on 7 March 2000 on the Article XXIV:7(b)
negotiations, the Chairman said that Parties had taken up the questions of procurement methods,
statistical reporting, the Article-by-Article review of the Agreement and elimination of discriminatory
measures and expansion of coverage as well as the work programme and time-frame for the
completion of these negotiations.  As regards the time-frame and work programme that should be
established to carry forward the negotiations, the discussion had highlighted, in particular, two points.
One was the need for a time-frame to guide the work which recognized that Parties had ambitious
expectations of the review and the second was the need for more focus in the work.  On the issue of
time-frame, there had been a general view that delegations should be guided by a target date ofmid-2001 or the Fourth Ministerial if that was held around that time.  The point had also been made
that intermediate time-frames should be set for the different stages of work, but this would depend on
how the work was organized in detail.  As regards organizing the work in such a way as to provide
greater focus, a number of suggestions were made about the categorization of the issues before
Parties.  There had been a view that this matter should be discussed further on the basis of specificsuggestions from delegations.  It had been agreed that, at the next meeting, delegations would focus
on Articles VII-XV, together with paragraphs 1, 3 and 4 of Article XVIII.  It had also been agreed that
the deadline of end May would be set for the submission of written suggestions on both the
categorization and the specific provisions selected for focus at the next meeting.  At the next informal
meeting to be held in June, Parties would also at tempt to map out in more detail subsequent work on
the basis of the categorization discussion.  In doing so, Parties would also have to address the other
aspects of work – on the elimination of discriminatory measures and the expansion of coverage.
J. D
ATE OF THE NEXT MEETING
49. The Committee agreed to hold its next meeting in late September 2000.
__________
                                                     
9 Questions from Korea to Israel were circulated as Job No. 4434.