RESTRICTED
GPA/M/59
4 May 2015
(15-2378)  Page: 1/7
Committee on Government Procurement   
 
 MINUTES OF THE FORMAL MEETING OF 11 FEBRUARY 2015 
CHAIRMAN: MR KRZYSZTOF TREPCZY ŃSKI (POLAND) 
The Chairman said that, in preparation for the meeting, delegations had received an Airgram1 
setting out the proposed agenda, in addition to tw o related faxes. As set out in the Airgram, and 
following the usual procedures, it was proposed that the meeting address the following items: 
 
1. Request for Observer Status: Pakistan; 
2. Domestic Legislation – Recent Developments; 
3. Chairmanship of the Committee in 2015; and 
4. Other business. 
With regard to other business, the Chairman said that, under this item and as a point of 
information, he would note at the end of the m eeting the dates that had been reserved for the 
Committee's meetings in the remainder of 2015. 
No other item of other business had been raised by delegations.  
The Committee adopted the agenda, with th e addition proposed by the Chairman. 
 
1  REQUEST FOR OBSERVER STATUS: PAKISTAN 
1.1  The Chairman said that Pakistan's request for observer status in the Committee had been 
circulated on 20 January 2015 (GPA/W/330). This was a very welcome development for the Committee. He invited the Committee to consider the request, pursuant to the relevant provisions 
of the Agreement. 
1.2  The Committee agreed to grant observer status to Pakistan, pursuant to Pakistan's request. 
1.3  On behalf of the Committee, the Chairman extended a warm welcome to the delegation of 
Pakistan in its new capacity as an observer to the GPA. 1.4  The representative of Pakistan expressed the deep appreciation of his Government to the GPA 
Parties for agreeing to its request for observer status in the Committee. He thanked the Chairman 
and the Secretariat for their support and for facilitating Pakistan's request in a thoroughly 
professional manner and at a short notice. 
1.5  Continuing, he said that Pakistan's legal framework for procurement had undergone 
substantive changes in the last decade. Currently, his Government was continuing to implement 
reforms in order to fulfil its objectives of effi ciency and transparency in public procurement. 
1.6  Following a World Bank assessment and recommendations in 1999, Pakistan had undertaken 
its first set of reforms by setting up a Public Procurement Regulatory Authority (PPRA) at the 
federal level, under the Public Procurement Regulatory Authority Ordinance 2002, and by 
                                               
1 WTO/AIR/GPA/1, dated 28 January 2015. GPA/M/59 
 
- 2 - 
 
  promulgating the Public Procurement Rules in 2004. These reforms had addressed the basics by 
bringing the legislation and procurement framework in line with the UNCITRAL Model Law on Public 
Procurement. Currently, Pakistan was implementing further reforms under a National Procurement Strategy for 2013-2016, details of which were available online, with the aim to achieve the 
objectives of a fair, transparent, efficient and effective public procurement regime. Further, the 
18
th amendment to the country's Constitution had devolved a majority of functions to the 
Provinces. As a result, the Provinces had also promulgated their own laws and were in the process 
of framing detailed rules. 
1.7  Continuing further, he said that, with th e background of the past and ongoing domestic 
reforms, observer status in the Committee would provide his Government an opportunity to better understand the provisions of the Agreement, to assess the costs and benefits of bringing its 
current legislative framework into alignment with the Agreement, to learn from other Parties, and 
to be able to fully benefit from technical assistance from the Secretariat. Notwithstanding its many challenges, Pakistan was determined to proceed with the implementation of necessary reforms 
with a view to joining the Agreement in the shortest possible time. Pakistan welcomed and 
counted on the support of the Committee, the Partie s to the Agreement and the Secretariat in this 
respect. 
1.8  The representatives of Japan; the United States; the European Union; Canada; Norway; 
Hong Kong, China; Chinese Taipei; and Switzerland warmly welcomed Pakistan as an observer on 
the Committee. They looked forward to Pakistan in itiating its accession process in the foreseeable 
future, and stood ready to assist and work with Pakistan in this regard. 
1.9  Continuing, the representative of Japan said  that in 2012, three Asian economies - Indonesia, 
Malaysia and Viet Nam - had acquired observer status in the Committee. However, subsequently, 
there had been no further developments in the re gion. Pakistan's observer status was therefore a 
welcome development. He hoped that Pakistan would learn and benefit from the practices of the 
Parties and the Committee and looked forward to its eventual accession to the Agreement. 
1.10  The representative of the United States sa id that Pakistan would constitute an important 
contribution to the GPA. His delegation strongly supported Pakistan's efforts towards acceding to 
the Agreement, and was pleased to note Pakistan 's intention for a rapid accession. The United 
States was ready to provide needed help in this regard, on request. 
1.11  The representative of the European Union said that Pakistan's observer status in the 
Committee was an important development in the history of the Agreement. His delegation was 
aware of Pakistan's 2013-2016 National Procurem ent Strategy and had had the opportunity to 
have a very useful discussion with Pakistan on the structure of its public procurement market. 
The European Union looked forward to the early initiation of Pakistan's accession process, to the 
receipt, in the foreseeable future, of an ambitious initial offer, and to working with Pakistan in this respect. 
1.12  The representative of Canada said that his delegation looked forward to the early translation 
of Pakistan's interest in the work of the Committ ee into the launch of its accession process. In the 
view of his delegation, all GPA Parties - including newcomers - gained tremendously from the enlargement of the GPA's membership. Canada stood ready to assist with any questions that 
Pakistan might have in the context of its eventual accession process. 
1.13  The representative of Norway said that Pakistan was a very important actor in the 
multilateral trading system. Its observer status in the Committee was therefore a positive step in 
strengthening the global trading regime. 
1.14  The representative of Hong Kong, China invited Pakistan to consider acceding to the revised 
GPA, given that the text incorporated improved tr ansitional arrangements for developing and least 
developed members. He drew attention to the gr owing membership of the Agreement, citing the 
recently concluded accessions of Montenegro and New Zealand.2 
                                               
2 For information on the Accessions of Mont enegro and New Zealand,  see GPA/126, dated 
26 November 2014, paragraphs 3.5 to 3.13. GPA/M/59 
 
- 3 - 
 
  1.15  The representative of Chinese Taipei said that observer status in the Committee showed 
Pakistan's commitment to the key principles of the GPA, namely openness, transparency and non-
discrimination as well as fair and open competition. Chinese Taipei stood ready to share its experience in the field of government procurement with a view to assisting Pakistan to better 
understand the Agreement. Further, it looked forward to Pakistan taking further steps to initiate its 
accession process in the foreseeable future. 
1.16  The representative of Switzerland echoed  and supported the statements made by other 
delegations. His delegation was available to provide any assistance that might be helpful to 
Pakistan. 
1.17  The representative of Pakistan expressed hi s sincere gratitude to the delegations for their 
support and offers of assistance. These provid ed very good momentum and encouragement for 
Pakistan. In the area of public procurement, Pakist an had come a long way. Over the years, it had 
moved from a rather basic, pre-1947 era public  procurement system, based on departmental 
purchase manuals and general financial rules, to a more systematic framework, with a regulatory 
authority in place. This new system had been well embraced by the Provinces. Among the many 
issues to be tackled under the National Proc urement Strategy was a roadmap to bring about 
harmonization of procurement laws and procedures across the country, together with their 
alignment with the requirements of relevant international instruments. Through the institutional 
strengthening of the PPRA, greater operational inde pendence and financial sustainability was being 
attained, and provision had been made for impr oved monitoring of the procurement system. 
Pakistan acknowledged the offers of assistance, an d looked forward to working very closely with 
Parties, the Committee and the Secretariat going forward. 
1.18  The Committee took note of the statements made. 
2  DOMESTIC LEGISLATION – RECENT DEVELOPMENTS 
2.1  The Chairman said that this agenda item had been requested by Canada. It followed on 
previous discussions on the same topic that had taken place in the course of the Committee's 
formal meetings in June and October 2014, also at the request of Canada. 
2.2  The representative of Canada said that, at Committee meetings in June and October 2014, as 
noted by the Chairman, his delegation had raised concerns regarding legislative initiatives in the 
United States that had introduced, or proposed  to introduce, new discriminatory measures in 
relation to government procurement conducted by federal, state and municipal-level governments. 
Canada had asked the United States to explain how each initiative was consistent with the latter's 
obligations under Article XXII:6 of the revised Agreement, which provided that "each Party shall seek to avoid introducing or continuing discriminatory measures that distort open procurement". 
In Canada's view, this obligation applied to any measure Parties took in relation to procurement, 
regardless of whether such measures applied to procurement not covered by the GPA. Currently, 
Canada wished to reiterate its concern about continued efforts by the United States Administration 
to expand Buy American forced localization requirements  for federal funding for transportation 
projects. In a recent example, on 28 January 2015, the United States Secretary for Transportation 
had appeared before the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works and stated the 
Administration's desire to expand Buy Americ a requirements for programs funded by the 
Department of Transportation. On 2 February 2015,  the Administration had released its proposed 
budget for fiscal year 2015-2016, in which it indicated its intention to resubmit the GROW America 
Act
3 to Congress in the coming weeks. This proposed legislation would expand federal funding for 
transportation infrastructure projects in the United States to approximately $500 billion over 
6 years. Much of this spending would be transferred to State and local governments and would be 
subject to Buy America restrictions. In addition, under the GROW America Act, the Administration 
proposed to raise the current 60% threshold for Bu y America to 100% for public transportation or 
mass transit vehicle projects. 
                                               
3 The GROW America Act: "Generating Renewal, Op portunity, and Work with  Accelerated Mobility, 
Efficiency, and Rebuilding of Infrastructur e and Communities throughout America Act". GPA/M/59 
 
- 4 - 
 
  2.3  Continuing, he said that Canada was once again seeking an explanation from 
the United States as regards how these proposals were consistent with paragraph 6 of Article XXII. He observed that numerous organizations, such as the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) and the European Bank for 
Reconstruction and Development (EBRD), had identified infrastructure renewal as a key issue 
facing countries around the world in the coming years. In this context, it would be unfortunate were forced localization requirements to become the de facto  norm for the funding of 
infrastructure projects. Canada encouraged GPA Parties to set a positive example for other 
countries in meeting these infrastructure challenges. Lastly, Canada had also, in June 2014, raised concerns about compliance with GPA commitments by the State of Minnesota. Canada looked forward to working bilaterally with the United States to address these concerns and hoped that this 
issue would be resolved by the time of the Committee's next meeting. 
2.4  The representative of Japan recalled his delega tion's interventions at the two formal meetings 
in June and October 2014 referred to above, in the course of which he had communicated 
Japanese stakeholder concerns regarding a growing trend in the United States to strengthening 
Buy American requirements. Japan, in particular, wished to raise issues with the Grow America Act, which the United States Department of Transportation had taken the initiative to bring into 
effect in 2014. According to his understanding, that  bill had ultimately not been passed by the US 
Congress in 2014. Nonetheless, he wished to reiterate Japan's intention to continue to monitor closely the actions of the United States Department of Transportation in the current (114
th) 
Congress with regard to this issue when the budget for surface transportation assistance was 
discussed. 
2.5  Continuing, he said that Japan had taken note that the budget for fiscal year 2016 that had 
been sent by the President to Congress included a 6 year US$478 billion surface transportation re-
authorization proposal which made direct reference to the Grow America Act proposal. The Grow 
America Act was also referenced in the highlights of the United States Department of Transportation's budget for the next fiscal year . He quoted the Head of the Department of 
Transportation as saying: "the Grow America Act will strengthen existing Buy America 
requirements to ensure that taxpayers' investment for public transportation translates into American jobs and opportunity for innovation. Th e Act allows for an orderly phasing by transit 
suppliers by raising the current 60% threshold up  to 100% over multiple years to bring the Buy 
American requirements for transit in line with requirements on other modes". 
2.6  Japan opposed the view of the United States Department of Transportation that Buy American 
requirements translated into American jobs and opportunity for innovation. On the contrary, 100% 
Buy American requirements would erode the benefits in circumstances where international 
companies had already had a long history of creating American jobs, and supporting the economy and innovation in other areas. He again reiterated Japan's intention to continue monitoring closely 
the actions of the United States Department of Transportation in this respect. Japan hoped that 
the United States Department of Transportation would not take the protectionist option again this year by adding strengthened Buy America provisions to the budget bill. 
2.7  On a related matter, Japan welcomed the action taken by another part of the United States 
Administration - namely, by the Governor of th e State of New Jersey who, on 5 February 2015 
vetoed a so-called Buy American Bill, formally called Senate Bill n° 1811. Japan wished to express its appreciation to Governor Christie for this action. The government of Japan believed that this 
decision would benefit both the people of New Je rsey and the many international companies that 
had found New Jersey to be an attractive investment location. His delegation took note that as many as 225,000 jobs had been created by foreig n-owned companies in the State of New Jersey, 
over 10% of which was attributed to Japanese firms. Japan appreciated the commitment of the 
Governor to maintain an open trade and investment environment; in this regard, many more Japanese companies would, in his view, look closel y at the possibility of establishing or expanding 
their presence in the State of New Jersey. Japan ex pected the United States Administration at both 
the Federal and State levels to take positive action towards containing such protectionist 
tendencies as had been demonstrated by Governor Christie. 
2.8  The representative of the European Union echoed the concerns expressed by Canada and 
Japan. Like those two Parties, the European Un ion had raised, during the aforementioned GPA 
meetings in June and October 2014, concerns regarding the various US legislative initiatives which had proposed new domestic restrictions regarding government procurement. The European Union GPA/M/59 
 
- 5 - 
 
  had in particular expressed concerns about the pr esentation by the Department of Transportation 
of the Grow America Act. While the Grow Americ a Act had not been passed during the previous 
session of Congress, the budget request proposal by the President for fiscal year 2016, which had been released beginning of February 2015, included a US$478 billion proposal for the surface 
transportation programme to improve United States' infrastructure over 6 years. It was the 
understanding of the European Union that the sa id budget request proposal built on the Grow 
America Act initiative, as noted by Japan. The European Union very much hoped that the final 
proposal that would be tabled by the United States Department of Transportation would not 
include any domestic content requirements. 
2.9  The European Union also remained concerned by the Buy America legislative proposals which 
had been introduced by some States of the Un ited States. Like Canada, the European Union 
wished to again stress that Parties committed in Article XXII:6 of the revised GPA to seek to avoid 
introducing or continuing discriminatory measures that distorted open procurement. The European Union looked forward to receiving clarification from the United States as to what, if 
any, specific action had been taken or was being taken to seek to avoid new discriminatory 
measures that distorted open procurement. 
2.10  As to new measures, the European Union had been particularly concerned about a piece of 
legislation which had been proposed in New Jersey. This proposal which had been sent to Governor 
Christie for approval would have required all New Je rsey agencies and public institutions of higher 
education to procure only products which were mined, produced or manufactured in the United States. The European Union was relieved by the decision taken by Governor Christie on 
the 5 February 2015 to veto this Bill as this wo uld have chilled international developments and 
increased cost. The European Union attached great importance to the role of the United States Trade Representative in working closely with the Stat es with the view to: first, taking any steps to 
avoid introduction of new discriminatory measures; secondly, making sure that any legislation 
introduced at state level was fully compatible with the United States' international obligations at sub-central level; and thirdly, raising awareness of the States and other sub-central entities of any 
potential issues concerning implementation of the United States' GPA commitments. 
The European Union would continue to monitor these developments very closely and trusted that the United States would ensure compliance with its GPA commitments. 
2.11  The representative of Hong Kong, China reiterated his delegation's continued concerns in the 
matter under discussion. Hong Kong, China requested the United States to explain in greater detail 
to the Committee how the measures in question were consistent with the relevant GPA provisions. 
2.12  The representative of Israel, recalling Israel's statement at the Committee's meeting in 
October 2014, said that the matter regarding domestic content requirements in legislative 
initiatives in the United States had been brought to the attention of her delegation by a number of Israeli companies participating in public tenders in the United States. In its intervention, Israel had 
shared its concern that such measures seemed to be growing since 2009. Israel had accordingly 
called for greater clarity in the message that the United States Government sent to its legislative arm. It did not appear as if this concern had been  addressed. Israel wished to reiterate that there 
was a place for such a signal both at the Federal level and towards local initiatives at the State 
level. Israel strongly believed that all GPA Parties should try to resist the trend to introduce local 
content requirements both in general as well as in government procurement, specifically. 
2.13  The representative of Switzerland echo ed the concerns expressed in the previous 
interventions, also referring to its statement at the October 2014 meeting. According to 
Switzerland's understanding, two sets of provisions were relevant. The first was Article XXII:6 of the revised GPA, whose significance had been cl early expressed by Canada, the European Union 
and Japan. This was equally the understanding of his delegation. Secondly, there were the 
provisions of the Buy America Act. Here, Switzerland's understanding was that GPA-covered procurement was excluded from the scope of the Buy America Act. Switzerland was, accordingly, 
motivated to ask the United States to explain how this exclusion was implemented at local level, in 
order to ensure that the local level knew exactly the rights and obligations of entities with regard 
to the GPA coverage. GPA/M/59 
 
- 6 - 
 
  2.14  The representative of Singapore also echoed  the views expressed by the previous Parties. 
Singapore wished to reiterate its continued concerns in the matter under discussion, as also 
expressed at the previous meetings. Singapore wish ed to see the United States ensure compliance 
with its GPA obligations. In this regard it sought greater explanation from the United States as 
regards: how the United States intended to implement these measures; and how it intended to 
ensure their consistency with the GPA. Singapore looked forward to continued engagement on this issue. 
2.15  The representative of the United States said that his delegation appreciated the opportunity 
to discuss this issue. First of all, the United States had taken note of the comments that had been 
made. The United States wished to reiterate that it took its international obligations seriously; that these included Article XXII:6 of the revised GPA; and that it ensured that all covered 
procurements, as defined by Article II, were applied in a manner consistent with the United States' 
obligations. His delegation had taken note of Canada's comments and was willing to engage. The United States was open to talk to any State that had a question about a covered Procurement. 
2.16  He noted that a number of the comments that had been made - for instance regarding the 
Grow America Act - were essentially statements of interest in expanded market access commitments by the United States. His delegation understood that Parties had an interest in the 
US undertaking expanded market access commitments. However, it questioned whether this was 
the appropriate forum to pursue this interest, as opposed to the ongoing FTA negotiations that the United States had with a number of the Parties that had made statements in the course of the present discussion. 
2.17  The Committee took note of the statements made. 
3  CHAIRMANSHIP OF THE COMMITTEE IN 2015 
3.1  The Chairman said that, in his communica tion dated 21 January 2015, he had informed all 
delegations of his recall to his capital to take up new responsibilities, effective at the end of 
February. As such, he was not available to serve as Chairman beyond that date. At the same time, it was his understanding, based on conversations with delegations, that the Committee wished him 
to continue as Chairman until the end of February, including chairing the day's proceedings. 
3.2  Secondly, it was his understanding that a consensus existed in favour of Mr John Newham 
(Ireland) to take over as Chairman from the beginning of March through the end of the year.  
3.3  The Committee agreed that the Chairman, Mr Trepczy ński (Poland) would continue as 
Chairman through to the end of February, includ ing chairing the present day's proceedings. It 
elected Mr John Newman (Ireland) as its Chairman  with effect from 1 March 2015 till the end of 
the year. 
3.4  Delegations expressed their sincere than ks and appreciation to Chairman Trepczy ński for the 
short but valuable period of his service, during which two accessions had been concluded4, and 
wished him the best in his new duties in his capital. They also extended a warm welcome to the 
incoming Chairman, Mr John Newham, upon his assumption of office in March and offered their 
support during his chairmanship. 
3.5  Chairman Trepczy ński thanked delegations for their kind words. 
3.6  The Chairman-elect, Mr John Newman (Ireland), thanked the Chairman, the Parties and the 
Committee for the challenge and opportunity to serve, and thanked delegations for their support. 
He looked forward to making a few comments at the meeting in June, and meanwhile wished the Chairman Trepczy ński the best in his new responsibilities. 
                                               
4 Respectively, the accession processes of Montenegro and New Zealand concluded in October 2014 (see 
GPA/126, dated 26 November 2014, paragraphs 3.5 to 3.13). GPA/M/59 
 
- 7 - 
 
  4  OTHER BUSINESS 
4.1  The Chairman said that the dates that had been reserved for further substantive meetings of 
the Committee in 2015 beyond the present meeting week were: 
• the week beginning 1 June ; 
• the week beginning 14 September ; and 
• if deemed necessary and appropriate, the week beginning Monday , 30 November . This 
last meeting would be determined by the incoming Chairman in consultation with 
delegations, nearer to that time. 
 
4.2  He noted that these dates had previously been communicated by fax to delegations by the 
Secretariat. He recalled, for the sake of clarity, that any Chairman retained the right to call 
additional short formal or informal meetings du r i n g  t h e  y e a r ,  t o  b e  s e r v i c e d  b y  G e n e v a - b a s e d  
delegations only, if he/she considered this useful and timely. 
__________