RESTRICTED  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  GPA/O/USA/3 
22 May 2008 
 
 (08-2400) 
Committee on Government Procurement Original: English 
  
 
NEGOTIATIONS ON EXTENSION OF COVERAGE AND ELIMINATION OF  
DISCRIMINATORY MEASURES AND PRACTICES PURSUANT TO 
ARTICLE XXIV:7(b) AND (c) OF THE AGREEMENT 
ON GOVERNMENT PROCUREMENT 
 
Communication from the European Communities
 
   The following communication, dated 22 May 2008, is being circulated at the request of the Delegation of the European Communities. 
 
_______________ 
 
 
QUESTIONS FROM THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES TO THE UNITED STATES ON 
THE UNITED STATES' CURRENT COMMITMENTS/REVISED OFFER IN THE 
NEGOTIATIONS UNDER ARTICLE XXIV:7 OF THE AGREEMENT ON  
GOVERNMENT PROCUREMENT 
 
 
Annex 1 - Central government entities 
 1. Does the proposed list of central entities include  all entities at the central level in the United 
States? 
 
2. Could the United States please provide figures on the size of procurement by the proposed 
additional entity (Social Security Administration)?  
3. Could the United States please explain what is the meaning of notes to Annex 1, 2(c) and (d):  
"the Agreement generally  does not cover the procurement of any good described in any of the 
following FSC classification, due to the application of paragraph 1 of Article III " and " the Agreement 
generally  covers the procurement of the following FSC categories subject to United States 
Government determinations under paragraph 1 of Article III "? 
 
Annex 2 - Sub-central government entities  
4. Which entities are covered under the term "e xecutive branch agenci es"?  Has any change 
taken place concerning the entities falling under this ge neric reference?  If so, do the United States 
intend to notify any change in coverage pursuant to the procedures foreseen under the Agreement?  If 
the changes are not of a purely formal nature, do the United States intend to compensate?  If yes, in 
what manner?  GPA/O/USA/3 
Page 2  
 
 
  5. The state of Maryland is listed under Anne x 2.  In May 2005, the Maryland General 
Assembly revoked the commitment taken by the Gove rnor of Maryland in 1993 to allow Maryland's 
state procurement rules to be bound by the GPA.  Could the United States please explain the state of 
play regarding the state of Maryland as regard s the United States obligations under the GPA? 
 
6. Could the United States please clarify the meaning and the scope of item 1 under notes to Annex 2?  7. Could the United States please provide a list as well as a description of the functioning of the 
preferences or the restrictions which may be app lied by the States in the framework of programmes 
promoting the development of distressed areas or  businesses owned by minorities, disabled veterans 
or women?  8. Could the United States please clarify the scope and the meaning of item 5 under notes to 
Annex 2?  Detailed information will be appreciated  as, according to the EC's understanding of data 
published by the Federal Highway Administration in 2006, expenditures under the Highway Trust 
Fund would have reached US$38.5 billion. 
 
Annex 3 - Other entities  
9. Could the United States please indicate whether the Port of Baltimore (State of Maryland, see 
question 5) is still offered?  C ould the United States please give figures on the size of procurement by 
the Port of Baltimore? 
 
10. As far as procurement by the Port Author ity of New York and New Jersey are concerned, 
quite a large number of restrictions apply (ite m 6 under notes to Annex 1;  item 2 under notes to 
Annex 3 and item 5 under notes to Annex 3 (restrictions attached to fede ral funds for airport projects).  
In addition, the state of New Jersey is not offe red under Annex 2.  Could the United States please 
explain what procurement by this entity is offered?  11. Could the United States please explain the me aning and the scope of item 1 under Annex 3?  
In particular, what is the impact for a GPA supplie r wishing to participate to a tender by the Rural 
Utilities Service of the fact that " the Rural Utilities Service underta kes no other commitments with 
respect to its financing of power generation and telecommunications projects "? 
 
Annex 5 - Services 
 12. Could the United States please provide the corresponding CPC categories for those services 
which are not part of their proposed commitments?  13. The EU-US Open Skies Agreement was signe d on 30 April 2007, and it became effective on 
30 March 2008.  Under this Agreem ent, some specific provisions of the Fly America Act will no 
longer apply.  As a result, do the United States inte nd to offer CPC 73 (air transport of passengers)? 
 14. Could the United States please explain the meaning and the scope of item 2 under notes to Annex 5?  In particular, could the United Stat es please provide the corresponding CPC codes for the 
procurement which are proposed for the entities lis ted in Annex 1 and in list A of Annex 3?  
  GPA/O/USA/3 
 Page 3 
 
 
 
  Annex 6  - Construction services  
 15. Could the United States please clarify their pr oposed coverage of construction services?  
Could the US confirm they offer to cover CPC 51?   If so, could they mention it clearly in their 
proposed Annex 6? 
 
Annex 7 - General notes 
 
16. Small and Minority Businesses:   the United States circulated to the Committee a summary on 
this issue in December 2007. 
  An important element relates to the so-ca lled "procurement goals" established by the US 
Congress for Federal Procurement.  According to th e submission circulated by the United States, 
23 per cent of all prime contracts are currently reserved for small businesses.  It is the EC's 
understanding that this percentage has varied over time.  Could the United States please confirm 
whether this information is correct?  If yes, c ould the United States please indicate the evolution of 
this percentage since the entry into force of the GPA?   Could the United States please provide statistics on how the use of set-asides relates to the United States proposed coverage under the GPA? 
 
 According to information made available to  the EC, the Buy American Act provides for a 
tender evaluation preference of 12 per cent where small businesses are competing against non-US suppliers.  Could the United States please confirm wh ether this is correct?  If yes, could the United 
States please explain in more detail the scope of th is provision and to what extent it may affect the 
United States proposed coverage under the GPA? 
 17. Could the United States please explain the m eaning and the scope of general note No. 4? 
 
__________