Common use of Non-GPA Countries Clause in Contracts

Non-GPA Countries. In the case of Australia, the TPP would have opened new markets for Brunei, Malaysia, Mexico and Peru. However, coverage to sub-central government entities was only granted with respect to bidders from Canada, Chile, Japan, Mexico and Peru.62 The major impact of the TPP on Australian central procurement entities would have been the requirement that complaints regarding the procurement process are not handled internally (as established in existing Commonwealth Procurement Rules), but by an impartial administrative or judicial authority that is independent of the procurement entity.63 Brunei Darussalam would have opened new markets for all TPP signatories, with the exception of Chile, New Zealand and Singapore, already parties with that country in the P4 Agreement. It is noteworthy to highlight that in the TPP Brunei only included central government entities as it does not have any sub- central government entities.64 Chile would have opened new procurement markets for Malaysia and Viet Nam, largely following its commitments included in its FTA with the US, although it lists three new ministries in the TPP, which are not in that agreement (Ministry of Environment, Ministry of Sports and the National Council for Culture and the Arts), because they did not exist at the time of signature of that PTA. Chile also added two exclusions: preferences to benefit micro and small and medium-sized enterprises.65 Malaysia is the only TPP signatory that did not have previous procurement commitments with any of the other negotiating countries. Probably for that reason, it was able to secure an extended transition period for decreasing contract value thresholds up to 21 years.66 Mexico would have basically incorporated its NAFTA coverage into the TPP,67 including only Central Government Entities, and opening its procurement market for Australia, Brunei, Malaysia, New Zealand, Singapore and Viet Nam. Peru would have opened its procurement market for the first time to the majority of the TPP signatories, with the exception of Canada, Chile, Mexico, Singapore and the US, with whom it had previous agreements. In fact, the TPP would not have meant a major improvement for Peru, as, for example, it covered less central government entities in the TPP than in its FTA with the US (a total of 32 in the TPP instead of 67 in the Peru–US FTA), notably 31 universities listed in that PTA. Regarding its coverage, Peru would have expanded it to three services that were excluded under the FTA with the US (architectural services; 62 TPP annex 15-A (‘Australia’) s B. Although Australia is in the process of accession to the 63 Xxxx Xxxxxxx et al, The Trans-Pacific Partnership Series Navigating a New Era of Trade in the Pacific Rim (July 2016) DLA Piper 6 <xxxxx://xxx.xxxxxxxx.xxx/~/media/Files/Insights/Publications/2016/07/DLAPiper_TPPPar t2_July2016.pdf>, archived at <xxxxx://xxxxx.xx/HUB3-6MVB>.

Non-GPA Countries. In the case of Australia, the TPP would have opened new markets for Brunei, Malaysia, Mexico and Peru. However, coverage to sub-central government entities was only granted with respect to bidders from Canada, Chile, Japan, Mexico and Peru.62 The major impact of the TPP on Australian central procurement entities would have been the requirement that complaints regarding the procurement process are not handled internally (as established in existing Commonwealth Procurement Rules), but by an impartial administrative or judicial authority that is independent of the procurement entity.63 Brunei Darussalam would have opened new markets for all TPP signatories, with the exception of Chile, New Zealand and Singapore, already parties with that country in the P4 Agreement. It is noteworthy to highlight that in the TPP Brunei only included central government entities as it does not have any sub- central government entities.64 Chile would have opened new procurement markets for Malaysia and Viet Nam, largely following its commitments included in its FTA with the US, although it lists three new ministries in the TPP, which are not in that agreement (Ministry of Environment, Ministry of Sports and the National Council for Culture and the Arts), because they did not exist at the time of signature of that PTA. Chile also added two exclusions: preferences to benefit micro and small and medium-sized enterprises.65 Malaysia is the only TPP signatory that did not have previous procurement commitments with any of the other negotiating countries. Probably for that reason, it was able to secure an extended transition period for decreasing contract value thresholds up to 21 years.66 Mexico would have basically incorporated its NAFTA coverage into the TPP,67 including only Central Government Entities, and opening its procurement market for Australia, Brunei, Malaysia, New Zealand, Singapore and Viet Nam. Peru would have opened its procurement market for the first time to the majority of the TPP signatories, with the exception of Canada, Chile, Mexico, Singapore and the US, with whom it had previous agreements. In fact, the TPP would not have meant a major improvement for Peru, as, for example, it covered less central government entities in the TPP than in its FTA with the US (a total of 32 in the TPP instead of 67 in the Peru–US FTA), notably 31 universities listed in that PTA. Regarding its coverage, Peru would have expanded it to three services that were excluded under the FTA with the US (architectural services; 62 TPP annex 15-A (‘Australia’) s B. Although Australia is in the process of accession to the GPA, it is not yet a party to that agreement. 63 Xxxx Xxxxxxx et al, The Trans-Pacific Partnership Series Navigating a New Era of Trade in the Pacific Rim (July 2016) DLA Piper 6 <xxxxx://xxx.xxxxxxxx.xxx/~/media/Files/Insights/Publications/2016/07/DLAPiper_TPPPar t2_July2016.pdf>, archived at <xxxxx://xxxxx.xx/HUB3-6MVB>.

Non-GPA Countries. In the case of Australia, the TPP would have opened new markets for Brunei, Malaysia, Mexico and Peru. However, coverage to sub-central government entities was only granted with respect to bidders from Canada, Chile, Japan, Mexico and Peru.62 The major impact of the TPP on Australian central procurement entities would have been the requirement that complaints regarding the procurement process are not handled internally (as established in existing Commonwealth Procurement Rules), but by an impartial administrative or judicial authority that is independent of the procurement entity.63 Brunei Darussalam would have opened new markets for all TPP signatories, with the exception of Chile, New Zealand and Singapore, already parties with that country in the P4 Agreement. It is noteworthy to highlight that in the TPP Brunei only included central government entities as it does not have any sub- central government entities.64 Chile would have opened new procurement markets for Malaysia and Viet Nam, largely following its commitments included in its FTA with the US, although it lists three new ministries in the TPP, which are not in that agreement (Ministry of Environment, Ministry of Sports and the National Council for Culture and the Arts), because they did not exist at the time of signature of that PTA. Chile also added two exclusions: preferences to benefit micro and small and medium-sized enterprises.65 Malaysia is the only TPP signatory that did not have previous procurement commitments with any of the other negotiating countries. Probably for that reason, it was able to secure an extended transition period for decreasing contract value thresholds up to 21 years.66 Mexico would have basically incorporated its NAFTA coverage into the TPP,67 including only Central Government Entities, and opening its procurement market for Australia, Brunei, Malaysia, New Zealand, Singapore and Viet Nam. Peru would have opened its procurement market for the first time to the majority of the TPP signatories, with the exception of Canada, Chile, Mexico, Singapore and the US61 Xxxxx, with whom it had previous agreementsabove n 54. In fact, the TPP would not have meant a major improvement for Peru, as, for example, it covered less central government entities in the TPP than in its FTA with the US (a total of 32 in the TPP instead of 67 in the Peru–US FTA), notably 31 universities listed in that PTA. Regarding its coverage, Peru would have expanded it to three services that were excluded under the FTA with the US (architectural services; 62 TPP annex 15-A (‘Australia’) s B. Although Australia is in the process of accession to the 63 Xxxx Xxxxxxx et alGPA, The Trans-Pacific Partnership Series Navigating it is not yet a New Era of Trade in the Pacific Rim (July 2016) DLA Piper 6 <xxxxx://xxx.xxxxxxxx.xxx/~/media/Files/Insights/Publications/2016/07/DLAPiper_TPPPar t2_July2016.pdf>, archived at <xxxxx://xxxxx.xx/HUB3-6MVB>party to that agreement.