TPP Procurement: Modest Improvements in Existing Coverage

The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) opens new government procurement markets for U.S. goods, services and suppliers in three countries (BruneiMalaysia and Vietnam). All the other TPP parties (Australia, Canada, Chile, Japan, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru and Singapore) have already provided the United States with access to their procurement under the WTO Government Procurement Agreement (GPA) or free trade agreements (FTAs). For the most part in the TPP, those countries have essentially restated or modestly expanded the procurement that they open under the earlier agreements. Several offer even less procurement than in those agreements. This post considers the coverage of the parties with existing commitments.

The U.S. offers its GPA coverage under the TPP, with the major exception of states. It adds one entity (Denali Commission) to make the TPP its broadest entity coverage to date. As a consequence, its FTA partners that are not under the GPA (Australia, Chile, Mexico and Peru) will gain access to new entities under the TPP.

The U.S. imposes limitations on Malaysia and Vietnam. It withholds from Malaysia procurement of its electric utilities (Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) and the Power Administrations), as well as its commitment relating to the Rural Utility Services’ funding of power generation projects. It limits Vietnam’s access to Department of Defense procurement to just two entities (its Education Activity and the Defense Commissary Agency), until it resolves coverage with respect to Vietnam’s Ministry of National Defense.

Like the U.S., New Zealand generally incorporates its GPA-coverage, with the exception of its sub-central entities. In addition, its TPP coverage includes only 10 of the 19 entities in the Other Entities category that it covers under the GPA; and it withholds all of those entities from Mexico.

Of the TPP parties, Canada adds the most new entities, in comparison to its existing commitments under the GPA and NAFTA. It expands its list of covered federal entities from 78 to 95 entities and adds 12 entities to its coverage of Other Entities. Its expansion may have been to reciprocate the access it gained to the U.S.’s TVA and Power Administrations under the TPP.

Under the TPP, Japan follows its GPA coverage with several additions. They include one designated city (Kumamoto-shi) and 12 Other Entities, primarily railway companies. It also adds three entities related to Japan Post, but its unclear whether they represent new entities or a refinement of the GPA coverage of Japan Post. Japan also offers three Other Entities that are not found in the GPA: JKA, Management Organization for Postal Savings and Postal Life Insurance and the Open University of Japan Foundation. However, it has not carried into the TPP all of the Other Entities that it covers under the GPA.

Singapore adds 10 authorities, boards, councils and its Civil Service University to its GPA entity coverage, but it excludes two universities (Nanyang Technological University and National University of Singapore) listed in the GPA. It also adds one service (placement services of office support personnel and other workers) to its GPA-covered services.

Chile lists three ministries in the TPP, which are not listed in its FTA with the U.S. It also adds two exclusions: preferences to benefit micro, small and medium sized enterprises, and the procurement of storage and hosting of government data and related services. Mexico incorporates its NAFTA coverage into the TPP.

Peru covers 32 central government entities in the TPP, in contrast to 67 entities in the U.S.-Peru FTA. Omitted from the TPP are 31 universities listed in the FTA. Peru expands its coverage by offering three services that it excluded under the FTA: architectural services; engineering and design services; and engineering services during construction and installation phase.

With regard to Australia, it is difficult to determine whether it is offering more entities in the TPP than in the Australia-U.S. FTA, as it does not use the same entity organization in the two agreements. Also, differences in entity names appear to reflect governmental reorganizations, which complicate a comparison.

Generally, the TPP parties that opened procurement under earlier agreements have incorporated most of those commitments into the TPP, with several parties making certain improvements.

Jean Heilman Grier

May 17, 2016

Related Posts

TPP Procurement: Initial Assessment of Agreement

TPP Procurement: Brunei’s Commitments

TPP Procurement: Malaysia’s Commitments

TPP Procurement: Mexico’s Commitments

TPP Procurement: Vietnam’s Commitments

PPPs #4: TPP Parties