Back in 2010, I had the opportunity to talk with then Canadian Trade Minister Stockwell Day regarding what was at the time a contentious issue between Canada and our neighbor to the south.
I am of course talking about the swirling controversy regarding the Buy American legislation that according to the Minister had more to do with appeasing American public opinion as opposed to any real economic imperative.
In other words, it was based more on protectionism than practicality, fear more than an actual threat.
It was, of course, the Minister’s expressed belief that popular American opinion surrounding protectionism was the basis for Congressional support of the conditions associated with the stimulus bill that would block Canadian firms from accessing the US government market, versus the existence of legitimate economic imperatives. In short, the U.S. Congress was yielding to public sentiments. – Procurement Insights, February 5th, 2010
I would like to invite you to listen to my interview with Trade Minister Day – it is only 8 minutes long, and tell me if you see similarities between Buy American then and Buy American now under the Trump Administration. Here is the link: http://www.blogtalkradio.com/jon-hansen/2011/07/12/an-interview-with-canadas-trade-minister-on-us-trade.
I will be sharing my thoughts on an upcoming segment of the PI Window On The World Show.
Former Canadian Trade Minister Stockwell Day
30
Procurement Insights 
Buyers Meeting Point (@BuyersMeetPoint)
May 17, 2017
Jon – this is a topic without a simple answer to be sure. As an American procurement professional that has learned to be highly skeptical of the government’s ability to turn intent into legislation that does more good than harm, here is my take…
There are situations just like this one taking place in every company worldwide. Although the are far less complex than international trade agreements, they have the same impact on the buyers and sellers involved. For instance…
Isn’t saying ‘Buy American’ at the country level the same as buying local or small/diversity at the corporate level? Almost without exception, these decisions serve as an indication that the ‘economic imperative’ you mention above (a.k.a. savings in the private sector) is secondary to the desire to select a supply partner for some quality other than their ability to meet the stated requirements at the most competitive price.
As to Buy American legislation, and the obstacles it might place between Canada and the United States – including the potential for a trade war that would inevitably sink all boats – this is yet another example of well intentioned but poorly executed public sector procurement. I’ve written about this before:
How a certified woman-owned business that earned the highest scores on price and presentation was denied selection for an advertising services contract with the Massachusetts Lottery Trade Commission – all because they refused to commit to outsource 0.24% of the contract value to a woman owned supplier.
http://news.thomasnet.com/procurement/2014/08/28/three-false-assumptions-about-strategic-sourcing
The Massachusetts Bay Transit Authority’s (MBTA) selection of a supplier for a 10 year $560M contract for providing heavy rail cars. Not an offense in and of itself, the project was marred suppliers who were not allowed to refine their pricing and found out through local media reports that another supplier had been chosen, an optically difficult visit by the then-sitting Governor of Massachusetts to the chosen supplier (and only the chosen supplier), and a final cost that all of the other suppliers swore was impossible.
https://procureinsights.wordpress.com/2014/11/13/public-procurement-finds-itself-in-trouble-again-by-kelly-barner/
Most procurement professionals will agree that sometimes price is not the most important factor in a supplier selection. If that is the case, who do we want deciding which additional factors (or constraints depending upon your position) are acceptable or not? But even this does not give procurement carte blanche. As with the freedom of speech (something Procurement Insights knows all too well) freedom to express oneself does not exempt you from a backlash of differing opinions. Decision makers – whether in the public sector or the private – need to weigh the reactions of trading partners/suppliers before establishing the framework for a supplier selection process that is not exclusively quantitative.
piblogger
May 17, 2017
A very well stated perspective Kelly. The term penny-wise and pound foolish immediately comes to mind. Specifically, being myopically focused on a single area without taking into account the bigger picture – including the inevitable unintended consequences will ultimately produce little if any return beyond public consternation.
As stated in 2010, I believe that the present day Buy American initiative is also more political than practical. However, I also believe that the level of emotion brought on by a greater and falsely created sense of protectionism makes this current myopic focus more dangerous.