The agreement was originally introduced in 1979 as the Tokyo Round Code on Government Procurement, which entered into force in 1981 under the auspices of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade.  It was then renegotiated in parallel with the Uruguay Round in 1994, and this version entered into force on 1 January 1996. The agreement was subsequently revised on 30 March 2012. The revised GPA entered into force on 6 July 2014.  Obtaining “price-return-benefit evidence” is one of the main objectives of most procurement systems. But how? Open, transparent and non-discriminatory public procurement is generally considered to be the best tool to achieve this objective, as it optimises competition between suppliers. At the same time, there are competing policy objectives: many governments also use public procurement to achieve other domestic policy objectives, such as the promotion of certain local industrial sectors or social groups. As a result, the first agreement on government procurement (the Tokyo Round Government Procurement Code) was signed in 1979 and entered into force in 1981. It was amended in 1987 and entered into force in 1988.
The parties then conducted negotiations with a view to extending the scope and scope of the Agreement in parallel with the Uruguay Round. Finally, on 15 April 1994, a new Agreement on Government Procurement (GPA 1994) was signed in Marrakesh at the same time as the Agreement Establishing the WTO, which entered into force on 1 January 1996. If a supplier believes that there has been a breach of this Agreement, it is encouraged to enter into consultations with the procuring entity in order to resolve the issue. If such consultations lead to a satisfactory outcome, each signatory government is required to present non-discriminatory, timely, transparent and effective procedures that would allow suppliers to challenge alleged violations of the agreement. Suppliers may be asked to initiate a challenge procedure within a certain period of time (at least 10 days) from the date on which the basis of the complaint was known. Challenges must be heard before an impartial independent tribunal or supervisory body which has no interest in the outcome of the award of the contract […].