In today's global economy, public procurement's profile continues to rise. The World Trade Organization (WTO) and the European Union (EU), as well as organizations such as the World Bank and the regional development banks, increasingly focus upon the purchasing practices of nation states. 1 Not surprisingly, developing nations and states seeking to improve their systems of government procurement law, policy, and/or practice, expect to glean lessons from the evolution of procurement law regimes in developed nations. Frequently, these states turn for lessons learned to the United States, the European Union, and, with less frequency, economic success stories such as Singapore. Ultimately, developing nations recognize that particular value may derive from identifying and replicating the "best practices" of such wellestablished procurement regimes. 2 This process, and its attendant attention, is particularly intriguing because, historically, the U.S. procurement community (including policy makers, buyers, and sellers) all too seldom assesses the international impact-and model-that the U.S. procurement system creates. The United States federal government spends approximately $200 billion each year procuring goods (or supplies, ranging from submarines and aircraft carriers to personal computers and office furniture), construction, and services. Just as the sheer breadth, size, complexity, and allencompassing nature of the U.S. system generates interest, these factors breed an inward-looking focus. The international community's interest in U.S. procurement is not purely academic. Access to any significant portion of that $200 billion for a state's contractors provides a potent incentive for developing nation states to open their procurement systems (to the extent that the classic quid pro quo is required). At the same time, U.S. companies, and those of similarly