Skip to main content

This page has been translated using TexTra by NICT. Please note that the translation may not be completely accurate.If you find any mistranslations, we appreciate your feedback on the "Request form for improving the automatic translation ".

Digital Agency Compliance Committee (6th meeting)

Last Updated:

Digital Agency will be the control tower for the formation of a digital society aimed at realizing the sustainable and healthy development of the Japanese economy and the happy lives of its people. The expectations of the people of Digital Agency are extremely high, and Digital Agency has an extremely heavy responsibility.

At today's meeting, active discussions and exchanges of views were held on the results of a survey conducted by an external audit firm on the status of operation of bidding restrictions and other rules, which are Digital Agency's own initiatives to ensure transparent and fair procurement.

The results of today's discussions will be fully reflected in the formulation of various norms and rules in Digital Agency.

Overview

  • Date: Friday, June 23, 2023 (2023), from 14:00 to 15:00
  • Location: Shared meeting room in Digital Agency (online meeting)

Committee member

(In the order of the Japanese syllabary, honorific titles are omitted)

Member

  • Toshiya Natori (Attorney Partner, ITN Law Office): Chairman
  • Koichi Endo (Consultant, Digital Agency)
  • Toru Kajikawa (Representative Member and Chairman, Taiyo LLC)
  • Jiro Kokuryo (Professor, Faculty of Policy Studies, Keio University)
  • Akihiko Shiba (Attorney, Shiba & Tanaka Management Law Office)
  • Keiko Fujimori (Representative Director, ASIMOV Robotics Corporation / Certified Public Accountant)

Material

Related policy

Summary of the meeting

Proceedings

  • Investigation Results Report on Ensuring Compliance
  • Other

Summary of proceedings

After the Secretariat explained the contents of each agenda item, a discussion was held. The main opinions expressed were as follows:

Investigation Results Report on Ensuring Compliance

  • The system of bidding restrictions, under which, as a general rule, companies to which employees involved in the preparation of specifications are concurrently engaged are not allowed to participate in bidding, seems to have contributed considerably to ensuring the fairness of procurement. On the other hand, private sector specialists is expected to be involved in providing technical know-how prior to the preparation of specifications. In the course of such involvement, information on the concept and policies of the project and the time of ordering the project may be known earlier than others. In order to ensure the fairness of procurement, it is necessary to firmly manage such internal information. Therefore, GOJ requests USG to continue to inform, instruct, and educate its employees on the observance of confidentiality obligations under the national government officer Act and the appropriate handling of internal information.
  • As for the fact that there are still no applications for exemption, although it has been a while since the tender restriction system was put into operation, I have the impression that it is not necessarily working well. The original purpose is to increase production efficiency by incorporating the wisdom of the private sector, but the fact that no applications for exemption have been submitted may be a bottleneck. If the cause is a lack of understanding on the part of companies, further explanation is necessary, but this may not be the case. It may be that companies are overly cautious because they are sensitive to risks. If it is the first case, it will attract attention not only from Digital Agency but also from the world, and if any problem is found there, it will be criticized as a violation of compliance. As a result, the company's image will be greatly damaged. Taking these factors into consideration, they may have judged that there is no need to challenge and make a successful bid.
  • If there are concurrent employees involved in procurement, I think it would be reasonable to apply for exemptions to some extent. In order to put this system on track, for example, it may be possible to select appropriate procurement and carry out the procedures for exemptions on a trial basis.
  • A bid is something that incorporates the knowledge of various people into a good proposal. It does not mean that the specifications issued by bureaucrats will be accepted as they are. The specifications (issued by bureaucrats) are just the contents that are necessary to achieve a certain purpose, and proposals from companies must be put in there and made in a sound form. It is not good enough to say that it is okay just because there were no such things and there was no conflict with the rules. In short, what should I do so that I don't end up killing a cow by straightening the horns? Not only should the secretariat not suppress it, but positive proposals from various people will come out, and then a successful bid will be made. Around this time, I think it would be good to try something or have an adventure on a trial basis.
  • This is exactly what is being discussed now, and I feel that the significance of the existence of this committee is being questioned, so I want to do something about it.
  • I think it is quite a difficult issue to apply for an exemption. There is no doubt that there will be a trade-off, so I think it is about where to draw the line, but it is also difficult to judge the extent of the harm.
  • Some say that it is difficult to prove to the outside that procurement information has not been leaked when applying for an exemption, but it is very difficult to prove that it has not been leaked. In the first place, as a rule of operation, such proof should not be required.
  • There is no single expert, so I don't think there will be any bias as long as there are staff from multiple companies. Under such a system, if we can show that there is no problem because we have received such certification for the application for exemption, I think the staff will be able to imagine it. It is difficult to prove that there is no such thing with demonic certification, so if the relevant people are told that it is enough to prove that there is a subject transaction and that the response was carried out according to the rules, the situation will change.
  • How much burden will be imposed on companies in order to be allowed to apply for exemptions? If there is a growing sense of caution about applications, it is necessary to understand this in an easy-to-understand manner, considering the actual situation.
  • From a slightly different point of view, this system, or rather, bidding is the first step in trying to create a better one by skillfully compiling various domestic and foreign knowledge. Therefore, I think it is good for various people to communicate with each other, but it is a bit like stop it, stop it there, stop it here. It should not be done, if it is an illegal form, but it should be done in a way that combines the part that prevents it and the part that asks you to do it by all means. One thing I think is that an explanatory meeting will be held before bidding, and a few days after the explanatory meeting, there can be questions from those who attended. So, I think it is very important to see how many valuable questions and proposals came out. If there is nothing, there is no point in doing something like this. In that case, if you don't have an indicator of how much good response is coming out from the public and private sectors in light of the original purpose, it will be like making a Buddha and not putting your soul into it.
  • I have a feeling that if we don't do anything, we will go on like this. As other members of the Compliance Committee have said, I think we should think in detail about having the Compliance Committee change its way of doing things a little. What do you think?
  • I agree with your opinion, but on the whole, looking at the results of this survey, I think that Digital Agency's efforts deserve praise. This is because when Digital Agency was established, there were concerns that a large number of people with diverse backgrounds would come in from outside the company, and if anything, serious compliance issues such as information leaks would occur. However, in the past two years, no such serious incidents have occurred. This result is a result of everyone's high awareness, and I am very happy about it. On the other hand, as we have discussed today, some issues have come to light regarding the bidding restriction system, and I understand that the current opinion is that it may be better to make the system a little easier to loosen (based on the situation where no problematic cases have occurred). Of course, I am a strict observer, and I am particularly afraid of a loophole, so I may give a harsh opinion, but first of all, I think it would be good to have the staff, who know the practical business well, propose some specific ideas that would make it possible to do a better job, and discuss them in this committee.
  • Originally, it was the first time (to work on the bid restriction) from the beginning, and I don't think I thought it would not move even by 1 millimeter, so my current opinion is correct. It may take a little time, but I would like to discuss it with a few ideas. I think it is meaningful to discuss it at the timing when 2 years have passed, but how do you think? (All committee members agreed with a nod of their heads)
  • In digitalisation, it doesn't mean that everything will be digital. The human work will be hand-shaken together, and the system will be configured. Therefore, what is important is that the people who are going to contract the private system understand well whether the specifications made by the government can cover various problems or not, and make proposals. We will consider whether it is better for humans to do it instead of digital. If humans do it here, it is easy to make mistakes, so it is better to stop it with digital. I think there is no point in holding an explanatory meeting unless such a proposal comes out. We are doing it to extract wisdom, but wisdom does not come out. In short, even if we say we don't leak it, we have to think about what we are doing for. We have to make sure that we are getting the results we are looking for, and we are dealing with this compliance issue. Otherwise, it will be like killing a cow in a corner. Keeping that in mind. Digitalization doesn't mean that everything can be done digitally. We have to add something about what we are going to do with humans. I don't know if it's an appendix or a main point, but I really want you to think about it.
  • A certain kind of restriction, or rather, the purpose and regulations are forgotten, so it is important to be able to clearly grasp the content that this is really bad from the viewpoint of common sense. In short, it is very important to make it clear that it is completely black, or that it is against the public interest. After that, I will relax it while thinking about the possibility a little. If you start asking for a completely white story, your behavior will narrow down. If you say that you should not do anything other than a completely white story, people will amplify it and do it because it is supposed to add value, but they will self-regulate by saying that you should not listen to it or look at it. In recent times, there may be more companies that do not want to do anything that is not completely white, but I think it is necessary to think based on that.
  • Basically, I think we have had similar discussions in the past. However, is it a matter of understanding within the Digi-Cho, in other words, a matter of reviewing the system and making various changes, or a matter of sharing awareness within the Digi-Cho? I think the response will change depending on whether the message has been conveyed that we are holding down basic things so that people can do it with peace of mind, while we are just a timid and shrinking existence.
  • If you think that this is a noisy organization, I would like you to correct it. I do not think that this is a committee that is only concerned with compliance, or that I am saying such things, so I need you to explain it well.
  • I don't think it's necessary to decide on a single specific improvement plan. Instead, I think it would be a good idea to have a variety of ideas put on the table and discuss them. I don't think there will be anyone who will say, "What's wrong with that plan?" In the discussion, I don't think there will be anyone who will say, "What's wrong with that plan?" I don't think there will be anyone who will say, "What's wrong with that plan?" I don't think there will be anyone who will say, "What's wrong with that plan?" I don't think there will be anyone who will say, "What's wrong with that plan?" I don't think there will be anyone who will say, "What's wrong with that plan?" I don't think there will be anyone who will say, "What's wrong

Other

(The secretariat introduced the contents of the reference materials, etc.)

Or more