Many Government Purchasing Departments Are Reopening Contracts and Seeking Price Reductions
This past week, I have seen a dozen or so requests made by municipal and Ontario government departments writing to their suppliers and seeking price reductions relating to existing contracts on the basis that savings related to embedded Ontario retail sales tax (ORST) must be passed on to the buyer (government department). Most of the requests that I have seen suggest that the basis for the request is contained in the harmonized sales tax (HST) laws.
The truth is that the HST laws do not require that suppliers reopen contacts for renegotiation and pass on any savings to the purchasing government department. The question is whether there is a provision in the contract that requires that any savings relating to tax reform be passed on to the purchasing government department. So far, I have not seen any contract containing such a provision --- but, some may exist.
The practical reality is that if a supplier to a government purchaser does not make adjustments or open the kimono so to speak and engage in a discussion), then the government purchasing department may not renew a contract or may treat the supplier negatively in the future in a procurement situation. As a result, even though the contract does not require price adjustments, suppliers may choose to make adjustments in order to keep the customer happy.
I will give you an example that may seem odd to a sales tax lawyer/accountant without full facts. In one matter, a client provided a photocopier and toner to the government purchaser. The cost of the photocopier was already a sunk cost. However, the purchasing government department said they expected a price reduction because the supplier bought toner and the ORST cost of the toner was within the contract pricing. As a result of HST, the supplier would no longer pay ORST on the toner and would recover the HST on the toner by way of an input tax credit. The government department wanted a price adjustment to remove the ORST on the toner that would have been considered by the supplier in its initial pricing under the contract. The small price adjustment made sense to keep the purchasing manager happy.
With three of the matters I reviewed this week, due to the nature of the contract, there was no ORST savings to pass on to the government department. That being said, the purchasing manager needed to be convinced and the client needed to provide detailed information about its pricing in order to prove to the purchasing manager that this was the case. The dilemma was that in proving that there was no ORST cost embedded in the pricing, the government department needed to be provided with information that could be used in the future to negotiate price reductions. in other words, the supplier needed to show too much of its internal information and supplier information.
Two clients priced their contract years ago so that some aspects of the contract were loss leaders and some aspects of the contract resulted in a profit. The contracts as a whole resulted in a profit to the supplier. In this exercise, the purchasing government department attempted to reduce the profit margins on the profitable aspects of the contract in order to achieve overall savings (to the detriment of the suppliers' bottom lines).
In all cases, the purchasing manager made it clear that he/she expected price adjustments and would communicate internally if no price adjustments were made. Pressure was exerted and suppliers to the government were discouraged from maintaining the status quo and not "throwing the government a bone".
One reason for the pressure on the government side is that the Ontario government will start to pay HST on goods and services that were not subject to GST and/or ORST in the past. Municipal governments do not receive all of the Ontario HST component back by way of a rebate (previously and under HST, 100% of the GST payable was refundable).
I would be pleased to discuss these issue that I am seeing with anyone in this situation.
Cyndee Todgham Cherniak is counsel to and in affiliation with the International Trade Law and the Tax Law (Commodity Tax