[This article was originally published in Law360.]

President Trump took a significant step this week towards implementing his often touted objective of protecting U.S. manufacturers and workers by signing the “Presidential Executive Order on Buy American and Hire American” (the “EO”) on April 18, 2017.  In addition to addressing reforms to the H1-B visa program to protect U.S. workers, the EO sets forth a policy and action plan intended to “support the American manufacturing and defense industrial bases” by “maximiz[ing]” the Federal Government’s procurement of “goods, products, and materials produced in the United States,” and mandates strict compliance with the statutory and regulatory regimes for domestic sourcing preferences and restrictions (jointly referred to as “Buy American Laws”), such as the Buy American Act (41 U.S.C. §§ 8301–8305) and other buy America legislation, and implementing regulations.

In short, and as to procurement, the EO:

  • Requires all agencies to assess their monitoring, enforcement, implementation, and compliance with Buy American Laws and the use of waivers to those laws, and to propose policies designed to ensure that the use of domestic sources is maximized, consistent with existing law.
  • Requires an assessment of the impact on domestic procurement preferences of all free trade agreements and the World Trade Organization Agreement on Government Procurement.
  • Elevates to the Head of the Agency the granting of any public interest waivers to Buy American Laws requirements and requires such determinations to consider whether the cost advantage of the foreign product is due to dumping or the use of an injuriously subsidized product.
  • Requires the Secretary of Commerce to submit a report to President Trump within 220 days of the date of the EO which shall include “specific recommendations to strengthen implementation of Buy American Laws, including domestic procurement preference policies and programs.”
  • Requires agencies to submit annual reports to the Secretary of Commerce and the Director of the Office of Management and Budget on agency efforts to maximize the procurement of domestic products, and requires the Secretary of Commerce to submit an annual report to the President based on the agency submissions.

Although this EO establishes the Administration’s policy to strictly enforce Buy American Laws to maximize the use of domestic manufacturers and labor, it does not change existing law or regulation.[1]

Here are our key takeaways.

(1)  Expect More Scrutiny and Fewer Public Interest Waivers. 

Contractors should expect agencies to significantly increase their efforts to monitor contractor compliance with Buy American Laws and to enforce contractor noncompliance – possibly through civil or criminal False Claims Act violations, contract terminations, and suspension or debarment. We also expect that this EO will pique the interest of potential whistleblowers and relator’s bar – which could well result in more qui tam complaints being filed and related Government investigations.  Thus, it is imperative now more than ever for contractors to take steps to ensure that contracting and purchasing personnel understand these domestic preference rules and restrictions, and ensure that the necessary processes and procedures are in place to avoid a compliance failure. A decision to “wait and see” how agencies will respond to the EO simply is not advisable, especially given the statements made in the Administration’s April 17 Background Briefing about the EO – describing the current enforcement regime as “lax,” and noting that agencies will need to “crack[] down on weak monitoring, enforcement, and compliance efforts, and at rooting out every single Buy American loophole.”  It is already difficult under the current regulatory regime for contractors to determine compliance with the domestic preference statutes and regulations, including what constitutes a “domestic end product,” a “domestic construction material” or a “component” that is “manufactured in the United States” – especially in light of the ever-increasing reliance on global supply chains and the difficulty of tracing components. Government representatives fare little better in their understanding of this difficult area. As a result, the government likely will err heavily on the side of rejecting contractor claims that products meet the domestic preference rules because they either are domestic or they qualify for a waiver. And even where the contractor can establish the basis for such a waiver, we should anticipate that agencies will be unwilling to approve such requests absent a compelling need.

(2)  Changes to Free Trade Agreements may be on the horizon.

Consistent with President Trump’s promise to revisit free trade agreements with the United States’ trading partners, Section 3(e) of the EO mandates a review of the impact of those agreements on domestic sourcing. A portion of many of those agreements provides for the reciprocal lifting of domestic preferences for government procurement, allowing those countries to sell into the U.S. government and even state and local government markets in return for equivalent access to the foreign market.  Any decision to renegotiate or rescind those agreements will limit the procurement of foreign end products and replace them, if available, with domestic products.  Currently, the Trade Agreements Act (19 U.S.C. §§ 2501–2581) implements these reciprocal arrangements and, where applicable, acts as an exception to the Buy American Act.  As a result of the EO, we may later see changes in the countries allowed to sell product to government markets in the U.S. free of domestic preferences.

The Administration’s April 17 Background Briefing provides more context to this assessment.  That Briefing cited a February 2017 GAO report as providing “compelling evidence” that “strongly suggests the U.S. may not be getting its fair share of the global government procurement through its free trade agreement concessions.”  The Briefing also stated, point-blank, that “[i]f the analysis mandated by this report indicates any agreement is failing to meet the Trump standard of fairness and reciprocity so that the U.S. is a net loser, these findings will inform the President’s decision to rescind or renegotiate these deals.”

(3)  Is the Buy American Act cost of components test going away?

Currently, an end item manufactured in the United States is domestic if its foreign components make-up less than 50% of the cost of all components, or if it is a Commercial-of-the-Shelf (COTS) item regardless of its component make-up. Does the EO’s direction in Section 3(b)(iii) to “maximize” the use of domestic components presage a change in the 50% standard, a standard that was put into place in 1954 by President Eisenhower through Executive Order 10582 and subsequently implemented through acquisition regulations? Will the COTS exception for the cost of components test remain?

(4)  Assessments may signal legislative reform.

Section 3(f) of the EO directs the Secretary of Commerce, in consultation with the Secretary of State, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, and the United States Trade Representative to submit an annual report to President Trump that includes “specific recommendations to strengthen implementation of Buy American Laws, including domestic procurement preference policies and programs.” Annual reports also must be submitted.  It is possible that these reports may serve as a prelude to legislative reform.

[1] An Executive Order cannot create new law or regulation.

Print:
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn
Photo of Frederic Levy Frederic Levy

Fred Levy is senior counsel in the firm’s Government Contracts and White Collar Defense and Investigations Practice Groups. He is a leading suspension and debarment lawyer, focusing his practice on the resolution of complex compliance and ethics issues. He has successfully represented numerous…

Fred Levy is senior counsel in the firm’s Government Contracts and White Collar Defense and Investigations Practice Groups. He is a leading suspension and debarment lawyer, focusing his practice on the resolution of complex compliance and ethics issues. He has successfully represented numerous high-profile corporations and individuals under investigation by the government in civil and criminal matters, including False Claims Act cases, and in suspension and debarment proceedings to ensure their continued eligibility to participate in federal programs. He has also conducted numerous internal investigations on behalf of corporate clients and advises corporations on voluntary or mandatory disclosures to federal agencies. Fred regularly counsels clients on government contract performance issues, claims and terminations, and litigates matters before the boards of contract appeals and in the Federal Circuit.

Related to his work involving program fraud, Fred counsels clients in the area of contractor “responsibility.” He is involved in the development and implementation of contractor ethics and compliance programs that meet the standards of the Federal Acquisition Regulation, Federal Sentencing Guidelines, and Sarbanes-Oxley, and he regularly conducts ethics and compliance training.

Fred is a principal editor of Guide to the Mandatory Disclosure Rule, and of The Practitioner’s Guide to Suspension and Debarment, 4th Edition. He is a vice-chair of the Debarment and Suspension Committee of the ABA Public Contract Law Section, and a former co-chair of that committee and of the Procurement Fraud Committee. He is a graduate of Columbia College and Columbia Law School.

Photo of Sandy Hoe Sandy Hoe

Sandy Hoe has practiced government contracts law for more than 45 years.  His expertise includes issues of contract formation, negotiation of subcontracts, bid protests, the structuring of complex private financing of government contracts, preparation of complex claims, and the resolution of post-award contract…

Sandy Hoe has practiced government contracts law for more than 45 years.  His expertise includes issues of contract formation, negotiation of subcontracts, bid protests, the structuring of complex private financing of government contracts, preparation of complex claims, and the resolution of post-award contract disputes through litigation or alternative dispute resolution.  His clients include major companies in the defense, telecommunications, information technology, financial, construction, and health care industries.

For several years, Sandy also practiced telecommunications regulatory law, appearing before numerous state public utility commissions in hearings to open the local exchange markets for new entrants under the Telecommunications Act of 1996.

For many years, he has been active in the Public Contract Law Section of the American Bar Association, where he was an author of the section’s original publication of “Subcontract Terms and Conditions.”  From 1999 to 2011, Sandy co-chaired the Section’s committee on Privatization, Outsourcing and Financing Transactions and from 2005 to 2008 served on the Section Council.  Prior to his service in the ABA, for six years he was on the Steering Committee of the Section on Government Contracts and Litigation of the District of Columbia Bar, including three years as co-chair.

Photo of Scott A. Freling Scott A. Freling

Scott is sought after for his regulatory expertise and his ability to apply that knowledge to the transactional environment. Scott has deep experience leading classified and unclassified due diligence reviews of government contractors, negotiating transaction documents, and assisting with integration and other post-closing…

Scott is sought after for his regulatory expertise and his ability to apply that knowledge to the transactional environment. Scott has deep experience leading classified and unclassified due diligence reviews of government contractors, negotiating transaction documents, and assisting with integration and other post-closing activities. He has been the lead government contracts lawyer in dozens of M&A deals, with a combined value of more than $76 billion. This has included Advent’s acquisition of Maxar Technologies for $6.4 billion, Aptiv’s acquisition of Wind River for $3.5 billion, Veritas Capital’s sale of Alion Science and Technology to Huntington Ingalls for $1.65 billion, and Peraton’s acquisition of Perspecta for $7.1 billion.

Scott also represents contractors at all stages of the procurement process and in their dealings with federal, state, and local government customers. He handles a wide range of government contracts matters, including compliance counseling, claims, disputes, audits, and investigations. In addition, Scott counsels clients on risk mitigation strategies, including obtaining SAFETY Act liability protection for anti-terrorism technologies.

Scott has been recognized by Law360 as a MVP in government contracts. He is a past co-chair of the Mergers and Acquisitions Committee of the ABA’s Public Contract Law Section.