On June 11, 2021, the White House released new guidance on its plans to limit waivers of domestic sourcing laws, bolstering its January 2021 Executive Order on “Ensuring the Future is Made in All of America by All of America’s Workers.”  The guidance, entitled “Increasing Opportunities for Domestic Sourcing and Reducing the Need for Waivers from Made in America Laws,” provides insight on how the Biden Administration intends to enforce domestic sourcing laws such as the Buy American Act (“BAA”) over the coming years.

We have previously written about the January 2021 Executive Order here.  Among other things the Executive Order established a federal Made in America Office (“MIAO”) to review agency decisions to waive laws such as the BAA from procurements, grants, and other government contracting activities.  It also directed the Office of Management and Budget to establish reporting and oversight procedures to promote enforcement of the Made in America Laws.  The guidance fulfills that requirement.

Among other things, the guidance:

  • Requires each agency to designate a Senior Accountable Official, an official responsible for coordinating with the Made in America Director to implement the waiver review process,
  • Establishes the procedures for review of waiver requests by the Made in America Office (“MIAO”),
  • Implements the Executive Order’s requirement that acquiring activities prepare agency reports on compliance with Made in America Laws, and
  • Explains the process to develop the public database of all proposed waivers by early fiscal year 2022.

Importantly, the guidance creates an “initial phase” of implementation for the Executive Order, indicating that future phases will follow.  In this “initial phase,” the Biden Administration will focus on (1) Jones Act waivers and (2) non-availability procurement waivers pursuant to the BAA proposed by the 24 agencies subject to the Chief Financial Officers (“CFO”) Act.  During the first quarter of fiscal year 2022, the MIAO will phase in reviews of waivers proposed by non-CFO Act agencies and other types of waiver requests.

In a blog post announcing the guidance, the new Director of the Made in America Office, Celeste Drake, stated that the guidance is intended “to improve practices and processes to ensure that Made in America laws are not a mere compliance exercise,” as well as “reinforc[e] the actions announced in the 100-Day Supply Chain Review.”

Made in America Executive Order

President Biden’s January 25, 2021, Executive Order aims to “maximize” the U.S. Government’s purchasing of goods and services produced in the United States.  The Executive Order established the MIAO to oversee and administer domestic preference requirements in federal procurements.  The Executive Order generally requires agencies to obtain approval from the Made in America Director prior to granting a waiver of Made in America Laws.  The term “Made in America Laws” is broadly defined in the Executive Order as covering all statutes, regulations, rules, and Executive Orders that refer to “Buy America,” “Buy American,” or include other domestic preference requirements.

The Executive Order also required the Made in America Director, within 45 days after appointment, to publish a list of the information and justification required to support a proposed waiver and a timeframe under which the Made in America Direction will notify the agency of the results of the review.  Celeste Drake, a trade policy expert and former labor union official, was selected by President Biden as the Made in America Director on April 27, 2021.  To the extent permitted by law and consistent with national security, the results of the waiver review will be made available on a public website.

Key Provisions of the Initial Guidance

The initial guidance details a phased approach to implementing the Executive Order starting summer 2021.  Specifically, the guidance falls into four categories: (1) appointment of Senior Accountable Officials at each agency; (2) procedures for review and approval of waivers; (3) additional requirements for the initial and bi-annual agency reports on use of Made in America Laws; and (4) steps for development of the public website listing all proposed waivers and whether the waivers have been granted.

Senior Accountable Officials

The initial guidance requires agencies designate a Senior Accountable Official (“SAO”) for domestic sourcing by June 30, 2021, and send the name of the SAO to the MIAO.  The SAO must be “sufficiently senior” so as to direct the agency’s activities regarding relevant Made in America Laws such as identifying opportunities to increase the agency’s reliance on domestic products and services by scouting suppliers, participating in inter-agency product level reviews, managing a waiver reduction strategy, and meeting regularly with the Made in America Director to discuss progress on implementing the waiver reduction strategy.  The SAO is also responsible for ensuring that the agency complies with the below procedures for submitting waiver requests to the MIAO.

Review and Approval of Agency Waiver Requests

The guidance broadly defines the term “waiver” to include all “exceptions and waivers under applicable Made in America Laws,” including automatically-effective legal waivers.  Indeed, the guidance lists various FAR provisions among the “waivers and exceptions,” including those implementing the Trade Agreements Act and the commercial information technology exception, which occur by operation of law.  It remains to be seen how the Biden Administration will enforce its waiver review procedures for these kinds of exceptions, but the current “initial phase” does not require agencies to address them.

To sufficiently assess why the agency requires the waiver, the initial guidance details the required information that must be included by the agency.  If a covered agency seeks a waiver on the grounds of non-availability it must submit the following information:

(1) identify the agency, contracting activity, and program office;

(2) provide a description of the end item or construction material being acquired including discussing the impact to the mission if not acquired, country(ies) of origin and U.S. content, the estimated value of the procurement, and, if pre-award, whether the supplier of the item(s) is a small or disadvantaged business;

(3) describe the market research activities used to identify domestically manufactured items satisfying the agency’s requirements;

(4) describe whether competition is anticipated or the procurement was conducted using competitive procedures;

(5) identify whether the solicitation will or did include a price preference for domestic end products and construction materials;

(6) explain, if pre-award, a U.S.-made end product would be rejected for reasons other than price; and

(7) identify the approving authority for non-availability determinations over $25,000.

CFO Act agencies requesting Jones Act waivers must provide a description of the transportation required, explain why the agency cannot acquire transportation on a Jones Act qualified vessel, justify why it is in the interest of national defense to waive the requirement, and provide any additional clarifying information.

The MIAO plans to complete review of the majority of waivers within 3 to 7 business days and not more than 15 days from submission.

Agency Reports on Use of Made in America Laws

Under Section 11 of the Executive Order, each agency must report on its use of Made in America Laws by July 24, 2021.  The initial guidance provides a list of sections that must be included in the report.  First, the report will identify all types of waivers of Made in America Laws that are relevant to the agency and the agency’s plan to manage waivers.  This section includes a discussion of the agency’s process for maximizing use of domestic sources, explanation of the agency’s waiver review procedures, profile of waivers granted in fiscal year 2020, and summary of the types of products and/or construction materials for which non-availability waivers are used most frequently.  Second, the report must describe the agency’s ongoing use of and justification for any longstanding or nationwide waivers.  Third, the report will include the agency’s recommendations for maximizing the use of domestic goods, products, and services.  Last, the report will detail the status and outcome of the agency’s review of actions inconsistent with the Executive Order including whether any agency actions will be suspended, revised or rescinded or if new actions are proposed.

In addition to the initial reports, Section 12 of the Executive Order requires each agency to file bi-annual reports on the agency’s ongoing implementation of and compliance with Made in America Laws.  The initial guidance includes similar content requirements for these bi-annual reports.

Development of the Public Website

Under Section 6 of the Executive Order, the Administrator of General Services is required to develop a public website to report information on all proposed waivers and whether those waivers have been granted.  The MIAO is responsible for reporting all proposed waivers after 5 days of receipt to GSA to post on the public website.  The initial guidance explains that the website “will be designed to help manufacturers, resellers, and other interested parties, including potential domestic manufacturers who are not currently selling to Federal agencies, easily identify opportunities to do business in the Federal marketplace.”

Conclusion

As previously discussed, the new MIAO waiver procedures are intended to reduce agencies use of waivers of Made in America Laws by increasing scrutiny of such waiver requests.  In addition to the increased scrutiny by the MIAO, proposed waivers and the results of the MIAO review will be published on a public website.  The public database of waiver determinations has the potential to provide useful precedents for contractors that are considering whether to seek a waiver from an agency.  However, given the added scrutiny of waiver decisions and public reporting, contractors should carefully consider the information provided to the agency in connection with the review process that could become public.

Print:
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn
Photo of Jennifer Plitsch Jennifer Plitsch

Jennifer Plitsch leads the firm’s Government Contracts Practice Group, where she works with clients on a broad range of issues arising from both defense and civilian contracts including contract proposal, performance, and compliance questions as well as litigation, transactional, and legislative issues.

She…

Jennifer Plitsch leads the firm’s Government Contracts Practice Group, where she works with clients on a broad range of issues arising from both defense and civilian contracts including contract proposal, performance, and compliance questions as well as litigation, transactional, and legislative issues.

She has particular expertise in advising clients on intellectual property and data rights issues under the Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR) and obligations imposed by the Bayh-Dole Act, including march-in and substantial domestic manufacturing. Jen also has significant experience in negotiation and compliance under non-traditional government agreements including Other Transaction Authority agreements (OTAs), Cooperative Research and Development Agreements (CRADAs), Cooperative Agreements, Grants, and Small Business Innovation Research agreements.

For over 20 years, Jen’s practice has focused on advising clients in the pharmaceutical, biologics and medical device industry on all aspects of both commercial and non-commercial agreements with various government agencies including:

  • the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA);
  • the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), including the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA), the National Institutes of Health (NIH), and the Centers for Disease Control (CDC);
  • the Department of Defense (DoD), including the Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA), the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), and the Joint Program Executive Office for Chemical Biological Defense (JPEO-CBRN); and
  • the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID).

She regularly advises on the development, production, and supply to the government of vaccines and other medical countermeasures addressing threats such as COVID-19, Ebola, Zika, MERS-CoV, Smallpox, seasonal and pandemic influenza, tropical diseases, botulinum toxin, nerve agents, and radiation events. In addition, for commercial drugs, biologics, and medical devices, Jen advises on Federal Supply Schedule contracts, including the complex pricing requirements imposed on products under the Veterans Health Care Act, as well as on the obligations imposed by participation in the 340B Drug Pricing program.

Jen also has significant experience in domestic sourcing compliance under the Buy American Act (BAA) and the Trade Agreements Act (TAA), including regulatory analysis and comments, certifications, investigations, and disclosures (including under the Acetris decision and Biden Administration Executive Orders). She also advises on prevailing wage requirements, including those imposed through the Davis-Bacon Act and the Service Contract Labor Standards.

Photo of Evan R. Sherwood Evan R. Sherwood

Evan Sherwood counsels federal contractors on Contract Disputes Act (CDA) claims, the cost accounting standards (CAS), cost allowability, requests for equitable adjustment (REAs), contract terminations for convenience/default, and related audits, litigations, and investigations. He also advises on contract compliance and formation issues, including TINA/defective pricing…

Evan Sherwood counsels federal contractors on Contract Disputes Act (CDA) claims, the cost accounting standards (CAS), cost allowability, requests for equitable adjustment (REAs), contract terminations for convenience/default, and related audits, litigations, and investigations. He also advises on contract compliance and formation issues, including TINA/defective pricing, data rights, mandatory disclosure rules, ethics, conflicts of interest, teaming arrangements, and other transaction agreements (OTAs). He has litigated matters before the Court of Federal Claims, the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals, the Government Accountability Office, and the Federal District Courts.

In his work for defense and civilian agency contractors, Evan:

  • Prepares CDA claims and REAs;
  • Litigates matters involving CAS compliance, cost accounting practice changes, and cost allowability under the FAR and grant rules;
  • Defends contractors during audits and investigations involving the Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA), Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), and the Office of the Inspector General (OIG);
  • Advises on constructive changes, work delays, defective specifications, stop-work orders, government-furnished property, CPARS, warranty matters, data rights, and quality controls;
  • Counsels on disputes between primes and subcontractors, including teaming disputes; and
  • Conducts internal investigations and defends clients in federal investigations involving whistleblower allegations and retaliation claims.

Evan is a Vice Chair of the ABA Public Contract Law Section’s Contract Claims & Disputes Resolution Committee. He routinely writes and speaks about legal issues in federal contracting.

Photo of Robert Huffman Robert Huffman

Bob Huffman counsels government contractors on emerging technology issues, including artificial intelligence (AI), cybersecurity, and software supply chain security, that are currently affecting federal and state procurement. His areas of expertise include the Department of Defense (DOD) and other agency acquisition regulations governing…

Bob Huffman counsels government contractors on emerging technology issues, including artificial intelligence (AI), cybersecurity, and software supply chain security, that are currently affecting federal and state procurement. His areas of expertise include the Department of Defense (DOD) and other agency acquisition regulations governing information security and the reporting of cyber incidents, the proposed Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification (CMMC) program, the requirements for secure software development self-attestations and bills of materials (SBOMs) emanating from the May 2021 Executive Order on Cybersecurity, and the various requirements for responsible AI procurement, safety, and testing currently being implemented under the October 2023 AI Executive Order. 

Bob also represents contractors in False Claims Act (FCA) litigation and investigations involving cybersecurity and other technology compliance issues, as well more traditional government contracting costs, quality, and regulatory compliance issues. These investigations include significant parallel civil/criminal proceedings growing out of the Department of Justice’s Cyber Fraud Initiative. They also include investigations resulting from False Claims Act qui tam lawsuits and other enforcement proceedings. Bob has represented clients in over a dozen FCA qui tam suits.

Bob also regularly counsels clients on government contracting supply chain compliance issues, including those arising under the Buy American Act/Trade Agreements Act and Section 889 of the FY2019 National Defense Authorization Act. In addition, Bob advises government contractors on rules relating to IP, including government patent rights, technical data rights, rights in computer software, and the rules applicable to IP in the acquisition of commercial products, services, and software. He focuses this aspect of his practice on the overlap of these traditional government contracts IP rules with the IP issues associated with the acquisition of AI services and the data needed to train the large learning models on which those services are based. 

Bob writes extensively in the areas of procurement-related AI, cybersecurity, software security, and supply chain regulation. He also teaches a course at Georgetown Law School that focuses on the technology, supply chain, and national security issues associated with energy and climate change.

Photo of Michael Wagner Michael Wagner

Mike Wagner represents companies and individuals in complex compliance and enforcement matters arising in the public procurement context. Combining deep regulatory expertise and extensive investigations experience, Mike helps government contractors navigate detailed procurement rules and achieve the efficient resolution of government investigations and…

Mike Wagner represents companies and individuals in complex compliance and enforcement matters arising in the public procurement context. Combining deep regulatory expertise and extensive investigations experience, Mike helps government contractors navigate detailed procurement rules and achieve the efficient resolution of government investigations and enforcement actions.

Mike regularly represents contractors in federal and state compliance and enforcement matters relating to a range of procurement laws and regulations. He has particular experience handling investigations and litigation brought under the civil False Claims Act, and he routinely counsels government contractors on mandatory and voluntary disclosure considerations under the FAR, DFARS, and related regulatory regimes. He also represents contractors in high-stakes suspension and debarment matters at the federal and state levels, and he has served as Co-Chair of the ABA Suspension & Debarment Committee and is principal editor of the American Bar Association’s Practitioner’s Guide to Suspension & Debarment (4th ed.) (2018).

Mike also has extensive experience representing companies pursuing and negotiating grants, cooperative agreements, and Other Transaction Authority agreements (OTAs). In this regard, he has particular familiarity with the semiconductor and clean energy industries, and he has devoted substantial time in recent years to advising clients on strategic considerations for pursuing opportunities under the CHIPS Act, Inflation Reduction Act, and Bipartisan Infrastructure Law.

In his counseling practice, Mike regularly advises government contractors and suppliers on best practices for managing the rapidly-evolving array of cybersecurity and supply chain security rules and requirements. In particular, he helps companies assess and navigate domestic preference and country-of-origin requirements under the Buy American Act (BAA), Trade Agreements Act (TAA), Berry Amendment, and DOD Specialty Metals regulation. He also assists clients in managing product and information security considerations related to overseas manufacture and development of Information and Communication Technologies & Services (ICTS).

Mike serves on Covington’s Hiring Committee and is Co-Chair of the firm’s Summer Associate Program. He is a frequent writer and speaker on issues relating to procurement fraud and contractor responsibility, and he has served as an adjunct professor at the George Washington University Law School.