The American Rescue Plan, signed into law last month, includes $1.9 trillion in economic stimulus, healthcare, and related funding.  And just last week the Biden administration released an infrastructure proposal, the American Jobs Plan, that includes $2.3 trillion in transportation, connectivity, power, and other critical infrastructure investments.

Contractors are right to view these plans as massive opportunities — but should be cognizant of the regulatory strings that often attach to government spending.  In general, these can include Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) and agency-specific FAR supplements for federal procurements, as well as the nonprocurement uniform requirements (2 C.F.R. Part 200) and related agency-specific regulations that attach to Federal grant funds even when disbursed by state or local entities.

Now, some Congressional members are seeking to add new restrictions that would significantly overhaul the existing domestic preference regime for Federal procurements — mere weeks after the promulgation of new Buy American regulations and the release of a new Executive Order to further tighten the application of these rules.


Continue Reading U.S. Senators Propose Trade-Pact Waivers Amidst Focus on Domestic Preference Laws

On Monday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued an opinion in Acetris Health, LLC v. United States, No. 2018-2399 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 10, 2020) (“Acetris”), that would permit pharmaceutical manufacturers to source a drug’s active pharmaceutical ingredient (“API”) from India, China and other non “designated countries” and yet still offer the end product for sale to the U.S. Government.  Under the Trade Agreements Act (“TAA”), if a drug’s API was sourced from outside of the United States or a designated country, at least some Government agencies previously had taken the position that the U.S. Government could not purchase it.  In Acetris, the Federal Circuit explained that the TAA inquiry should turn not on where the API (or some other component) is sourced, but instead on where the pill (or other end product) is manufactured.  Consistent with this approach, the court held that a pill manufactured in the United States was compliant with the TAA and implementing regulations even though the pill’s API was sourced from India.

Although the full implications of the Acetris decision are not yet clear, there is no doubt that the ruling alters the TAA compliance landscape and offers broader lessons outside of the pharmaceutical manufacturing context.  Consequently, the decision warrants close attention by contractors seeking to maximize supply chain efficiency.
Continue Reading A New Path to TAA Compliance: U.S.-Made End Products in Acetris

A long-standing dispute over the approach to country of origin determinations under the Trade Agreements Act (“TAA”) may soon be resolved, as the Federal Circuit recently heard oral argument in one of two cases presently examining key aspects of this statute.  Among other questions presented, the court may decide the standard for determining whether a product may be considered a U.S.-made end product — a question that could have far reaching implications for product manufacturers across all industries.

Continue Reading How Much Is Enough? Federal Circuit Appeal May Decide Level of U.S. Manufacturing Required Under the TAA

(This article was originally published in Law360 and has been modified for this blog.)

The Government Accountability Office (GAO) recently issued a bid protest decision regarding the application of the Berry Amendment’s domestic sourcing requirement to a U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) solicitation for leather combat gloves with touchscreen capability.  In that decision, the GAO found that the nonavailability exception to the Berry Amendment applied to the glove’s kidskin leather even though the agency determined, through market research, that this type of leather was available domestically.  Importantly, this decision provides an opportunity for stakeholders to consider the nuances associated with the Berry Amendment’s nonavailability exception and to reflect upon the complex regulatory landscape of domestic sourcing requirements.


Continue Reading Domestic Sourcing Requirement Doesn’t Fit DOD’s Gloves

Last year, we wrote about a trial court’s decision to dismiss a False Claims Act (“FCA”) complaint regarding alleged Trade Agreements Act (“TAA”) non-compliances because the relator failed to plead fraud with “particularity” under Rule 9(b).  That decision offered a sweeping rebuke of speculative FCA claims, and emphasized why it can be difficult to present a valid FCA claim based on a potential violation of a complex regulatory scheme like the TAA.

Last month, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit unanimously affirmed that decision in United States ex rel. Berkowitz v. Automation Aids, Inc., — F.3d — , 2018 WL 3567836 (7th Cir. July 25, 2018).  In doing so, the Seventh Circuit provided additional guidance about various topics, including the Rule 9(b) standard for implied certifications and the power of the materiality defense.  Our takeaways are below.
Continue Reading Alleged Sales of Non-TAA-Compliant Products Under GSA Schedule Contracts Are Not False Claims, 7th Circuit Holds

[A modified version of this blog post was published in Law360.]

Last month, Senators Dan Sullivan (R-AK) and Maria Cantwell (D-WA) introduced legislation to “improve the requirement to purchase domestic commodities or products” under the National School Lunch Program (the “NSLP”) and the School Breakfast Program (the “SPB”).  Even if this legislation fails to make it out of Committee, it signals a continued trend to strengthen the “Buy American” requirement under these programs.


Continue Reading Bipartisan Legislation Aims To Strengthen “Buy American” Requirement Under National School Lunch Program

Contractors that must comply with the government’s domestic preference laws should take note of United States ex rel. Folliard v. Comstor Corp., __ F. Supp. 3d __, 2018 WL 1567620 (D.D.C. 2018) — a recent decision dismissing a country-of-origin fraud lawsuit initiated by serial relator Brady Folliard.

Continue Reading Alleged TAA Non-Compliance Is Not “Material” Under The False Claims Act, Federal Court Holds

[This article was originally published in Law360 and has been modified for the blog.]

This was not an April Fools’ Day joke: The New York Buy American Act (“NY BAA”) went into effect on April 1, 2018. Signed by Governor Andrew M. Cuomo in December 2017 and championed by state legislators on both sides of the aisle, the NY BAA amends the existing domestic content restrictions in Section 146 of the N.Y. State Finance Law and Section 2603-a of the N.Y. Public Authorities Law by adding another layer of “Buy American” requirements focused on structural iron and structural steel products used in certain construction projects.

Although Governor Cuomo has noted that this new law is intended “to support hardworking men and women, revitalize infrastructure across the state, bolster the strength of our manufacturing industries and cement our status as a global economic leader” – a sentiment in step with President Trump’s stated “Buy American” policy – the economic impact of this legislation remains to be seen. As will be discussed, this set of requirements is focused on only two categories of items (structural iron and structural steel) used on a specific set of construction projects (roads and bridges) that will be awarded by certain New York agencies or authorities during a two-year window.

Notwithstanding, the NY BAA is a noteworthy development because it further reinforces the general rallying cry behind “Buy American.” Most importantly, this new law serves as a reminder to contractors that an already cumbersome regime of federal and state domestic preferences will continue to remain complex.


Continue Reading Key Takeaways From The “New York Buy American Act” And Beyond

A generic pharmaceutical distributor, Acetris Health, LLC, has challenged the Final Determination of U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“Customs”) that Acetris’ generic prescription drug, Rosuvastatin Calcium Tablets (“Rosuvastatin”), is a product of India, the place where the active pharmaceutical ingredient (“API”) is produced.  If successful, the challenge in the U.S. Court of International Trade (“CIT”) could have a meaningful impact on decisions about where to manufacture API for the very broad range of drug products sold to the U.S. Government.

Continue Reading The Long-Standing TAA “Substantial Transformation” Standard for Drug Products is Challenged at the Court of International Trade

Following recent efforts by Democrats to push for “Buy American” action, on January 9, 2018, Senator Chris Murphy (D-CT) proudly announced via Twitter that there now is “bipartisan support for strengthening our Buy American laws” and that he is “excited to have the Trump admin[istration] and partners like [Senators Rob Portman (R-OH), Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Sherrod Brown (D-OH)] working together to get this done.” That same day, these senators reached across the aisle to sponsor the BuyAmerican.gov Act of 2018 (S.2284) to “strengthen Buy American requirements.”

This proposed legislation may be the most significant “Buy American” development since President Donald J. Trump issued his “Buy American” Executive Order (E.O. 13788, April 2017), which set forth a policy and action plan to “maximize . . . the use of goods, products and materials produced in the United States” through federal procurements and federal financial assistance awards to “support the American manufacturing and defense industrial bases” (and which we analyzed in a prior blog post).


Continue Reading Key Takeaways from Bipartisan Bill to “Strengthen Buy American Requirements”