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”

Over the last few months, various Senate Democrats have pushed to strengthen “Buy American” requirements applicable to Federal Government procurements. This month is no different. On December 6, 2017, Senator Chris Murphy (D-CT) reintroduced the 21st Century Buy American Act (S.2196), which aims to “strengthen existing Buy American standards to ensure that the U.S. government prioritizes the purchase of American-made goods.” Then, on December 13, 2017, Senator Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) wrote a letter to President Trump inquiring about the status of the Administration’s “Buy American” report and urging bipartisan “Buy American” action.
Continue Reading Senate Democrats Continue Efforts to Strengthen “Buy American” Requirements

As we reported late last month, one-third of the Senate Democratic caucus doubled down on efforts to keep “Buy American” protections intact for certain defense items. Now Senate Democrats are declaring a “Buy American” victory as the FY 2018 NDAA conference report revealed that some of these protections will remain.
Continue Reading Senate Democrats Notch a “Buy American” Victory

As we reported last month, four Senate Democrats published an article about “strengthen[ing]” the U.S. Government’s “Buy American policies” through certain proposed amendments to the FY 2018 National Defense Authorization Act (“NDAA”). Although most of the proposed “Buy American” amendments were left out of the version of the bill that was sent to conference, 16 Senate Democrats – including Senators Tammy Baldwin (WI), Debbie Stabenow (MI), Al Franken (MN), Chris Murphy (CT) and Elizabeth Warren (MA) – are now doubling down on their efforts to remove a section in the Senate-passed FY 2018 NDAA that would eliminate “Buy American” protections for certain defense items.
Continue Reading Senate Democrats Double Down on “Buy American”

Last week a group of four Senate Democrats – led by Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) – jointly published an article about “strengthen[ing]” the U.S. Government’s “Buy American policies.” While the senators acknowledged President Trump’s recent efforts to “re-examine the use of . . . Buy American waivers” (see our blog post regarding the “Buy American” Executive Order), they also expressed concern that these efforts would “not fundamentally change . . . Buy American policies.” In other words, both sides of the aisle are targeting “Buy American” reforms.

[A more in-depth version of this blog post was published in Law360.]

Continue Reading Senate Democrats Look to Strengthen “Buy American” Policies and Requirements

[This article also was published in Law360.]

On June 30, 2017, Commerce Secretary Ross and OMB Director Mulvaney issued a Memorandum to Federal agencies regarding the “assessment and enforcement of domestic preferences in accordance with Buy American Laws,” which includes the Buy American Act (“BAA”). Although the Memorandum purports to provide guidance to help agencies implement the vision expressed in President Trump’s April 2017 Buy American Executive Order (E.O. 13788), which we previously analyzed, the Memorandum focuses mostly on what agencies must include in the reports that they are required, under Section 3 of the Executive Order, to submit to the Commerce Department and OMB by September 15. It also offers some clues for contractors about how the Trump Administration plans to implement its “buy American” vision.
Continue Reading Key Takeaways from Trump Administration Memo on Buy American Laws

In a recent False Claims Act (“FCA”) case, United States ex rel. Louis Scutellaro v. Capitol Supply, Inc., the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia held that the defendant’s failure to retain Country of Origin (“COO”) documentation for the products it sold to the government entitled the relator and the government to an adverse inference that the defendant did not comply with the Trade Agreements Act (“TAA”).  This ruling highlights the consequences of poor document retention practices and could have far-reaching effects in FCA cases and beyond.

Continue Reading The Perils of Bad Recordkeeping: A Lack of Country of Origin Documentation Results in Adverse Inference of Non-Compliance with the Trade Agreements Act