USTR Requests Input on Impact of Trade Agreements on Government Procurement

by Hogan Lovells

Hogan Lovells

On August 21, 2017, the Department of Commerce (Commerce) and the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) issued a request for public comment on the impact of government procurement provisions of U.S. trade agreements on U.S. manufacturers and suppliers.  Prompted by President Trump’s “Buy American and Hire American” Executive Order (E.O.), the request seeks to understand how domestic preference laws affect participation of U.S. manufacturers and suppliers in the Federal procurement process.  Noting the significance of reciprocity in the global trading arena, the request also asks for industry input concerning the “costs and benefits” of trade agreements, and related laws, from those U.S. manufacturers and suppliers competing in foreign government procurement markets.  Comments are due by September 18, 2017.

Background of the Request for Comment

The President’s Executive Order

Designed to further the Administration’s “America First” agenda, the “Buy American and Hire American” E.O., which we previously analyzed, aims to maximize the Federal government’s use of goods, products, and materials produced in the United States by requiring agencies to increase monitoring, enforcement, and compliance with Buy American Laws[1] while minimizing the use of waivers.

The E.O. mandates that agencies assess Buy American Laws and provide specific recommendations regarding ways to strengthen those laws and develop policies to maximize the use of materials produced in the United States.  It also directed the Secretary of Commerce and the USTR to conduct a review of the effects of U.S. Free Trade Agreements (U.S. FTAs) and the World Trade Organization’s Government Procurement Agreement (GPA) on the implementation of domestic procurement preferences.

The Administration’s Memorandum

As part of the E.O.’s initiatives and prior to the USTR’s release of its request for comment, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), issued a memorandum to Federal agencies entitled, “Assessment and Enforcement of Domestic Preferences in Accordance with Buy American Laws” on June 30, 2017.  The memo directs agencies to address three primary areas bearing upon Federal procurement:

  1. Oversight of Buy American Laws: Agencies must assess “the monitoring of, enforcement or, implementation of, and compliance with Buy American Laws.”  The memo requires agencies to provide a report addressing 1) any procedures and guidance that the agency has developed “to assist the workforce in meeting the requirements of Buy American Laws and the application of the Trade Agreement Act (TAA)”; 2) any internal reviews conducted in the last two fiscal years regarding compliance with such laws; 3) any marketing and outreach that the agency has taken to promote and enhance visibility for the acquisition workforce of products that are compliant with Buy American Laws; and 4) any training tools or resources that the agency uses to ensure the acquisition workforce understands the parameters and technical mechanics of Buy American Laws and the TAA.
  2. Enforcement of Buy American Laws and Waiver Usage: Agencies are required to analyze the use of waivers within their agencies by type and impact on domestic jobs and manufacturing.
  3. Steps to strengthen implementation of Buy American Laws: Agencies must “develop and propose policies to ensure that, to the extent permitted by law, Federal financial assistance awards and Federal procurement maximize the use of materials produced in the United States, including manufactured products; components of manufactured products; and materials such as steel, iron, aluminum, and cement.”  The memo also instructs agencies to address ways to improve current agency practices bearing upon oversight of Buy American Laws.

The Request for Public Comment on the Impact
of Public Procurement Trade Agreements

The request for public comment by Commerce and the USTR addresses one of the E.O.’s mandates by seeking industry input “to better understand how the U.S. government procurement obligations under all U.S. free trade agreements and the GPA affect U.S. manufacturers’ and suppliers’ access to and participation in the domestic government procurement process.”  This is a somewhat curious way of formulating the topic, since in general neither Buy American Laws nor trade agreements restrict or regulate whether U.S. manufacturers have access to U.S. procurements.  Rather, they govern which foreign-made products have access to the Federal market.  Perhaps a better way of summarizing what the request is trying to get at would be, How do trade agreements affect the competition faced by U.S. manufacturers in Federal procurements?  And, what are the costs and benefits to the U.S. economy and U.S. taxpayers of such trade provisions?

Acknowledging that “reciprocal access to trading partners’ markets is an important motivation for including government procurement obligations in U.S. free trade agreements and for the United States’ membership in the GPA,” Commerce and the USTR are also seeking comment on how these obligations affect manufacturers and suppliers competing in foreign government procurement markets.  Any modifications to current trade agreements lessening foreign access to the Federal market could also lead to reduced procurement of U.S. goods by foreign governments.

The request for comment poses a series of questions on access to U.S. Federal and to foreign government procurement markets for U.S.-manufactured goods.  In responding to the questions, commentators are requested to consider the impact with respect to:

  • Business opportunities that are made available;
  • Economic incentives that trade agreements and Buy American Laws provide;
  • How trade agreements impact business competitiveness, or increase or decrease competition, in government procurement opportunities;
  • How trade agreements affect companies’ (prime contractors’) supply chain and sourcing decisions for goods;
  • How Buy American or similar foreign requirements increase or decrease companies’ (prime contractors’) competitiveness in government procurement opportunities;
  • Administrative compliance costs tied to Buy American and similar government procurement policies; and
  • Additional costs relating to providing or otherwise proving the country of origin of goods provided.

Potential Impacts

It will be interesting to review the impact assessments that industry and other interested parties submit in response to the request.  Perceived impacts are likely to vary by sector, due to varying coverage and restrictions of Buy American Laws and trade agreements, and due to differing market conditions and supply chains in those sectors.

Pharmaceuticals.  The TAA is a major issue for pharmaceutical companies because over 80% of the world’s active pharmaceutical ingredients come from India and China, non-FTA countries.  However, recognizing that innovator drugs under patent are available from only one source, the Department of Veterans Affairs recently liberalized its procurement policy with respect to the Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) by requiring such drugs to be offered for FSS contracts even if they have non-FTA country origin.  If instead drugs were subject to the Buy American Act (BAA), a price evaluation preference would be applied to non-domestic offers, but that would have no impact if there is no U.S. final manufacturer.  In theory there could be some inducement for more U.S. final manufacture, but the Federal market is small relative to the commercial market and might not be enough to affect many product sourcing decisions.  The cost of components test would not apply, since drugs are commercial off-the-shelf items.

Information technology (IT) equipment.  Congress has removed commercial IT products from coverage of the BAA.  Therefore, the effect of the TAA in this field is not to liberalize trade, but to reduce the range of potential sources by making non-FTA countries ineligible.  China is the country most affected, as most other major IT manufacturing countries are FTA signatories.

Other commercial items.  While the BAA still requires U.S. manufacture for non-IT items, Congress has waived the cost of components test for commercial off the shelf (COTS) items.  This is probably the area in which FTAs have had the greatest impact.  The GPA and other FTAs open U.S. procurement on an equal basis to manufacturers located in the vast majority of significant U.S. trading partners.  However, it is worth noting that the country that first comes to mind for low-cost manufacturing—China—is not one of them.  Nevertheless, the economic impact is mitigated because government sales generally make up only a relatively small fraction of total commercial item sales.  Therefore, sourcing and supply chain decisions by U.S. as well as non-U.S. companies tend to be driven far more by cost, quality, and reliability than by access to the Federal market.  Therefore, it is doubtful whether application of the BAA standard rather than the TAA standard would result in relocation of much manufacturing to the United States.  In some cases the BAA price preference would not be enough to enable a BAA product to win bids.  Any benefit would have to be balanced against the increased cost to the taxpayer and the fact that the government would lose access to sophisticated technology manufactured in places such as Japan and Germany.

Military equipment.  This is an extremely large U.S. export sector.  It is little affected by FTAs, because there are national defense carve outs.  Instead, this sector is governed by bilateral memoranda of understanding between the U.S. Department of Defense and the defense ministries of allied countries, including all NATO nations and Israel.  These provide for reciprocal free trade.  Historically the major systems manufacturers and integrators have opposed content restrictions, for multiple reasons.  One is that the companies are major exporters and have more to gain than to lose by open government procurement.  Another is that major systems are incredibly complex, having hundreds of thousands of components, and tracking component origin can be an administrative nightmare with little countervailing benefit.  On the other hand, there may be some U.S. specialty component manufacturers who would prefer to be protected against foreign competition.  There are carve-outs for congressionally-imposed preferences for U.S. textiles and clothing, food, specialty metals, and other niche goods.  These restrictions are not affected by trade agreements.

Other non-commercial items.  This is a relatively small category of goods.  Since the cost of components test applies to it, the proportion of products that are eligible is smaller than for commercial items.  Conversely, by waiving the BAA, FTAs have a correspondingly larger liberalizing impact for this category of goods.  However, even companies that do some or all of their manufacturing in the United States do not necessarily favor Buy American because it limits their ability to source components elsewhere to meet competition.

Steel.  A lot of steel goes into state and local highway and transit projects funded in part by Department of Transportation grants.   Grant restrictions, including US-melted steel requirements, are carved out of FTAs.  Interestingly, some U.S. as well as foreign steel producers are also excluded because raw materials may come from other countries.  Thus, these restrictions benefit some U.S. producers and disadvantage others.

Construction material.  The BAA regime for construction materials parallels that for supplies.  Unmanufactured materials must be produced in the U.S.  Manufactured materials must be manufactured in the U.S.  Non-COTS manufactured materials are subject to the additional requirement that U.S. components represent at least 50% of total component cost.  Nearly all Federal projects are over the applicable FTA monetary thresholds, however, where the TAA makes construction materials from any FTA country acceptable.  Application of the BAA could benefit some U.S. makers of building materials, but it could make business more complicated and expensive for general contractors and their customers.

Software.  To date, software has been little affected by trade restrictions or trade liberalization.   This is attributable in part to the fact that Buy American Laws generally pre-date the software industry and there are no general restrictions specifically targeting software.  Customs and Border Protection decisions hold that recording of software onto media is a substantial transformation of the media.  Consequently, it is a simple matter to establish compliant origin at the point of recording, regardless of the fact that development work many have occurred in multiple other countries.

Services.  FTAs have had little impact with respect to services, for several reasons.  First, Buy American Laws generally aim at manufactured goods, certain commodities (e.g., steel, textiles, specialty metals), and infrastructure (especially highways and transit), not services.  Therefore, even though procurement FTAs apply to services, there are few potentially waivable limitations in the first place.  Second, the rule of origin for services only requires that the service provider be established (have a permanent place of business) in the United States or an FTA country.  This is easy to comply with for any company doing international business, so there is little impact on who can compete for service work among FTA countries.  Third, many types of services must be provided at the customer site regardless of any trade requirements (e.g., construction, custodial work, landscaping, maintenance).  Some others, such as call centers, cloud computing, and software development, lend themselves easily to remote sourcing.

Small businesses.  Small business preferences are carved out from U.S. FTAs, so the FTAs have no impact on them.  Small business preferences (which benefit only small businesses operating in the United States) are a sore point with U.S. trading partners, but it is uncertain how much impact they actually have on trade.  It is questionable how many overseas small businesses have the resources to participate in U.S. government procurements, even if permitted to compete for U.S. small business set-asides.  Canadian small businesses, many of which do sell in the U.S. market, are probably most affected.


The request for comment is a step in pursuit of the Administration’s “Hire American-Buy American” agenda.  The Administration may find that industry does not universally share the President’s view that the GPA and other FTAs are “bad deals” for U.S. industry and the U.S. economy.  Changes to the U.S. FTAs or the GPA may have varying impacts on the different industry sectors.  Regardless of any policy preferences or prescriptions that may be offered by commenters, one can hope that responses will contribute to a more evidence-based discussion on the proper approach to future trade agreements or potential revision of current pacts.



1 The E.O. defines “Buy American Laws” to mean “all statutes, regulations, rules, and Executive Orders relating to Federal procurement or Federal grants including those that refer to “Buy America” or “Buy American” that require, or provide a preference for, the purchase or acquisition of goods, products, or materials produced in the United States, including iron, steel, and manufactured goods.”

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Hogan Lovells | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

Hogan Lovells

Hogan Lovells on:

Readers' Choice 2017
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
Sign up using*

Already signed up? Log in here

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Custom Email Digest
Privacy Policy (Updated: October 8, 2015):

JD Supra provides users with access to its legal industry publishing services (the "Service") through its website (the "Website") as well as through other sources. Our policies with regard to data collection and use of personal information of users of the Service, regardless of the manner in which users access the Service, and visitors to the Website are set forth in this statement ("Policy"). By using the Service, you signify your acceptance of this Policy.

Information Collection and Use by JD Supra

JD Supra collects users' names, companies, titles, e-mail address and industry. JD Supra also tracks the pages that users visit, logs IP addresses and aggregates non-personally identifiable user data and browser type. This data is gathered using cookies and other technologies.

The information and data collected is used to authenticate users and to send notifications relating to the Service, including email alerts to which users have subscribed; to manage the Service and Website, to improve the Service and to customize the user's experience. This information is also provided to the authors of the content to give them insight into their readership and help them to improve their content, so that it is most useful for our users.

JD Supra does not sell, rent or otherwise provide your details to third parties, other than to the authors of the content on JD Supra.

If you prefer not to enable cookies, you may change your browser settings to disable cookies; however, please note that rejecting cookies while visiting the Website may result in certain parts of the Website not operating correctly or as efficiently as if cookies were allowed.

Email Choice/Opt-out

Users who opt in to receive emails may choose to no longer receive e-mail updates and newsletters by selecting the "opt-out of future email" option in the email they receive from JD Supra or in their JD Supra account management screen.


JD Supra takes reasonable precautions to insure that user information is kept private. We restrict access to user information to those individuals who reasonably need access to perform their job functions, such as our third party email service, customer service personnel and technical staff. However, please note that no method of transmitting or storing data is completely secure and we cannot guarantee the security of user information. Unauthorized entry or use, hardware or software failure, and other factors may compromise the security of user information at any time.

If you have reason to believe that your interaction with us is no longer secure, you must immediately notify us of the problem by contacting us at In the unlikely event that we believe that the security of your user information in our possession or control may have been compromised, we may seek to notify you of that development and, if so, will endeavor to do so as promptly as practicable under the circumstances.

Sharing and Disclosure of Information JD Supra Collects

Except as otherwise described in this privacy statement, JD Supra will not disclose personal information to any third party unless we believe that disclosure is necessary to: (1) comply with applicable laws; (2) respond to governmental inquiries or requests; (3) comply with valid legal process; (4) protect the rights, privacy, safety or property of JD Supra, users of the Service, Website visitors or the public; (5) permit us to pursue available remedies or limit the damages that we may sustain; and (6) enforce our Terms & Conditions of Use.

In the event there is a change in the corporate structure of JD Supra such as, but not limited to, merger, consolidation, sale, liquidation or transfer of substantial assets, JD Supra may, in its sole discretion, transfer, sell or assign information collected on and through the Service to one or more affiliated or unaffiliated third parties.

Links to Other Websites

This Website and the Service may contain links to other websites. The operator of such other websites may collect information about you, including through cookies or other technologies. If you are using the Service through the Website and link to another site, you will leave the Website and this Policy will not apply to your use of and activity on those other sites. We encourage you to read the legal notices posted on those sites, including their privacy policies. We shall have no responsibility or liability for your visitation to, and the data collection and use practices of, such other sites. This Policy applies solely to the information collected in connection with your use of this Website and does not apply to any practices conducted offline or in connection with any other websites.

Changes in Our Privacy Policy

We reserve the right to change this Policy at any time. Please refer to the date at the top of this page to determine when this Policy was last revised. Any changes to our privacy policy will become effective upon posting of the revised policy on the Website. By continuing to use the Service or Website following such changes, you will be deemed to have agreed to such changes. If you do not agree with the terms of this Policy, as it may be amended from time to time, in whole or part, please do not continue using the Service or the Website.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about this privacy statement, the practices of this site, your dealings with this Web site, or if you would like to change any of the information you have provided to us, please contact us at:

- hide
*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.