Cortney is an experienced lawyer in the field of international trade and supply chain and advises foreign and domestic clients on all aspects of international trade regulation, planning and compliance, including imports (customs), export controls, economic sanctions, embargoes, international trade agreements and preferential programs. b) supply of finished products. The contract agent found that the WTO ACCORD and free trade AGREEMENTs apply to this acquisition. Unless otherwise stated, these trade agreements apply to all items in the calendar. Under this contract, the supplier only supplies finished products manufactured or designated in the United States, unless its offer indicates the delivery of other finished products in the “commercial contract certificate” provision. So, what`s the key to take away? If the TAA applies to your contract, you can deliver a finished product manufactured in the United States, if it is manufactured only in the United States, even if the components are manufactured abroad. The product does not need to be manufactured entirely in the United States and it does not need to be processed significantly in the United States. In other words, in accordance with the FAR TAA clause and for the purposes of a finished product manufactured in the United States, manufacturing does not require substantial processing. Before entering the case, a little background on the Trade Agreements Act (TAA). If the TAA applies to a U.S. government contract, the contractor can supply a product from a foreign country if that country has a free trade agreement with the United States. In other words, the U.S. government will not discriminate 20/10 on the products of its free trade partners when it buys supplies in certain circumstances (for example.
B the contract is above the TAA application threshold). Some contract agents outsourced the destination of the country of origin to CBP, forcing contractors to incur additional costs to obtain CBP decisions to strengthen compliance with the TAA. The Acetris decision gives the government some welcome guidance on the meaning of the terms “manufacturing” and “substantial transformation” used in the Buy American Act and TAA FAR clauses. There is a surprising lack of court and gao decisions that struggle with these concepts. In particular, the Acetris Federal Circuit found that the purchase entity was “responsible for determining whether a proposed product is qualified as a finished product manufactured in the United States,” not CBP. But not all countries have a free trade agreement with the United States, including, most importantly, countries like China and India. Therefore, if a business supplier offers the U.S. government a commodity manufactured in India, for example, that property would not be in compliance with the TAA and the contractor would not be able to supply it to public procurement. Before considering this case, it is important to address some key definitions of the Buy American Act and the Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (“TAA”). Under the Far buy American Act for deliveries (FAR 52.225-1), a contractor is required to provide only “domestic finished products” unless he has identified foreign end products in his Buy American Certificate accompanying his offer or proposal.
A “national final product” is defined as an item manufactured in the United States, in which the cost of its components, extracts, manufactured or manufactured in the United States, exceeds 50% of the cost of all its components. However, if the final product is a commercial item (“COTS”), it is not subject to component testing. This means that the only requirement for COTS items is that they be manufactured in the United States.