Trade Agreements Act Far 52.225 5

Written by

Before we get into the case, a bit of back­ground on the Trade Agree­ments Act (TAA). In gen­eral, where the TAA applies to a U.S. gov­ern­ment con­tract, the con­tractor may supply a product from another country if that country has a free trade agree­ment with the United States. In other words, the US admin­is­tra­tion is not going to dis­crim­i­nate against the prod­ucts of its free trade part­ners when it buys sup­plies in cer­tain cir­cum­stances (e.g. B the con­tract is above the threshold for appli­ca­tion of the TAA). Of course, Acetris‘ journey does not have to be over. The legal battle with ente­cavir, pre­vi­ously ongoing, could be revived, which could strengthen dif­ferent pro­vi­sions on the coun­tries of origin of this drug in the world of gov­ern­ment treaties and the inter­na­tional trade world. The gov­ern­ment could peti­tion the Supreme Court for a cer­tifi­cate. In the mean­time, public con­trac­tors should con­tinue to follow our rea­son­able guide­lines when cir­cum­venting national pref­er­ences: before you dive into this case, it is impor­tant to deal with some impor­tant def­i­n­i­tions of the Buy Amer­ican Act and the Trade Agree­ments Act of 1979 (TAA). Under the “Buy Amer­ican Act FAR” clause for deliv­eries (FAR 52.225–1), a con­tractor is required to supply only “domestic fin­ished goods” unless it has indi­cated for­eign fin­ished goods in its Buy Amer­ican Cer­tifi­cate, which is attached to its offer or pro­posal. A “final domestic product” is defined as an item man­u­fac­tured in the United States, whose cost of com­po­nents extracted, 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 regard­less of the source of the com­po­nents in the United States. FAR 52.225–5 lists all “des­ig­nated coun­tries” for the pur­poses of the TAA. Coun­tries include those that have signed the WTO GPA, have con­cluded a free trade agree­ment with the United States, or have been iden­ti­fied as “least devel­oped country” or “Caribbean Basin country”. When it comes to an acqui­si­tion from the Min­istry of Defense, the list of des­ig­nated coun­tries is even longer, as it also con­tains those iden­ti­fied as “qual­i­fied coun­tries.” As a gen­eral rule, the TAA there­fore applies in three cir­cum­stances: (1) The acqui­si­tion is esti­mated to be more than $182,000 for goods/​services or more than $7,008,000 for con­struc­tion; 2. the pur­chases are prod­ucts or building mate­rials listed in the rel­e­vant trade agree­ment; and (3) none of the other excep­tions in trade agree­ments apply (e.g. B pro­cure­ment is reserved for small enter­prises or is car­ried out as a single source of supply). The BAA and TAA apply to gov­ern­ment con­tracts, sub­con­tracts, or orders through spe­cific pro­vi­sions of the Fed­eral Acqui­si­tion Reg­u­la­tion (FAR). These FAR rules are 52.225–1, Buy American-​​Supplies, 52.225–11, Buy American-​​Construction Mate­rials, 52.225–5, Trade Agree­ments, or 52.225–11-Buy Amer­ican Con­struc­tion Mate­rials under Trade Agree­ments. Since the wrong pro­vi­sion or con­flicting pro­vi­sions are often con­tained in the main con­tracts and sub­con­tracts of the State, it is unfor­tu­nately up to you to deter­mine which appli­ca­tions are applic­able and how to comply with them. The gov­ern­ment appealed the COFC‘s deci­sion to the Fed­eral Cir­cuit, which con­firmed it. The Fed­eral Cir­cuit found that the VA relied on CBP‘s deci­sion to make a mis­take, but that it needed to align its own finding of the country of origin of the product with the taa requirements. .

. .

Comments are closed.