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. .