Tag Archives: Berry Amendment

Section 809 Panel Recommends Changes to Domestic Purchase Preferences

Posted on by

The Section 809 panel is the Congressionally-mandated group that has made a number of far-reaching recommendations to change current programs that affect DOD acquisitions.

Another one of their ideas is to eliminate certain domestic purchasing preferences by having Congress create exceptions for DOD purchases and create a public interest exception for the Berry Amendment. The panel’s concern is that the purchasing restrictions can result in higher prices, reduced volume, or delivery delays.

Continue reading →

Handling a Protest with Kid Gloves: GAO Questions Army’s Domestic Leather Requirement

Posted on by

In these cold winter months, gloves with touchscreen capabilities are all but essential. Recently, the Army sought to procure touchscreen-compatible combat gloves, but required that all goatskin leather used for the gloves be “100% Domestic” in accordance with the Berry Amendment.

In Mechanix Wear, Inc., B-416704 (Nov. 19, 2018), however, GAO sustained a protest against this requirement because the item being procured was subject to a Berry Amendment exception. 

Continue reading →

SmallGovCon Week In Review: June 6-10, 2016

Posted on by

While we patiently await the Supreme Court’s pending decision in Kingdowmware Technologies, Inc. v. United States, there is still plenty happening in the world of government contracting.

This week’s edition of SmallGovCon Week In Review is packed with important news and commentary, including stories on the Army looking to end its ‘use it or lose it’ budgeting, the continued push for category management, a sneaker company looking to nix an exemption in the Berry Amendment, allegations of SDVOSB fraud, and much more.

Continue reading →

GAO Protester: Gloves Are Not “Clothing”

Posted on by

File this one in the “A for effort” category.  In a GAO bid protest, a contractor recently complained that it was unfairly excluded from a competition because the gloves sought by the agency were not “clothing” covered by a domestic preference law.  Not surprisingly, the GAO’s response was, “nice try.”

Continue reading →