There was an article in the Tribune this morning about the Buy American Act and is it helpful or hurtful to our economy. The article focused on consumer products, but this really doesn’t show the stupidity of the current act.

Often when the US Government makes a purchase they require that the products conform to the Buy American Act. There are several different versions used (depending on the agency, job, etc). In general they all look and sound the same.

Basically these documents require the purchasing authority to buy American products unless the cost to do so would be detrimental to the project. I think we can all agree that the above line is fair. Then you get to the exceptions. This is place I find comical… Basically if we have a free trade act with someone then the Buy American Act does not apply. Here are a few of the countries that are excluded:

A World Trade Organization Government Procurement Agreement country (Aruba, Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hong Kong, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Korea (Republic of), Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Singapore, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, or United Kingdom);

A Free Trade Agreement country (Australia, Bahrain, Canada, Chile, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, Morocco, Nicaragua, or Singapore);

A least developed country (Afghanistan, Angola, Bangladesh, Benin, Bhutan, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Central African Republic, Chad, Comoros, Democratic Republic of Congo, Djibouti, East Timor, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gambia, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Haiti, Kiribati, Laos, Lesotho, Liberia, Madagascar, Malawi, Maldives, Mali, Mauritania, Mozambique, Nepal, Niger, Rwanda, Samoa, Sao Tome and Principe, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Tanzania, Togo, Tuvalu, Uganda, Vanuatu, Yemen, or Zambia); or

A Caribbean Basin country (Antigua and Barbuda, Aruba, Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, British Virgin Islands, Costa Rica, Dominica, Grenada, Guyana, Haiti, Jamaica, Montserrat, Netherlands Antilles, St. Kitts and Nevis, St. Lucia, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, or Trinidad and Tobago).

As you can see the Buy American Act is really helpful for those of us that still make our products in the US. We lost a big “Buy American Act” project last year to an inferior product from a country listed above. The US Governments argument was they qualify per the act and their testing shows that the product meets our requirements. So for a classified DOE project they bought from a foreign company and trusted THEIR testing (ours is done by a highly respected university)… The procurement officer apologized but his hands were tied.

This is the Catch-22 that businessess sometimes find themselves in when dealing with any government purchasing agent.

I wrote and sell a 100% unique [read as: no competition, nothing even close] piece of software. Illinois was interested in purchasing my software but because their purchasing requirments include "competitive analysis" of at least TWO other similar products, it took me over a YEAR to actually sell them the software.

When you stand alone, it is tough to find "competing products"!

This was many years ago and I have since sold my intellectual property rights in the software for a royalty stream.

Japan is on the list

In a similar vein, I once read about a middle class American family that tried to Buy American 100% of the time. They ran into the exact same quagmire that was discussed in today's Tribune article.

If a product is made up of parts that come from all over the world [as much as 90% of the parts are NOT American] but the product is assembled in America, does this make it an American product?

The reverse also applies - 90% American parts but assembled in a foreign country.

American? Or not?

Eventually, the family gave up their quest out of frustration.

When did this "single source" procurement come into existence? The problems I had were back around 1994-95 and much of the delay seemed more to do with the state agency [IDOC] than anything else.

I do recall them getting me involved in finding competing products.

It would probably be simpler if they just came out with a list of countries that aren't on the list.

So, not being a lawyer, it looks like this took effect in 1998? Maybe my case was a part of getting this changed?

I know it's an exciting day here at the GEBB, but I can't believe more people don’t think this is outrageous. That’s what I get for doing a serious post.