Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Industry and Security Textile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments – Preliminary, 2017 BIS/OTE Textile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments U.S. Department of Commerce Bureau of Industry and Security Office of Technology Evaluation U.S. Textile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessment Preliminary Results 2017 JAPBI DLA Troop Support Conference November 15, 2017 Cherry Hill, NJ Stamen Borisson Trade and Industry Analyst Elizabeth Oakes Trade and Industry Analyst 1
62
Embed
U.S. Textile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessment ...
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Industry and SecurityTextile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments – Preliminary, 2017
BIS/OTE Textile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments
U.S. Department of Commerce Bureau of Industry and SecurityOffice of Technology Evaluation
U.S. Textile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessment
Preliminary Results
2017 JAPBI DLA Troop Support ConferenceNovember 15, 2017Cherry Hill, NJ
Stamen BorissonTrade and Industry Analyst
Elizabeth OakesTrade and Industry Analyst
1
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Industry and SecurityTextile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments – Preliminary, 2017
BIS/OTE Textile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments 2
• Office of Technology Evaluation (OTE)
Mission: OTE is the focal point within BIS for assessing the capabilities of the U.S. industrial base to support the national defense and the effectiveness of export controls.
• Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS)
Mission: Advance U.S. national security, foreign policy, and economic objectives by ensuring an effective export control and treaty compliance system and promoting continued U.S. strategic technology leadership.
Develops export control policies Issues export licenses Prosecutes violators to heighten national security Develops and implements programs that ensure a technologically
superior defense industrial base
Who We Are:
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Industry and SecurityTextile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments – Preliminary, 2017
BIS/OTE Textile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments 3
OTE Industry Surveys & Assessments Background:
• Under Section 705 of the Defense Production Act of 1950 and Executive Order 13603, ability to survey and assess:Economic health and competitivenessDefense capabilities and readiness
• Data is exempt from Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Requests.
• Enable industry and government agencies to:
Share data and collaborate in order to ensure a healthy and competitive industrial baseMonitor trends, benchmark industry performance, and raise awareness of
diminishing manufacturing and technological capabilities
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Industry and SecurityTextile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments – Preliminary, 2017
BIS/OTE Textile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments 4
U.S. Textile, Apparel and Footwear Industry AssessmentsBackground
• At the request of the U.S. Congress, BIS/OTE is updating a 2003 assessment of the U.S. Textile, Apparel and Footwear Industry. The updated assessment will focus on the health, competitiveness, and contribution of the industry to the U.S. economy. Other topics to be reviewed include:
Identify dependencies on foreign sources for critical materials
Evaluate potential threats to security due to foreign sourcing and dependency
Locate points of weakness within the domestic supply chain
Measure the industry’s capacity to increase production in a national emergency
Examine Berry Amendment and other Buy-American provisions
Explore concerns and issues faced by domestic producers
• Project divided into two parts:
Footwear – survey deployed in November 2016
Textiles and Apparel – survey deployed in February 2017
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Industry and SecurityTextile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments– Preliminary, 2017
BIS/OTE Textile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments
Methodology – Textiles and Apparel• Scope of survey and assessment was limited to U.S. manufacturers of textiles, textile
products, and apparel, as defined and classified by the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS). • Excluded from the scope of the survey were organizations such as distributors/importers,
service providers, suppliers, designers, etc.• BIS decided to provide exemption from the survey requirement, if requested, for
organizations with less than 10 employees.• The primary product line reported (some respondents reported more than one capability)
was used to categorize the respondent into the following:
Textile Product Mills• Carpet and Rug• Curtain and Linen• Textile Bag and Canvas• Rope, Cordage, Twine, Tire
Cord, or Tire Fabric• Other Textile Products
Apparel Manufacturers
• Hosiery and Socks• Other Apparel Knitting• Cut and Sew Apparel Contractor• Men's and Boys' Cut and Sew
Apparel• Women's and Girls' Cut and
Sew Apparel• Other Cut and Sew Apparel• Apparel Accessories and Other
Apparel
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Industry and SecurityTextile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments– Preliminary, 2017
BIS/OTE Textile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments
• Organization size was established based on sales from products manufactured in the U.S.• Small: Under $10M in annual sales• Medium: $10M-$50M in annual sales• Large: Over $50M in annual sales
• U.S. Government suppliers and U.S. Berry Amendment manufacturers were categorized based on survey responses.
• Today’s presentation’s data set consists of completed survey responses from 499 organizations; the final assessment data set will include additional organizations.
6
Methodology - Textiles and Apparel (continued)
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Industry and SecurityTextile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments– Preliminary, 2017
BIS/OTE Textile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments
Methodology - Footwear• Scope of survey and assessment was limited to U.S. manufacturers of footwear, as
defined and classified by the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS). • Excluded from the scope of the survey were organizations such as distributors/importers,
service providers, suppliers, designers, etc.• BIS decided to provide exemption from the survey requirement, if requested, for
organizations with less than 10 employees.
• Organization size was established based on sales from products manufactured in the U.S.• Small: Under $10M in annual sales• Medium: $10M-$50M in annual sales• Large: Over $50M in annual sales
• U.S. Government suppliers and U.S. Berry Amendment manufacturers were categorized based on survey responses.
• Assessment data set consists of completed survey responses from 44 organizations.
7
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Industry and SecurityTextile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments– Preliminary, 2017
BIS/OTE Textile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments
Respondent Profile – U.S. Textile and Apparel
• 499 companies operating 764 Textile and/or Apparel manufacturing facilities in the U.S.
• Total 2016 Sales of $39 Billion• 2016 Sales of $19 Billion from products manufactured in the U.S.
8
RP/1b/7 499 respondents
Small: Under $10M in annual sales Medium: $10M-$50M in annual sales Large: Over $50M in annual sales
198
107
194
020406080
100120140160180200
Textile Mill TextileProducts
ApparelManufacturer
# of
Com
pani
es
Number of Companies Segmented by Type
288
144
67
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
Small Medium Large
# of
Com
pani
es
Number of Companies Segmented by U.S.-made Textile and Apparel Sales
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Industry and SecurityTextile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments – Preliminary, 2017
BIS/OTE Textile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments 9
499 respondents
U.S. Textile and Apparel Manufacturing Organizations - Location
64
6
6
7
8
14
18
20
55
Others
New Jersey
Tennessee
Rhode Island
California
Georgia
Pennsylvania
South Carolina
North Carolina
# of Responses
Textile Mills
Q1a, A
93
7
7
7
8
8
9
12
41
Others
Georgia
Ohio
Tennessee
Alabama
California
Texas
New York
North Carolina
# of Responses
Apparel Manufacturers
54
5
5
6
6
6
6
7
12
Others
Pennsylvania
South Carolina
California
Georgia
New York
Ohio
Minnesota
North Carolina
# of Responses
Textile Product Mills
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Industry and SecurityTextile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments – Preliminary, 2017
BIS/OTE Textile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments 10
499 respondents
U.S. Textile and Apparel Manufacturing Facilities
764
167
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
U.S. Non-U.S
How many total textile and/or apparel manufacturing
facilities does your organization currently
operate?
Q1b, A
31
54
4
38
90
41
88
5
33
6
32
16
63
43
30
28
54
108
Apparel Accessories and Other Apparel
Other Cut and Sew Apparel
Women's and Girls' Cut and Sew Apparel
Men's and Boys' Cut and Sew Apparel
Cut and Sew apparel Contractor
Hosiery and Socks
Other Textile Products
Rope, Cordage, Twine, Tire Cord, or Tire Fabric
Textile Bag and Canvas
Curtain and Linen
Carpet and Rug
Fabric Coating
Textile and Fabric Finishing
Knit Fabric Mill
Non-Woven Fabric
Narrow Fabric / Schiffli Machine Embroidery
Broadwoven Fabric
Fiber, Yarn, Thread
U.S. Facilities by Primary Product Line
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Industry and SecurityTextile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments – Preliminary, 2017
BIS/OTE Textile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments 11
499 respondents
U.S. Textile and Apparel Manufacturing Facilities –Location
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Industry and SecurityTextile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments– Preliminary, 2017
BIS/OTE Textile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments
Respondent Profile – U.S. Footwear
• 44 companies operating 65 Footwear manufacturing facilities in the U.S.
• Total 2016 Footwear Sales of $8.5 Billion
12
RP/1b/7 44 respondents
Small: Under $10M in annual sales Medium: $10M-$50M in annual sales Large: Over $50M in annual sales
24
128
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Small Medium Large
# of
Org
aniz
atio
ns
Number of Organizations Segmented by Sales of U.S.-manufactured Footwear
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Industry and SecurityTextile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments– Preliminary, 2017
BIS/OTE Textile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments
Footwear Manufacturing Facilities - Location
13
13
65
0 50 100
Non-U.S*
U.S.
Total Footwear Manufacturing Facilities
* Includes China, Dominican Republic, etc.
113333
444
56
910
0 5 10 15
OthersMissouriOregon
WashingtonNew YorkCalifornia
PennsylvaniaWisconsin
MassachusettsArkansas
TexasMaine
# of Facilities
Top 10 U.S.-based Footwear Manufacturing Facilities by State
Q1b, A 44 respondents
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Industry and SecurityTextile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments – Preliminary, 2017
BIS/OTE Textile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments 14
44 respondents
U.S. Footwear –Top 10 U.S. States- Full Time Equivalent (FTE) Employees
Q1b, B
413
516
767
887
896
995
1,064
1,188
1,320
2,234
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
North Carolina
Oregon
Massachusetts
Wisconsin
Arkansas
Puerto Rico
Missouri
Minnesota
Maine
Texas
# of Employees
12,142 Total U.S.
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Industry and SecurityTextile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments– Preliminary, 2017
BIS/OTE Textile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments
U.S. Textile and Apparel Sales (2012-2016)
$36,550 $37,387 $40,523 $40,542 $39,453
$19,348 $19,146 $20,704 $20,038 $18,716
$-
$5,000
$10,000
$15,000
$20,000
$25,000
$30,000
$35,000
$40,000
$45,000
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
$ M
illio
ns
U.S. Textile and Apparel ManufacturersTotal Textile and Apparel-Related SalesTotal Sales from Products Manufactured in the U.S.
15
Q7 499 respondents
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Industry and SecurityTextile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments– Preliminary, 2017
BIS/OTE Textile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments
U.S. Textile and Apparel Sales (2012-2016)
$13.4 $13.0 $13.5 $13.5$12.6
$10.9 $10.5 $11.0 $11.1$10.2
$-
$5
$10
$15
$20
$25
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Bill
ions
U.S. Textile MillsTotal Textile and Apparel-Related Sales
Total Sales from Products Manufactured inthe U.S. (81% five-year average)
16
Q7 499 respondents
$5.5 $5.8 $5.6 $6.0 $5.6
$5.0 $5.4 $5.2 $5.5 $5.1
$-
$5
$10
$15
$20
$25
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Bill
ions
U.S. Textile ProductsTotal Textile and Apparel-Related Sales
Total Sales from Products Manufactured inthe U.S. (92% five-year average)
$17.6$18.5
$21.4 $21.0 $21.2
$3.4 $3.2$4.5
$3.4 $3.3
$-
$5
$10
$15
$20
$25
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016B
illio
ns
U.S. Apparel ManufacturersTotal Textile and Apparel-Related Sales
Total Sales from Products Manufactured inthe U.S. (18% five-year average)
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Industry and SecurityTextile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments– Preliminary, 2017
BIS/OTE Textile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments
$19,348 $19,146 $20,704 $20,038
$18,716
$2,473 $1,994 $2,002 $2,251 $2,131 $-
$5,000
$10,000
$15,000
$20,000
$25,000
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
$ M
illio
ns
U.S. Textile and Apparel ManufacturersTotal Sales From Products Manufactured in the U.S.Total Berry Amendment-Related Sales to DoD and Armed Services
17
Q7 499 respondents
U.S. Textile and Apparel Sales (2012-2016)
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Industry and SecurityTextile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments – Preliminary, 2017
BIS/OTE Textile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments 18
U.S. Footwear Sales (2012-2016)
Q7 42 respondents
$7,216
$8,355 $8,664 $8,701 $8,523
$1,361 $1,396 $1,358 $1,443 $1,511
$168 $198 $164 $215 $292 $-
$1,000
$2,000
$3,000
$4,000
$5,000
$6,000
$7,000
$8,000
$9,000
$10,000
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
$ M
illio
ns
Total Footwear-Related Sales Total Sales from Footwear Manufactured in the U.S. Footwear-Related Government Sales
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Industry and SecurityTextile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments – Preliminary, 2017
BIS/OTE Textile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments 19
499 respondents
U.S. Textile and Apparel - Manufacturing Utilization Rate
Q6, B
48% 48% 48% 49% 49%
58% 58% 59% 59% 59%
41% 40% 39% 39% 39%43% 43% 43% 44% 44%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
55%
60%
65%
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Util
izat
ion
Rat
e %
Estimate your organization's average annual manufacturing utilization rate for 2012-2016, as a percentage of maximum production possible
under a 7-day-a-week, 24-hour-per-day operationOverall Textile Mill Textile Products Apparel Manufacturer
Average manufacturing utilization rate for each of the years 2012-2015, as a percentage of production possible under a 7 day-per-week, 24-hour-per-day operation.
• Note: a 100% utilization rate equals full operation with no downtime beyond that necessary for maintenance. Assuming little maintenance downtime, one 8-hour shift, 5 days per week is approximately 25% capacity utilization; two 8-hour shifts, 7 days per week is approximately 65% capacity utilization.
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Industry and SecurityTextile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments – Preliminary, 2017
BIS/OTE Textile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments 20
499 respondents
Limiting Factors to Ramping Production to Maximum Manufacturing Capacity:Availability of Workforce
Q6, D
61%
22%
7%
10%
Textile MillsYes No Not Sure N/A
68%
10%8%
14%
Textile ProductsYes No Not Sure N/A
72%13%
9%
6%
Apparel ManufacturersYes No Not Sure N/A
U.S. Textile and Apparel – Manufacturing Utilization Rate
1966
97118120
172200
331
OtherQuality control
Manufacturing spaceEquipment capacity
Availability of additional equipmentCost of workforce
Availability of input materialsAvailability of workforce
# of Responses
Identify which of the factors below would limit your organization's ability to raise its manufacturing utilization rate to 100% (maximum current capacity) to meet a surge in demand.
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Industry and SecurityTextile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments – Preliminary, 2017
BIS/OTE Textile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments 21
462 respondents
U.S. Textile and Apparel – Surge Production Capabilities
Q6, C.2
126
200
7957
0
50
100
150
200
250
Very Confident Somewhat Confident Not Confident Unsure
# of
Res
pond
ents
How confident are you that your organization could obtain the material necessary to rapidly ramp up production in the event
of a national emergency?
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Industry and SecurityTextile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments – Preliminary, 2017
BIS/OTE Textile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments 22
462 respondents
U.S. Textile and Apparel – Surge Production Capabilities
Q6, C.2
20
25
81
56
Unsure
Not Confident
Somewhat Confident
Very Confident
Textile Mills
How confident are you that your organization could obtain the material necessary to rapidly ramp up production in the event of a national emergency?
16
16
48
20
Unsure
Not Confident
Somewhat Confident
Very Confident
Textile Products
21
38
70
50
Unsure
Not Confident
Somewhat Confident
Very Confident
Apparel Manufacturers
23
37
126
77
Unsure
Not Confident
Somewhat Confident
Very Confident
USG Suppliers
34
42
74
49
Unsure
Not Confident
Somewhat Confident
Very Confident
Others
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Industry and SecurityTextile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments – Preliminary, 2017
BIS/OTE Textile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments 23
Average Annual U.S. Footwear Capacity Utilization Rate (2012-2016)
Q6,B 44 respondents
33% 32% 33% 34% 34%
40%
36%
39% 38%
44%
31% 30%
28%29% 28%
31% 32%
34% 34%
33%
25%
27%
29%
31%
33%
35%
37%
39%
41%
43%
45%
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Uti
lizat
ion
Rate
%
Average Utilization Rate Large >$50M Medium $10M-$50M Small <$10M
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Industry and SecurityTextile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments – Preliminary, 2017
BIS/OTE Textile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments 24
U.S. Footwear - Manufacturing Utilization Rate
Q6,D 44 respondents
0
1
1
3
3
5
3
11
2
9
9
9
14
13
16
24
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Other
Manufacturing space
Quality control
Equipment capacity
Availability of additional equipment
Availability of input materials
Cost of workforce
Availability of workforce
# of Responses
Identify which of the factors below would limit your organization's ability to raise its manufacturing utilization rate to 100% (maximum current
capacity) to meet a surge in demand.
Berry Amendment Manufacturers Other Manufacturers
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Industry and SecurityTextile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments – Preliminary, 2017
BIS/OTE Textile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments 25
U.S. Footwear – Surge Production Capabilities
Q6,D 44 respondents
4
7
10
5
11
9
7
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
Very Confident Somewhat Confident Not Confident Unsure
# of
Res
pond
ents
How confident are you that your organization could obtain the material necessary to rapidly ramp up production in the event of
a national emergency?
Berry Amendment Manufacturers Other Manufactuers
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Industry and SecurityTextile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments – Preliminary, 2017
BIS/OTE Textile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments 26
499 respondents
U.S. Textiles and Apparel - Workforce
Q11a, A
0
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
140,000
160,000
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
# of
Em
ploy
ees
Total number of full-time equivalent (FTE) textile and/or apparel-related employees for all your U.S.-based operations (2012-2016)
Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA)• LPTA- open bidding response to DLA
Other• Mandatory source from prime• Source America set aside• Sub Contract• We don't have contracts with the U.S.
Government, we are subcontracted.
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Industry and SecurityTextile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments – Preliminary, 2017
BIS/OTE Textile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments 50
241 respondentsQ3b, A.4
32
47
1119
26
5
37
59
5
Yes No Not Applicable0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Does your organization have any recommendations to improve the overall U.S. Government acquisition process for
textiles and apparel?
Textiles
Textile Products
Apparel
U.S. Textiles and Apparel - USG Contracting
RECOMMENDATIONS (sample):• Contracting officers need to have a working knowledge and understanding of the industry they are soliciting in before soliciting.
Fixed pricing for multiple years does not work in the uniform industry. Due to volatility of raw materials and of governmentpurchasing, a guess is all that a contractor can do. This results in higher prices to the government and volatile profitability to the contractor, so that neither party truly receives the best value.
• Cost adjustments for raw materials during contract, like the apparels have• Delivery orders in 3 month increments do not give agencies volume buying power thereby increasing costs to the government.
Nor do the short term orders allow for long term business planning/staffing/equipment for the agency.• Deviations for product improvements should be allowed; obsolete specifications need to be updated.
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Industry and SecurityTextile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments – Preliminary, 2017
BIS/OTE Textile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments 51
276 respondentsQ3b, B.4
8
48
17
28
9
22
8
16
31
57
21
11
Yes No Not Sure Not Applicable0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Would your organization suggest any changes in the mandatory source regulations or contracting practices?
Textiles
Textile Products
Apparel
U.S. Textiles and Apparel - USG Mandatory Sourcing
Comments:• Change the ranking of priorities. Source America, then NIB, and then FPI.• Do not allow FPI/UNICOR to bid on small business set asides.• Eliminate FPI from offering on any type of Small Business Set-Aside• Eliminate Mandatory Sourcing. In many cases suppliers are no longer in business.• Federal Prison Industries has to go. Federal gov't is subsidizing the cost of sewn products by using prison labor. Why are we training
prisoners for the very few sewing jobs that are still around?
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Industry and SecurityTextile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments – Preliminary, 2017
BIS/OTE Textile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments 52
14 respondents
1
1
1
2
2
7
0 2 4 6 8
Lowest Price TechnicallyAcceptable (LPTA)
Other (specify below)
Time and Materials
Fixed Price
Not Applicable
Best Value
# of Responses
Select the contract type your organization most frequently uses to do
business with the U.S. Government.
Q3a, E.2
U.S. Footwear – USG Contracting
COMMENTS:
Best Value• Best value in military boots defaults
primarily to cost. Most contractors are deemed equivalent so best value tradeoffs default to cost. Small Businesses are poorly represented in solicitations.
• Best Value via TLS• We prefer best value procurements as it
includes past performance (i.e. delivery and quality record) as an evaluation factor. The majority of our contracts are firm-fixed price.
Fixed Price• IDIQ has also been a factor in all previous
contracts.
Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA)• Always been this way
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Industry and SecurityTextile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments – Preliminary, 2017
BIS/OTE Textile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments 53
12 respondentsQ3a, E.4
7
5
Yes No0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
# of
Res
pond
ents
Does your organization have any recommendations to improve the
overall U.S. Government acquisition process for footwear?
U.S. Footwear – USG Contracting
RECOMMENDATIONS:
• Expand Small Business utilization in solicitations and stop removing Small Business Lots during negotiations for price. This defeats the purpose of protecting Small Businesses.
• Quicker turn-around times from market survey to pre-solicitation to solicitation to contract award. Longer lead times are needed from award to the initial delivery of product. Need government to rely in a more faithful manner on expert footwear manufacturers as it relates to product specifications and the amount of time needed to manufacture product with the highest possible quality. We would recommend the elimination of small business set-asides and HUB Zone pricing advantages.
• Shorten the time from solicitation to award• Shorting the amount of time from bid closings
to award
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Industry and SecurityTextile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments – Preliminary, 2017
BIS/OTE Textile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments 54
280 respondentsQ3b, C1
26
169
85
Not Applicable
No
Yes
0 50 100 150 200
# of Respondents
Has your organization experienced difficulties working with textile and apparel-related
military specifications (MILSPECs)? • Fabric manufacturers have a difficult
time meeting the shade and physical spec on some product lines.
• Inconsistencies and errors noted in Purchase Description (PD's)
• It is sometimes difficult to obtain MILSPEC documents
• It is sometimes difficult to source materials, costs are high due to military procurement of textiles we need for other applications.
• Maintaining Berry compliance in relation to raw materials
• Majority of these specs are out of date!• Many specifications are extremely
outdated and non-applicable to current products
U.S. Textiles and Apparel – Military Specifications (MILSPECs)
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Industry and SecurityTextile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments – Preliminary, 2017
BIS/OTE Textile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments 55
14 respondentsQ3a, F1
3
8
3
Not Applicable
No
Yes
0 2 4 6 8 10
# of Respondents
Has your organization experienced difficulties working with footwear-related military
specifications (MILSPECs)? • Military specifications are very outdated and need to be updated to include any amendments/modifications the DoD has made prior to procurement issuance. A single, updated and finalized document needs to be issued to industry prior to the procurement to allow adequate time for response at time of procurement release. We would recommend the USG provide finalized specifications to be utilized in upcoming procurements at a minimum of 30 days in advance of the procurement.
• Only as it related to construction method. No other issues have been noticed.
U.S. Footwear – Military Specifications (MILSPECs)
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Industry and SecurityTextile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments – Preliminary, 2017
BIS/OTE Textile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments 56
295 respondents
Yes, 202, 68%
No, 37, 13%
Not Sure, 40, 14%
Not Applicable,
16, 5%
Does the Berry Amendment have a positive impact on your organization's business?
Q3c, A.2
U.S. Textile and Apparel - Berry Amendment Impact
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Industry and SecurityTextile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments – Preliminary, 2017
BIS/OTE Textile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments 57
289 respondentsQ3d, A
69
24
8
35
26
11
115
145
127
30
16
11
40
32
14
38
42
26
80
84
33
36
43
51
91
55
96
16
19
14
34
34
45
3
7
13
25
82
187
117
116
139
7
9
7
64
61
34
25
35
26
31
28
20
Decreasing the acquisition threshold (currently $150,000)
Increasing the acquisition threshold (currently $150,000)
Repealing the Berry Amendment in its entirety
Reducing the percentage of the 100% U.S.-originrequirement
Allowing for more Berry Amendment exemptions
Reducing the number of product groups subject to theBerry Amendment
Expanding the number of product groups subject to theBerry Amendment (e.g., Athletic Shoes)
Expanding the number of USG agencies subject to theBerry Amendment
Leaving the provisions of the Berry Amendment unchanged
# of Responses
For the following actions, indicate the impacts on your organization as they relate to the Berry Amendment
Positive Somewhat Positive No Impact Somewhat Negative Negative Too Difficult to Determine
U.S. Textile and Apparel - Berry Amendment
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Industry and SecurityTextile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments – Preliminary, 2017
BIS/OTE Textile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments 58
U.S. Footwear - Berry Amendment Impact
13 respondentsQ3b,A.2
Yes, 11, 85%
No, 2, 15%
Does the Berry Amendment have a positive impact on your organization's business?
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Industry and SecurityTextile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments – Preliminary, 2017
BIS/OTE Textile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments 59
U.S. Footwear - Berry Amendment
13 respondentsQ3c,A
7
9
6
2
2
4
1
1
2
1
2
2
3
1
2
3
1
1
2
2
3
2
1
1
7
1
1
8
9
8
11
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Leaving the provisions of the Berry Amendment unchanged
Expanding the number of USG agencies subject to the BerryAmendment
Expanding the number of product groups subject to the BerryAmendment (e.g., Athletic Shoes)
Reducing the number of product groups subject to the BerryAmendment
Allowing for more Berry Amendment exemptions
Reducing the percentage of the 100% U.S.-origin requirement
Repealing the Berry Amendment in its entirety
Increasing the acquisition threshold (currently $150,000)
Decreasing the acquisition threshold (currently $150,000)
# of Responses
Positive Somewhat Positive No Impact Somewhat Negative Negative Too Difficult to Determine
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Industry and SecurityTextile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments – Preliminary, 2017
BIS/OTE Textile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments 60
289 respondentsQ3d, B2
Yes, 74, 26%
No, 49, 17%Not Sure, 94,
32%
N/A, 72, 25%
Does the Kissell Amendment have a positive impact on your organization's business?
U.S. Textile and Apparel - Kissell Amendment Impact
• 44 respondents reported having used or worked under the provisions of the Kissell Amendment
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Industry and SecurityTextile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments – Preliminary, 2017
BIS/OTE Textile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments 61
U.S. Footwear - Kissell Amendment Impact
13 respondentsQ3c,B.2
Yes, 5, 39%
No, 1, 8%
Not Sure, 5, 38%
N/A, 2, 15%
Does the Kissell Amendment have a positive impact on your organization's business?
• 6 respondents reported having used or worked under the provisions of the Kissell Amendment
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Industry and SecurityTextile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments – Preliminary, 2017
BIS/OTE Textile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments
U.S. Department of CommerceBureau of Industry and Security1401 Constitution Avenue, NW