FirstSpear TV

What’s Congress Doing To Help The Industry?

Lets face it, the tactical bubble has burst. As the war winds down, things have slowed up quite a bit, but sequestration has put an end to not only training but the purchase of commercial soldier systems commodities.

20130308-082850.jpg

Tactical Tailor’s Casey Ingels is in Washington this week to meet with members of Congress. One remedy that has been mentioned is to introduce legislation that would require the Department of Homeland Security to fall under the Berry Amendment. Here’s the problem with that approach. It’s been done. In 2009 the Kissel Amendment (Berry Amendment Extension Act) required DHS to adopt Berry Amendment buying policies which require all textile based commodities to be manufactured in the US from US raw goods. Berry dates back to WWII and was intended to protect both the industrial base as well as the military. Unfortunately, the Kissel Amendment turned out to be a failure. In 2009, DHS decided that it didn’t really apply to them becuase of this statement in the law, “applied in a manner consistent with United States obligations under international agreements.” It gave them an out that they needed in order to continue to purchase foreign goods. Can you imagine anything more ridiculous? Border Patrol agents are issued foreign manufactured uniforms. It’s almost insulting.

20130308-083108.jpg

Recently, the federal government agreed on new terms for TSA agents that would raise their annual clothing allowance to over $500. Currently, the contract for these uniforms is with fashion house VF. Agents have an account and order their uniform items online through VF’s website. Unfortunately, those uniforms are no made here in the US.

20130308-083127.jpg

Two immediate things could happen that would breathe some life into the US tactical industry that has made possible the amazing modernization of the US service member’s clothing and individual equipment over the past 10 years.

First, the Army needs to stop messing around and announce their new camouflage pattern. Second, Congress needs enact tough legislation that places not only DHS but the entire federal government under Berry, requiring them to purchase their clothing and individual equipment from US sources. There are enough loopholes that foreign produced specialty items can be procured and if the demand is there, US based manufacturing will be established. Additionally, Congress needs to pressure the Obama administration to issue an executive order requiring DHS to comply with the spirit of the already existing Kissel amendment.

31 Responses to “What’s Congress Doing To Help The Industry?”

  1. JRS says:

    For what’s it’s worth Customs (part of DHS) doesn’t have a current uniform contract – the contract with VF Solutions fell apart last summer.

    VF offered more than just their line of uniforms (Oakley, Safariland and a few others), with very few, if any items being made in the US. Danner (not a VF company) boots were the most notable US made items.

    You’d think an agency charged with protecting American commerce (among other things) would have uniforms made in the US…

  2. JT says:

    The bubble has not burst. Ammo is increasingly getting harder to buy. Why is the Govt buying .22 ammo? They dont train with it, and now its one of the hardest types of ammo to find. Why is the Govt storing all this ammo in North Carolina? Bolt carrier groups for AR’s are drying up. Firearm maunufacturers are making lowers at an increasingly high pace instead of bolt carriers. An ammo manufacturer told this reader why should they sell to LE when they can get twice as much other places. Every LE agency i know is short on ammo. Fed contacts must be honored first and they have increased purchasing, which leaves the consumer short.

    • straps says:

      Companies are making lowers–at the expense of other components–because that’s the part that the guvmint can stop telling folks to make.

      The more serialized and transferred lowers there are when the boom drops (might not be after THIS round of hysteria–but the MSM ain’t going ANYWHERE–they’ll find another incident to latch onto), the more non-regulatable components it will be worth companies’ while to continue to manufacture–for new builds and for replacements.

      .22 ammo is used in a growing number of sub-caliber applications (and will get tougher to source as more and more people by .22 slides and uppers), but it’s PLENTY easy to find compared to .40 S&W or 9 MM Luger, which DHS just did a huge buy of. Even when the market recovers from that, panic buying of pistol ammo will continue–if not motivated by paranoia, then by the predictable overhead associated with an ammo tax or ammo background check.

  3. Tim says:

    So the free market is out the window. Another special interest protectionist move that would cost the taxpayer a ton of money while not really ensuring the troops (DHS in this case) are really any better equipped.

    • Roecar says:

      I disagree, US made gear from reputable US companies is some of the best gear in the world. Aside from that fact, I see this pressure as protecting what little manufacturing jobs we have left.

      • kord says:

        I have seen up close what local a Law Enforcement Officer purchased from a lower priced, overseas manufacture. A carrier cost him 75 bucks (before shipping), after he modified it the carrier lasted not even 6 months (I won’t go into all the issues with the carrier). Now there are a few companies overseas trying to make their gear better but not many. That officer then bought a carrier made locally, and has used it for over a year with no problems, cost 100 dollars.

        • Tim says:

          So the government should force us all to drive american cars, use only weapons designed and produced here? Where does it end? Do we have a free market or not? Being forced to buy American is not a guarantee of quality. There are companies overseas that make good gear and there are companies here that make crap gear. Having a contract that specifies American made in no way means it will be any better quality, just more expensive, it may be better gear or it may not. This is another special interest making a play to cut out the competition so they can make more money. Competition brings quality not protectionism. Pass a law that makes the government buy quality, I have no problem with that.

          • Lawrence says:

            If I’m not mistaken, the Berry Amendment only applies on orders of a value greater than $250,000 – so there is still an “out” for units / departments that want to bypass it…

          • SSD says:

            It doesn’t cover guns, just textiles like the article says. There are other rules for guns.

          • mike says:

            See, this doesn’t make you buy American. It makes gov entities buy American. The idea is if we’re going to be spending huge sums on outfitting our guys we should be spending those tax dollars back at home. You, as an individual, are still free to do as you wish with your dollars.

    • bombkiller007 says:

      Government contracts are not free market. The American citizen can pay for whatever he/she likes. But what the government spends tax dollars on has never been free market. The specs set the standards and the quality can be based into that. Contracts an be set up that do not go to “lowest bidder” and instead focus on the quality and service life.

  4. Mark says:

    American tax dollars should be spent with American owned/operated businesses.

  5. Angry Misha says:

    Really, how much do you think making DHS comply with Berry will help the tactical gear industry? The fact is that tactical gear is akin to a “Buggy Whip” in that cars have reduced the need. So, with a drawdown of conventional OCO deployments, you’re going to see less of a requirement for gear. In addition, individual warfighters will spend less on their own personal kit because “Tacti-cool” won’t be in vogue anymore (I’m actually looking forward to shorter lines to get on base because E1-E3 won’t have combat pay to augment a car purchase). There was a “tactical gear industry” before 9-11 and there will be one after, though their CEOs may not get to drive a Ferrari. So, in short what you’re saying is that industry wants to leverage congress to force the American taxpayer to continue funding levels of procurement so they can continue to enjoy their current incomes? Yeah, that sounds reasonable… not. Now I’m sure someone from industry will come on here and say that they expanded their companies to support the warfighter and are now going to be forced to lay off people. To which I would retort, don’t lie, you expanded win contracts to make money. Wars don’t last forever; you should have had a better business plan. My suggestion would be to chase down SOF just like Eagle, LBT, TAG, Blackhawk and to some measure Tactical Tailor did prior to 9-11. True it’s not as big as the conventional forces, it may keep the lights on when you down size. In regards with the conventional military, most of the gear and uniform designs being procured are, predominantly “Government Owned” you don’t really need a tactical gear company, you need a sew shop and that means “Lowest Price” because it’s a “Build to Spec”. In regards to forcing DHS to procure Barry compliant equipment as a lifesaver for tactical gear companies, who’re they kidding? You know why DHS buys condor gear? Because it’s cheap and is not subjected to the rigors that military users place on their kit so it lasts FOREVER. In conclusion, we KNOW that the DoD won’t keep buying at the conflict levels so you won’t see any relief there, and making DHS comply with Barry will have little or no effect because even ICE’s joke of an “SRT” doesn’t consume kit at an appreciable rate. What’re you gonna do? Tell DHS they need to throw out all their No-Barry stuff and by Barry.. yeah good luck lol. If this measure goes through, tell me how it works out for you lol.

    I’m really sad that the war is coming to a close and we don’t have to pay for industries, Ferraris, houses and toys with our blood anymore

    • Casey says:

      Manufacturing is the cornerstone of a stable economy and our tax dollars are more effectively utilized when they are used to purchase goods made in the USA. When we purchase goods from other countries, that capital does not cycle back in, rather it is retained in the country it is spent in and used to build that particular country’s wealth. This concept is known as capital flight. With China, it is a little worse, as they actually loan the money back to us and we pay interest on it. I don’t drive a Ferrari, I drive an F150 and our company has 2 missions. 1) build the best gear in the world for all of our troops and law enforcement agencies and 2) protect our employees. I’ll take the challenge with any piece of Condor kit against TT any day of the week. Condor is garbage.

      • Angry Misha says:

        I know most gear is substandard to MILSPEC and was shocked to see local DEA guys wearing it. In addition, ALL of the DHS Border Patrol outer carriers and pouch kits are made in China. I am quite aware of the quality of MILSPEC gear. Possibly what I failed to sufficiently convey in digestible format was the fact that in the realm of tactical gear for Law Enforcement is that their overall consumption rate is low based on the frequency and type of use their gear is subjected to. Wherein an item that sees a high frequency of use like an ammo pouch on the military side may expect to remain serviceable for about 2 work ups and deployments. However, that same kit that isn’t MILSPEC issued to LE will last several years. In addition, with conventional guys not deploying as much, you are not going to see a large turnover in gear, uniforms etc. Therefore, whatever pouches and kit DHS has already procured, will be in the system for a long time and any conventional military equipment will also see reduced use ergo: lowered procurement rates from industry. Consider the most rudimentary of sewn items an LEO may require in the realm of “Tactical Gear”: M4 Magazine Pouch, OC Pouch, Handcuff Pouch, Pistol Magazine Pouch, IFAK and Admin Pouch. Well, those items are already fielded by multiple services so that’s where they’ll go. And because they are government designs and really just sewn items, anyone with a singer can usually do it, which means that Tactical companies will be competing with a plethora of companies that manufacture multiple sewn goods. I’m sure this also applies to uniforms. So, while I agree that every federal agency should procure uniforms and equipment manufactured in the US when available, I do not believe that doing so will be the life saver some think it will be for the tactical industry. In the end, what the industry will experience will be some companies either downsizing back to pre-war levels or going away all together. However, just like before the war, companies who are truly innovative and cater to organizations who have budgets to procure that equipment will remain. But even those numbers are relatively small. The end state is that the windfall is over for EVERYONE. Organizations will need to procure items based on cost rather than “wants”. Sure, I may see value in a certain item as it pertains to my mission, but I will need to weigh that value as a “Need to have” or a “Nice to have”. Example; I have an assault pack with shoulder straps but want an assault pack that integrates with my armor. If I have already been conducting operations with this pack can I justify the new pack? Doubtful. I’m not trying to toss the proverbial hand grenade in the room here, its just fact.

    • bombkiller007 says:

      I have to disagree with the comment by Angy M. There are larger issues involved than an owner driving a Ferrari. These industries based in the US provide US jobs. Thats less of your and my tax dollars going to unemployment, less social problems, etc. It maybe a micro vs. macro effect, but it still matters.

      Local companies also work very closely with the end users of their equipment and can develop and implement innovation that saves lives. As an EOD operator and one that trains both US military and police EOD, and foreign military and police EOD as well as other specialized technicians, the ability to have a piece of equipment modded out can and has meant the difference between success and failure, life and death. I have worked with companies overseas for modifications to equipment and quite frankly they are not interested in the quality of the product, only the profit.

      As most of the US companies I interface with have employed veterans at all level from management to worker, I find that they care deeply about how well the product works. And again, that means less of a chance of critical failure when we go downrange.

      I am sure many in DHS will take offense to the perspective that their gear doesn’t have to be made to stringent standards. Its a sad attitude that says their lives are less valuable than those in the military. All who work either as First Responders deserve the same consideration for life safety as we can give them. To do less is quite frankly un-American.

      The above reasons are on personal perspective levels as an end user. In the larger scheme; the money we pay to China comes back to us literally in destabilization across the globe. Its like buying from Germany in the 1930s. China supports Iran, Syria, N Korea, and a host of other groups that are opposed to US interests. Why in the world would we use tax dollars to fund operations that are opposed to our interests? It doesn’t make political sense.

      And finally, from my perspective; Tactical Gear manufacturers and other safety tools are not paid for in blood. They are paid for because I don’t want to spill my blood, or anyone else’s. even those E1s though E3s who bought cars and are making you wait a few moments more to go to work.

  6. Arnold says:

    They could advertise on doomsday preppers. Subsidizing boutique tactical companies is asinine imo. Pass a law requiring all DHS to buy Rogue Gunfighter t-shirts and bracelets.

  7. Bman says:

    Well I am not sure about this really helping the gear industry but I think they should be berry compliant because of their spending power. DHS has not done the best job consolidating agencies and has more work to do. I would like to see them to be forced to do that first.

  8. James Koob says:

    well im not a big fan of this or anything else that makes government buy anything from a particular vendor. Laws like this are why the navy pays $1400 for a 42″ tv when i could buy the same one for 500-600 dollar at best buy, but as the supply PO for my platoon i have to purchase the tv from a vendor that is owned by a women, minority, or someone that hires a larger percentage of disabled workers. The Berry act is also the reason we get issued an inferior and just as costly cold weather system instead of the patagonia system we used to get issued. These laws just waste money that could be spent on education programs, or job related schools.

    • SSD says:

      When Berry was created there was a real concern that at some point, we wouldn’t be able to rely on those foreign countries to supply our troops with clothing due to geopolitical considerations.

      As for each one of your complaints, if I had the facts, I’d probably find that you had it wrong on each one of those.

      • James Koob says:

        well if you have access get on GSA advantage which is where we must make open purchases from for non NSN items and look and see the difference in price between whats on there and what you could order from any other retailer.

        • James Koob says:

          Uncle Sam pays $24 dollars for a 1″ metal disc used to put batteries in our Low MU dive computers. That one inch metal disc is a a quater that comes in every kit. If I’m not wrong that is 96 times the actuall cost of the “tool”.

        • SSD says:

          The are so many vendors on GSA that every price isn’t high and there are numerous other options than GSA.

  9. Jason says:

    In principle I agree that home grown industry be protected from cheap foreign imports.
    The problem is I’m British, and believe it should be applied to the UK procurement of all government purchases. This would have a large impact on US goods being sourced by UK agencies.
    So the principle of buying only nationally sourced goods has an impact on any foreign export markets when these markets implement a similar policy.

  10. stewpidbear says:

    I hate to say it, but look for other markets such as hunting,paintball and Airsoft. Also look at the ludicrous levels of shipping to private individuals and international clients. Customers are where you find them.

  11. Desert dweller says:

    I hope many of these good companies survive, but I believe they need to transition to a broader market. These companies have proven themselves to be innovative and adaptable while producing quality products. There are people willing to pay more for quality kit in many hobbies. Some ideas include women specific gear for sports, hunting gear, scuba kit, hiking, pet industry, hiking, travel luggage ( anyone seen some of the junk being produced lately?), etc.

    Sometimes it’s about shifting your company focus instead of trying to stay in a diminishing industry.

  12. The man says:

    Angry Misha you must be a owner or in manufacturing. Manufacturing is not like owning a bar or restaurant. Manufacturing is based on a need. That’s where the bar or restaurant gets new product from the manufacture. I agree with you. I have had some owners I have worked for in the past tell me direct the ship and then watch the waves. Any company must have a plan B and they should be working on it at least a year in advance. If they don’t it’s like a ship with no rudder. Look at any large company that produced great product like Rotary phones, cars and so on. If they are not ahead of the game the game will be over. It starts from the top. Company owners, sales then works down to production. If sales for example are not leading the company in a profitable direction then new sales people should be put into place. If your sales people for example are saying my hands are tied then you have a big problem because they are not doing their job. If decision makers are not making the correct decisions based on that then the same goes for them. Production should be working on whats new a year in advance so when that product is in need they know what they are doing and all the learning curves have been overcome. Its that simple. Companies tend to put the blame on other related issues besides the business plan. I will tell you I opened them and closed them. I will not stick around for a company that will be closing as its the most saddest day and because we go through the protocol of doing it. We don’t realize just how sad it is until a couple years later. I do disagree with you concerning rich owners. If the company owners are rich and wealthy then when times get tuff and they need to start taking funds to run the company out of their pockets hopefully they have enough saved to do this for 3-6 months or up to a year if that ship had no rudder. You can be the best at what you do but if you don’t adjust to what is going on in the rest of the world you will sink. Sad but true. I don’t wish this on anyone but if your ship had no direction then it will lead you to the unknown.