The Berry Amendment (Imposed by 10 U.S.C. 2533a) for DoD parts - Trying to decipher

[ScottK]

https://www.acq.osd.mil/dpap/paic/berryamendment.htm
Restrictions on DoD Purchases from Non-U.S. Sources
Imposed by 10 U.S.C. 2533a (the "Berry Amendment")

I'm particularly interested in "specialty metals"...

A part we make consists of brass, stainless steel, and aluminum parts. Apparently our customer needs to know if we are compliant...

now, it seems to me that the brass is not a "specialty metal" as it does not fall into line i, ii, iii, or iv.
Same with Aluminum.

but the stainless steel - I have the material certs for the parts but I'm trying to figure out how to read the chemical composition. The numbers given for one are:
C .08000
Mn .77000
Si .43000
P .02400
S .00100
Cr 16.35000
Ni 7.52000
Mo .13000
Al 1.02000
Cu .34000

Are these numbers by percentage?

If so then apparently I have more tracking to do on this part because the Cr is over .25%

any feedback at all is appreciated.

thanks

 

[Jim Wynne]

Re: Trying to decipher the Berry Amendment for DoD parts...

Are these numbers by percentage?

Yes (more characters added because the software said I had to)

 

[Cari Spears]

Re: Trying to decipher the Berry Amendment for DoD parts...

Hunh - Sounds like you are doing what I'm doing at the moment. This is the email I sent to everyone here and our customer.

Good Morning –

I’ve attached the relevant table from the AMS6260 specification – I think the 1.00-1.40 chromium content and the 3.0-3.5 nickel content do make this a specialty metal – see (B) below:

“(B) Containing more than 0.25 percent of any of the following elements: aluminum, chromium, cobalt, columbium, molybdenum, nickel, titanium, tungsten, or vanadium;”

I guess my next step is to pull the material certs for all work in progress to determine what mills it all came from. Since everything we make for (customer name deleted) is made of AMS6260, this has the potential to affect all (customer name deleted) jobs in progress at this time. I will get back with everyone once I track down all of the routers for the heat/lot information and pull all of the certs.

Thanks,

Cari

I sent the above in response to this:

Attn: CARI SPEARS

Dear Supplier:

Effective immediately,

DFAR 252.225-7014 Preference for Domestic Specialty Metals clause and DFAR 252.225-70XX Buy American clauses apply to all new POs issued from (customer name removed), as well as any existing POs you may have.

This will also apply to any RFQ's you are currently processing for us.

This is regardless of the nature of the order, military or commercial.

Please confirm via email your receipt of this email immediately.

Please advise no later than 12:00 noon EST, Friday, May 26, 2006 any PO deliveries that are at risk going forward and your plans to mitigate those delays.

Thanks for your prompt attention in this matter.



Regards,

 

[ScottK]

Re: Trying to decipher the Berry Amendment for DoD parts...

Hunh - Sounds like you are doing what I'm doing at the moment. This is the email I sent to everyone here and our customer.


I sent the above in response to this:

cool! Thanks Cari!

I'm at the research point right now - our customer has not demanded compliance, but is seeing if we are already compliant.

incidentally - here's an interesting article I ran across



"Specialty Metals and The Berry Amendment - Frankenstein's Monster and Bas Domestic Policy"

 

[Jim Wynne]

Re: Trying to decipher the Berry Amendment for DoD parts...

Hunh - Sounds like you are doing what I'm doing at the moment.

clauses apply to all new POs issued from (customer name removed), as well as any existing POs you may have.

Just a word to the wise...a customer has no right to unilaterally amend existing orders. If the proposed amendment creates new costs, you have the option of requoting.

 

[Cari Spears]

Re: Trying to decipher the Berry Amendment for DoD parts...

Just a word to the wise...a customer has no right to unilaterally amend existing orders. If the proposed amendment creates new costs, you have the option of requoting.

Yeah - we're not sure what will happen - but we have LOTS of their work in progress right now. I can't see them telling us they won't buy parts that were already in progress prior to this requirement. This customer is not unreasonable - we're hoping to tell them which parts (we serialize all of their parts) do not comply with the requirement and at what point each part will be produced from material bought in the US or from a qualifying country. We do intend to requote if our costs increase.

 

[tyker]

Sometimes it would be more appropriate to have a legal, rather than engineering, qualification in this job.
Some of my products are manufactured from stainless steel and one of my American customers has kindly brought this legislation to my attention with emphasis on the "Alt 1" clause.
Because I am based in the UK, a qualifying country, it seems I can buy my steel from anywhere on the planet and still comply. If I move production to my facility in the USA, I'm restricted on where I can buy the steel. As with many things right now, the logic escapes me.
Incidentally, if my interpretation is wrong, please don't feel the need to correct my ignorance.

 

[ScottK]

Sometimes it would be more appropriate to have a legal, rather than engineering, qualification in this job.
Some of my products are manufactured from stainless steel and one of my American customers has kindly brought this legislation to my attention with emphasis on the "Alt 1" clause.
Because I am based in the UK, a qualifying country, it seems I can buy my steel from anywhere on the planet and still comply. If I move production to my facility in the USA, I'm restricted on where I can buy the steel. As with many things right now, the logic escapes me.
Incidentally, if my interpretation is wrong, please don't feel the need to correct my ignorance.

this is true - if you read the article I posted earlier the author specifically picks on this. Apparently it's all because the US is not on its own qualifying country list.