GOVERNMENT 

PROCUREMENT

Effect of Restriction 

on DHS's Purchasing 

of Foreign Textiles Is 

Limited

Report to Congressional Committees

November 2017

GAO-18-116

United States Government Accountability Office
United States Government Accountability Office

Highlights of GAO-18-116, a report to 

congressional committees

November 2017

GOVERNMENT PROCUREMENT

Effect of Restriction on DHS’s Purchasing of Foreign 

Textiles Is Limited

What GAO Found

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has updated its policies and 

procedures to incorporate a restriction on its procurement of certain textiles as 

specified in the “Kissell Amendment.” In August 2009, DHS amended its 

procurement policies to reflect the Kissell Amendment restriction and describe 

the limitations on DHS’s procurement of specified textiles from sources outside 

the United States. All 11 contracts GAO reviewed for uniforms and body armor 

entered into by a DHS component since August 2009 included language 

regarding the Kissell Amendment restriction. In addition, according to officials, 

DHS has several procedures to ensure that contracting officers adhere to the 

requirements of the Kissell Amendment. These include a required acquisition 

review process; a requirement for all DHS components to use department-wide 

contracts; verification procedures; and training for contracting personnel on the 

Kissell Amendment restriction.

In practice, the Kissell Amendment restriction affects a limited number of 

procurements due to multiple factors and has not fully restricted DHS from 

purchasing textiles from foreign sources. The restriction applies only to certain 

textile purchases directly related to U.S. national security interests above the 

simplified acquisition threshold of $150,000, and must be applied consistent with 

U.S. obligations under international agreements. For most of DHS, this restriction 

limits only procurements that fall between $150,000 and $191,000, the World 

Trade Organization Government Procurement Agreement threshold. However, 

because procurements by the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) of 

textiles are excluded from most international agreements, the Kissell 

Amendment prevents TSA’s purchasing of certain textiles above $150,000 from

all but three foreign countries. In September 2014, DHS signed a uniforms 

contract, the largest procurement covered by the Kissell Amendment. Under this 

contract, DHS has ordered 58 percent of the $164.6 million in uniform items from 

foreign sources through June 2017 (see figure). 

DHS Procurement of Uniform Items by Country, October 2014 to June 2017

View GAO-18-116. For more information, 

contact Kimberly Gianopoulos at (202) 512-

8612 or gianopoulosk@gao.gov.

Why GAO Did This Study

The U.S. textile industry sustained 

significant losses when textile 

production fell from $71 billion in 2006 

to $46 billion in 2009, according to the 

U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis. As 

a part of the American Recovery and 

Reinvestment Act of 2009, Congress

passed the Kissell Amendment, which

placed a restriction on DHS’s

procurement of certain textiles from 

foreign sources. DHS has applied this 

restriction to uniforms and body armor. 

The amendment was intended to 

increase opportunities for American 

textile and apparel manufacturers, 

according to the Senate Committee on 

Appropriations.

The Senate report that accompanied 

Senate Bill 1619, a bill related to the 

Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016,

includes a provision for GAO to review 

DHS’s implementation of the Kissell 

Amendment and its effectiveness. This 

report addresses the extent to which 

(1) DHS has incorporated the Kissell 

Amendment into its procurement 

policies and procedures and (2) the 

Kissell Amendment affects DHS’s 

procurement of textiles. To perform this 

work, GAO analyzed DHS policies and 

procedures, procurement obligations 

data, textile contract files, and vendor

ordering data from DHS’s current

uniforms contract. GAO also 

interviewed DHS and U.S. Trade 

Representative officials and private 

sector representatives, including the 

vendor for the current DHS uniforms 

contract. GAO received technical 

comments from DHS, which GAO

incorporated as appropriate.
Page i GAO-18-116 Government Procurement

Letter 1

Background 3

DHS Updated Policies and Procedures to Incorporate the Kissell 

Amendment Restriction 7

The Kissell Amendment Restriction Has a Limited Effect on DHS 

Textile Procurements 14

Agency Comments 28

Appendix I Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 29

Appendix II GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 34

Tables

Table 1: Source of Items Estimated to Be Procured under the 

Current DHS Uniforms Contract 23

Table 2: Orders under the Current Uniforms Contract by 

Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Component, 

October 2014 to June 2017 25

Figures

Figure 1: Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Obligations for 

Procurements, October 2009 through June 2017 7

Figure 2: Examples of Department of Homeland Security Uniforms 

and Body Armor 9

Figure 3: Key Procurement Thresholds Affect Application of the 

Kissell Amendment Restriction on DHS Textile 

Procurements 17

Figure 4: Foreign Sources from Which the DHS Could Procure 

Textile Items 19

Figure 5: Key Procurement Thresholds Affect Application of the 

Kissell Amendment Restriction on TSA Textile 

Procurements 22

Figure 6: DHS Procurement of Uniform Items by Reported 

Country of Origin, October 2014 to June 2017 24

Contents
Page ii GAO-18-116 Government Procurement

Abbreviations

BAA Buy American Act

CAFTA-DR Dominican Republic-Central America-United States Free 

Trade Agreement

CBP U.S. Customs and Border Protection

DHS Department of Homeland Security

DOD Department of Defense 

FPDS-NG Federal Procurement Data System – Next Generation 

FAR Federal Acquisition Regulation

FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency

FLETC Federal Law Enforcement Training Center

FSS Federal Supply Schedules

FTA free trade agreement

GPA Government Procurement Agreement

HSAR Homeland Security Acquisition Regulation

ICE U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement 

NAFTA North American Free Trade Agreement

NPPD National Protection and Programs Directorate

TAA Trade Agreements Act of 1979

TSA Transportation Security Administration 

USTR U.S. Trade Representative 

WTO World Trade Organization

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety 

without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain 

copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be 

necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.
Page 1 GAO-18-116 Government Procurement

441 G St. N.W.

Washington, DC 20548

November 21, 2017

The Honorable John Boozman

Chairman

The Honorable Jon Tester

Ranking Member

Subcommittee on Homeland Security

Committee on Appropriations

United States Senate

The Honorable John R. Carter

Chairman

The Honorable Lucille Roybal-Allard

Ranking Member

Subcommittee on Homeland Security

Committee on Appropriations 

House of Representatives

Historically, the U.S. textile and apparel industries have faced intense 

foreign competition in the U.S. marketplace from countries with low labor 

costs. According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, the apparel, 

textile, and leather manufacturing industries lost 228,000 jobs from 2005 

to 2016, representing a 26 percent decrease in employment in those 

fields. In particular, the U.S. textile industry sustained significant losses 

during the recession of 2007 to 2009. According to the U.S. Department 

of Commerce’s Bureau of Economic Analysis, textile production fell from 

$71 billion in 2006, the year prior to the start of the U.S. recession, to $46 

billion in 2009, a 35 percent decrease.

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 20091 was enacted, in 

part, to preserve and create jobs and promote economic recovery. As part 

of this act, Congress passed the “Kissell Amendment,”2 which, according 

to the Senate Committee on Appropriations, was intended to increase 

opportunities for American textile and apparel manufacturers. The Kissell 

Amendment generally restricts the Department of Homeland Security 

(DHS) from using its funds to procure certain fibers, textiles, and clothing 

 1

Pub. L. No. 111-5, 123 Stat. 115 (Feb. 17, 2009).

2

Pub. L. No. 111-5, § 604 (codified at 6 U.S.C. § 453b).

Letter
Page 2 GAO-18-116 Government Procurement

that are not grown, reprocessed, reused, or produced in the United 

States.

Various administrations and congressional bills have supported similar 

efforts to increase opportunities for American manufacturers and 

producers. The current administration has also placed an emphasis on 

the procurement of domestically produced goods, products, and materials 

by the federal government in an effort to stimulate growth and create jobs 

in the United States. In April 2017, the President of the United States 

issued the Presidential Executive Order on Buy American and Hire 

American stating, in part, that it shall be a policy of the executive branch 

to maximize the use of domestic goods.3

A Senate Report accompanying Senate Bill 1619, a bill related to the 

Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016, includes a provision for us to 

review DHS implementation of and compliance with the Kissell 

Amendment, as well as the policy’s effectiveness.4 This report examines 

the extent to which (1) DHS has incorporated the Kissell Amendment into 

its procurement policies and procedures and (2) the Kissell Amendment 

affects DHS’s procurement of textiles.

To address these objectives, we reviewed U.S. laws, regulations, and 

international trade agreements, and interviewed officials from DHS and 

the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) to understand the 

legal context for the Kissell Amendment. To determine the extent to which 

DHS incorporated the Kissell Amendment into its procurement policies 

and procedures, we reviewed relevant DHS documents and procurement 

files and interviewed DHS officials. We also reviewed 11 uniforms and 

body armor contracts that DHS components entered into after August 

2009.

To determine the extent to which the Kissell Amendment affects DHS’s 

procurement of textiles from U.S. and foreign sources, we reviewed 

obligations data from the Federal Procurement Data System – Next 

Generation (FPDS-NG), and analyzed uniform cost estimate data from 

DHS and uniform ordering data from the vendor for the current DHS 

 3

Buy American and Hire American, Exec. Order No. 13,788, 82 Fed. Reg. 18,837 (Apr. 

18, 2017).

4

S. Rep. No. 114-68, at 16-17 (2015) (accompanying S. 1619, 114th Cong. (2015), which 

is related to Pub. L. No. 114-113, 129 Stat. 2242 (2015)). 
Page 3 GAO-18-116 Government Procurement

uniforms contract. We tested the reliability of both FPDS-NG data and 

DHS ordering data from the vendor and determined the data to be 

sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this report. See appendix I for 

more information on our scope and methodology.

We conducted this performance audit from January 2017 to November 

2017 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing 

standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to 

obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for 

our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe 

that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings 

and conclusions based on our audit objectives.

The Kissell Amendment applies to contracts entered into by DHS as of 

August 16, 2009, and, according to the Congressional Record, would 

require DHS to purchase uniforms made in the United States.5 According 

to the Congressional Record, the amendment was intended to extend 

some of the provisions found in the Berry Amendment to DHS. The Berry 

Amendment generally restricts the Department of Defense’s (DOD) 

procurement of textiles, among other items, to those produced within the 

United States.6 Pursuant to the Kissell Amendment, subject to 

exceptions, funds appropriated, or otherwise available to DHS, may not 

be used to procure certain textile items directly related to the national 

security interests of the United States if the item is not grown, 

reprocessed, reused, or produced in the United States.7 The Kissell 

 5

155 Cong. Rec. H723-H724 (daily ed. Jan. 28, 2009) (statements of Congressman 

Kissell and Congressman Price).

6

Congress enacted the Berry Amendment in 1941 to maintain a healthy industrial base 

and encourage domestic production of items deemed essential to meet defense needs. It 

generally requires the DOD to purchase certain domestically grown, reprocessed, reused, 

or produced items, including food, clothing, and synthetic fabrics. 

7

6 U.S.C. § 453b. The Homeland Security Acquisition Regulation (HSAR) subpart that 

implements the Kissell Amendment defines items directly related to national security 

interests as items intended for use in a DHS action protecting the nation from internal or 

external threats, including protecting the nation’s borders, transportation system, maritime 

domain, or critical infrastructure, as determined by the contracting officer. 48 C.F.R. § 

3025.7001(e).

Background

The Kissell Amendment
Page 4 GAO-18-116 Government Procurement

Amendment specifies categories and types of textiles including items 

such as clothing, tents, tarpaulins, covers, and protective equipment, as 

well as the fibers used for fabrics such as cotton and other natural and 

synthetic fabrics.8 We refer to these textile items that are directly related 

to the national security interests of the United States as “Kissell-covered 

items.”

The Kissell Amendment also has multiple exceptions to the procurement 

restriction, including:

• Small Purchases Exception – procurements under the simplified 

acquisition threshold (currently set at $150,000).

• Availability Exception – satisfactory quality and sufficient quantity of 

any Kissell-covered item cannot be procured when needed at U.S. 

market prices.

• Procurements Outside the United States – procurements by vessels 

in foreign waters or emergency procurements outside the United 

States.

• De Minimis Exception – DHS may accept delivery of a Kissell-covered 

item if it contains non-compliant (i.e., foreign) fibers as long as the 

total value of those fibers does not exceed 10 percent of the total 

purchase price of the item.

In addition to the exceptions noted above, the Kissell Amendment also 

states that the Amendment shall be applied in a manner consistent with 

U.S. obligations under international agreements.9 As a result, purchases 

of Kissell-covered items, including uniforms and body armor, by DHS and 

its components must be procured consistent with U.S. obligations under 

relevant U.S. trade agreements. These agreements include the World 

Trade Organization (WTO) Government Procurement Agreement (GPA)10

and 14 bilateral or regional free trade agreements (FTAs) with 20 

 8

6 U.S.C. § 453b(b). For example, DHS has determined that uniforms and body armor are 

covered by the Kissell Amendment.

9

6 U.S.C. § 453b(k).

10Two versions of the GPA currently coexist: the prior GPA, which was signed on April 15, 

1994, and a revision of the agreement, which entered into force on April 6, 2014. Two 

versions of the GPA currently coexist because Switzerland, a party to the 1994 GPA, is 

still in the process of adopting the 2014 revised GPA. In this report we use WTO GPA to 

refer to the 2014 GPA.
Page 5 GAO-18-116 Government Procurement

countries.11 These agreements generally require each party’s goods and 

services to be given treatment comparable to what is given to domestic 

goods and services in certain government procurements. The United 

States implements these obligations through the Trade Agreements Act 

of 1979 (TAA) and subpart 25.4 of the Federal Acquisition Regulation 

(FAR).12 According to DHS and its components, officials apply the Kissell 

Amendment by following the TAA as implemented in FAR subpart 25.4. 

As a result, when an international trade agreement applies to a DHS 

procurement of a Kissell-covered item, the Kissell Amendment does not 

restrict DHS’s purchasing of textile items from that foreign source, 

regardless of the item’s relationship to the national security interests of 

the United States.

 11The United States has entered into FTAs with Australia, Bahrain, Canada, Chile, 

Colombia, Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, 

Israel, Jordan, South Korea, Mexico, Morocco, Nicaragua, Oman, Panama, Peru, and 

Singapore. The Dominican Republic-Central America-United States Free Trade 

Agreement (CAFTA-DR) covers six of these countries (Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, 

El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, and Nicaragua). As we previously reported in 

February 2017, Department of Commerce officials noted that the U.S.–Jordan 

commitment regarding government procurement does not include any specific procedural 

or market access commitments. See GAO, Government Procurement: United States 

Reported Opening More Opportunities to Foreign Firms Than Other Countries, but Better 

Data Are Needed (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 9, 2017). 

1219 U.S.C. §§ 2501-2582 and FAR 25.4. Specifically, under FAR section 25.402(a)(1), 

offers of eligible products from countries that have signed an international trade 

agreement with the United States, or that meet certain other criteria, such as being a least 

developed country, receive equal consideration with domestic offers. Moreover, under 

FAR section 25.403, in acquisitions covered by the WTO GPA, agencies shall acquire 

only U.S.-made or designated country end products or U.S. or designated country 

services, unless offers for such end products or services are either not received or are 

insufficient to fulfill the requirements. Under this part of the FAR, a designated country is 

defined as a WTO GPA country, a Free Trade Agreement country, a least developed 

country, or a Caribbean Basin country. See FAR 25.003 for the list of designated 

countries. Additionally, the FAR states that this restriction does not apply to purchases of 

supplies by DOD from a country with which it has entered into a reciprocal agreement, as 

provided in departmental regulations.
Page 6 GAO-18-116 Government Procurement

The Buy American Act (BAA) can also apply to DHS procurements.13 The 

BAA restricts the U.S. government from purchasing nondomestic end 

products, unless an exception applies. Examples of exceptions include:

• Where the cost of the domestic end product would be unreasonable.

• Where sufficient commercial quantities of domestic end products of a 

satisfactory quality are not reasonably available.14

In acquisitions covered by the WTO GPA or FTAs, USTR has waived the 

Buy American statute and other discriminatory provisions for eligible 

products. The BAA could apply to procurements of certain textile items 

valued below the $150,000 simplified acquisition threshold, to which the 

Kissell Amendment does not apply.15 The applicability of the act to a 

particular procurement depends on a number of factors such as the 

existence of a waiver or whether an exception applies.

DHS and its components procure textiles and fabrics for numerous 

purposes, including clothing and equipping its officers and employees. 

From October 2009 through June 2017, of DHS’s more than $105 billion 

in obligations for procurements, $774 million, or less than one percent, 

was for textile products, according to FPDS-NG.16 The majority of textiles 

and fabrics procured by DHS components are for uniforms and body 

armor. In particular, of the $774 million, DHS obligated $516 million (or 67 

percent) to procure uniforms and body armor for DHS personnel (see fig. 

1).

 13The Buy American Act was enacted in 1933 during the Great Depression to create and 

preserve jobs for American workers. 41 U.S.C. §§ 8301 – 8305.

14See FAR subparts 25.1 and 25.2 for BAA exceptions for supply contracts and 

construction material contracts. 

15Currently, there are FTAs that have thresholds below the simplified acquisition threshold 

of $150,000.

16These textile items are included in groups 83 and 84 of the Federal Procurement Data 

System Product and Service Codes Manual, August 2015 Edition. For the purposes of this 

report, textile items represent product service codes groups 83 and 84.

The Buy American Act

DHS Obligations for Textile 

Procurements
Page 7 GAO-18-116 Government Procurement

Figure 1: Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Obligations for Procurements, October 2009 through June 2017

a

DHS textile procurements are the total of product service codes groups 83 and 84 in FPDS-NG.

b

DHS uniforms and body armor-related procurements are the total of product service codes 8405, 

8410, 8415, and 8470 in FPDS-NG. We did not include the U.S. Coast Guard in this segment 

because they procure 79 percent of their textile items from domestic sources through the Department 

of Defense, according to Coast Guard officials.

In August 2009, DHS updated its procurement regulations, the HSAR, to 

incorporate the Kissell Amendment restriction on the procurement of 

textiles from foreign sources; since then DHS inserted language 

incorporating the restriction into the 11 uniform and body armor contracts 

we reviewed. The HSAR establishes standardized DHS policies for all 

procurement activities within the department; according to DHS officials, 

DHS Updated 

Policies and 

Procedures to 

Incorporate the 

Kissell Amendment 

Restriction

DHS Procurement Policies 

Contain the Kissell 

Amendment Restriction
Page 8 GAO-18-116 Government Procurement

all DHS components are to follow these policies.17 Pursuant to the Kissell 

Amendment, the restriction on the procurement of textiles became 

effective for DHS on August 16, 2009. One day later, DHS published an 

interim rule with a request for comments from the public that amended 

relevant HSAR sections18 to reflect the statutory change limiting the 

procurement of products containing textiles from sources outside the 

United States (i.e., the Kissell Amendment).19 On June 9, 2010, after 

receiving comments from the public, DHS adopted the amendments 

issued under the interim rule as final and without change.20 The amended 

sections detail the restriction on procurements of foreign textiles. They 

also provide a list of the types of textile items included in the restriction 

(i.e., yarn, wool, cotton), the exceptions noted in the Kissell Amendment, 

and provide detail on the specific application of trade agreements. Under 

the regulations, unless an exception applies, a specific clause shall be 

inserted in solicitations and contract actions detailing the requirement to 

use domestic goods for any procurement of a Kissell-covered item.21

Some components within DHS issued additional, supplemental guidance 

to the HSAR, while other components determined that additional 

guidance would be duplicative, according to officials. For example, 

Transportation Security Administration’s (TSA) Internal Guidance and 

Procedure Memorandum, updated in June 2016, provides additional 

guidance to contracting officers at TSA on the procurement of textiles. 

This guidance specifically states that for certain textile products, TSA’s 

contracting officers can only evaluate and/or accept offers from specified 

countries. Other components determined that additional guidance was not 

needed because the HSAR adequately covers the requirements of the 

Kissell Amendment for their purposes. For example, U.S. Secret Service 

officials stated that, for any procurement of textiles, they insert the 

required language from the HSAR into the request for proposals in case 

 17The HSAR states that the regulation is issued for departmental guidance according to 

the policy cited in the Federal Acquisition Regulation 48 Code of Federal Regulations 

1.301. The regulation is issued by the Chief Procurement Officer who is the DHS Senior 

Procurement Executive.

1848 C.F.R. parts 3025 and 3052.

1974 Fed. Reg. 41,346 (Aug. 17, 2009). 

2075 Fed. Reg. 32,676 (June 9, 2010).

21See 48 C.F.R. § 3025.7003.
Page 9 GAO-18-116 Government Procurement

an item could be considered directly related to U.S. national security 

interests and thereby subject to the Kissell Amendment restriction.

DHS officials stated that contracts for the procurement of uniforms and 

body armor are their only contracts for textile-related products that are 

directly related to national security interests. See figure 2 for examples of 

DHS uniforms and body armor.

Figure 2: Examples of Department of Homeland Security Uniforms and Body Armor

According to DHS officials, other textile or apparel procurements, such as 

curtains for DHS offices, would likely not be subject to the foreign 

procurement restriction under the Kissell Amendment because they are 

not directly related to national security interests. DHS components can 

also procure textiles through the Federal Supply Schedules (FSS) 

program.22 When ordering from these contracts, DHS contracting officers 

 22The FSS program is managed by the General Services Administration, and provides 

federal agencies a simplified process for purchasing commercial products and services at 

prices associated with volume buying. A schedule consists of contracts awarded to more 

than one supplier that provide similar products and services, at varying prices. 
Page 10 GAO-18-116 Government Procurement

would make the determination of whether or not the purchase is directly 

related to national security interests and therefore subject to the Kissell 

Amendment restriction, according to DHS officials. DHS officials also 

explained that if the purchase under the FSS program contract is subject 

to the Kissell Amendment, the contracting officer would be responsible for 

inserting the required language from the HSAR into the delivery order.

All 11 of the contracts we reviewed for uniforms and body armor23 entered 

into by a DHS component since August 2009 included language 

regarding the restriction of the Kissell Amendment.24 Many of DHS’s 

components that buy uniforms, including TSA and U.S. Customs and 

Border Protection (CBP), were already under contract with a vendor to 

supply uniforms when the Kissell Amendment took effect in August 2009. 

The Kissell Amendment specified that it applied to contracts entered into 

by DHS 180 days after the enactment of the American Recovery and 

Reinvestment Act of 2009.25 Therefore, DHS and its components did not 

apply the Kissell restriction to contracts signed before August 16, 2009. 

Several components separately signed contracts with uniform vendors 

after prior contracts expired and the Kissell restriction was in effect. For 

example, in February 2010, TSA signed a contract for uniforms with a 

vendor that included language restricting the foreign procurement of 

those uniforms per the Kissell Amendment.

In 2012, DHS decided to enter into a single, department-wide contract for 

the procurement of uniforms for all of its components.26 While that 

 23DHS currently uses a department-wide contract vehicle for the procurement of its 

uniforms and another department-wide contract vehicle for the procurement of body 

armor. They refer to these department-wide contract vehicles as “strategic sourcing 

contract vehicles.” DHS also previously used a department-wide contract for body armor. 

For our review, we looked at the current and prior body armor contract vehicles, each of 

which constituted three indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contracts for a total of six 

contracts.

24These contracts included five uniforms contracts and six body armor contracts.

256 U.S.C. § 453b(l).

26Seven of DHS’s 15 operational and support components order uniform items from this 

contract, including CBP, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), Federal Law 

Enforcement Training Center (FLETC), National Protection and Programs Directorate 

(NPPD), TSA, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), and U.S. Secret 

Service. In addition, U.S. Coast Guard was later added to the contract through a 

modification in October 2016. However, some of DHS’s operational and support 

components, such as U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services and the Domestic 

Nuclear Protection Office, do not procure uniforms from this contract. 
Page 11 GAO-18-116 Government Procurement

contract was being developed, several components signed additional 

contracts for uniforms with vendors to ensure a continuous supply of 

uniform items for their officers. This included a “bridge” contract between 

TSA and a vendor in February 2013, which also included language 

referencing the Kissell Amendment and language restricting the foreign 

procurement of those uniforms. In September 2014, DHS entered into its 

current 5-year, department-wide uniforms contract that provides eight 

DHS components with uniform clothing items.27 One vendor holds this 

uniforms contract.28

DHS employs multiple procedures, according to officials, in an effort to 

ensure that the restriction on the procurement of foreign textiles from the 

Kissell Amendment was and is properly applied, including (1) a 

standardized procurement contract review process; (2) a requirement for 

all DHS components to use established department-wide contracts; (3) 

verification procedures to ensure the stated country of origin is correct; 

and (4) trainings on foreign procurement restrictions.

First, the DHS official review process for all procurements helps ensure 

that the Kissell restriction is applied, if appropriate, to contracts for textiles 

and apparel, according to officials. Specifically, each procurement goes 

through a standardized review process that includes several levels of 

acquisition supervisors and DHS legal counsel, depending on the 

estimated dollar amount of the procurement. The DHS Acquisition Manual 

requires this review and approval process,29 which is designed to ensure 

compliance with all relevant federal acquisition laws, regulations, policies, 

and procedures. Through this process, officials evaluate the proposed 

contract for a number of restrictions, such as the appropriate use of a 

small business set-aside or a sole-source contract, which must also be 

reviewed by supervisors and legal departments before contract approval. 

 27The Food and Drug Administration, which is not part of DHS, is also part of the 

contracting vehicle and procures uniforms through that contract for its personnel. The U.S. 

Coast Guard was added to the contract by a modification in October 2016 and can also 

procure uniform items under the contract. According to Coast Guard officials, U.S. Coast 

Guard procures the majority (79 percent) of its uniform items from the DOD’s Defense 

Logistics Agency; all other uniform and textile purchases comprise U.S.-made end 

products.

28The uniforms contract is a competitively awarded, single-award indefinite-delivery 

indefinite-quantity contract with a not-to-exceed value of $450 million.

29DHS Acquisition Manual subpart 3004.70. 

DHS Has Procedures to 

Ensure That the Kissell 

Amendment Restriction Is 

Properly Applied
Page 12 GAO-18-116 Government Procurement

According to DHS officials, while the applicability of the Kissell 

Amendment is part of the standard review process, there is no separate 

review for whether the foreign procurement restriction should be applied 

to the procurement. Officials also stated that the small number of 

contracting officers handling these textile procurements are aware of the 

requirements.

Second, DHS now uses department-wide contracts for uniforms and body 

armor rather than each component entering into its own contracts for 

those items. Establishing and using these department-wide contracts 

increases efficiencies and reduces duplication in the department’s 

procurement processes, according to DHS documentation. According to 

agency officials, the establishment of a department-wide uniforms 

contract for use by all DHS components reduces opportunities for 

mistakes, including the possibility of a contracting officer issuing a 

contract that does not include the required restriction for a Kissell-covered 

item.

Third, the department relies on the vendor to verify that the item is in 

compliance with all applicable restrictions. It is not the responsibility of the 

agency or department to verify the country of origin of an item procured 

through a contract. According to the FAR, the contracting officer may rely 

on the vendor’s certification of the country of origin for an end product 

when evaluating a foreign offer.30 DHS officials told us that, for each 

contract, the vendor is responsible for certifying the country of origin and 

notifying DHS if a uniform item from a previously approved country is no 

longer available and a replacement must be located. According to 

representatives from the current uniforms vendor, both its manufacturing 

facilities and its subcontractors have measures and internal controls in 

place to ensure that all items under the current uniforms contract are 

sourced from designated countries. Furthermore, if an item is being 

misrepresented, or not from the reported country of origin, other vendors 

in the industry could report such suspected violations to DHS and the 

department would investigate possible false claims.31 According to DHS 

 30FAR 25.501.

31The False Claims Act establishes, among other things, liability for people or entities that 

knowingly submit false claims for payment to the government or knowingly make a false 

record or statement material to a false claim. The act authorizes the government to collect 

civil penalties for each false claim and to triple the amount of the government’s damages. 

According to DHS officials, the False Claims Act remedy is the main enforcement tool 

used in all government procurement compliance issues.
Page 13 GAO-18-116 Government Procurement

officials, no reports have been made against the vendor for the current 

uniforms contract.

In addition, CBP’s Textiles and Trade Agreements Division is responsible 

for the Textile Production Verification Team Program. Under this program, 

CBP deploys teams of personnel drawn from many DHS components to 

FTA partner countries to visit manufacturers of textiles imported into the 

United States. These teams review textile production and verify 

compliance with the terms of the FTA. CBP provided information that 

showed it had made numerous verification visits to factories used by 

DHS’s uniform vendor since October 2011. However, CBP officials said 

they did not know the degree to which the vendor’s imports from these 

factories were used to fulfill the DHS uniform contract.

Fourth, DHS provided training in 2009 and in 2017 to contracting 

personnel who conduct textile and apparel procurements subject to the 

Kissell Amendment and other Buy American-like provisions to ensure that 

the requirements are applied appropriately. The Kissell Amendment 

required that the Secretary of DHS ensure that each member of DHS’s 

acquisition workforce “who participates personally and substantially in the 

acquisition of textiles on a regular basis receives training during fiscal 

year 2009 on the requirements” of the Kissell Amendment and the 

regulations implementing the amendment.32 The amendment further 

states that any training program developed after August 2009 include 

comprehensive information on the Kissell Amendment restriction. 

According to officials, appropriate DHS contracting personnel were 

trained on the requirements of the Kissell Amendment through a 

presentation to DHS’s Acquisition Policy Board in July 2009. DHS 

officials, however, were unable to identify the number of personnel 

present during this meeting or the materials associated with this training.

According to DHS officials, no further training on Kissell requirements was 

conducted until June and July 2017, when DHS officials conducted two 

webinars that included approximately 570 DHS acquisition professionals 

on the requirements of the Kissell Amendment and its implications under 

the President’s Buy American and Hire American Executive Order from 

April 2017. Our review on the implementation of the Kissell Amendment, 

as well as the President’s new actions to increase opportunities for 

government agencies to buy American and hire American, precipitated 

 326 U.S.C. § 453b(j). 
Page 14 GAO-18-116 Government Procurement

the trainings, stated DHS officials. We observed the July 2017 training, at 

the invitation of DHS, and confirmed that the materials and topics covered 

included Kissell Amendment requirements.

In practice, the Kissell Amendment affects DHS textile purchases in a 

limited manner due to multiple factors. For most DHS components, these 

factors limit the effect of the Kissell Amendment restriction to certain 

foreign textile procurements directly related to U.S. national security 

interests that fall between $150,000 and $191,000. Specifically, from 

October 2009 to June 2017, only 14 DHS-awarded textile contracts, 

excluding TSA, fell within this range, according to FPDS-NG data. TSA 

textile procurements, unlike most DHS components,33 are excluded from 

the coverage of most U.S. international agreements.34 Therefore, the 

Kissell Amendment restricts TSA’s procurement of certain foreign textiles 

above $150,000 from all but three foreign countries. According to DHS 

officials, the current contracts to which the Kissell Amendment applies are 

department-wide contracts for uniforms and body armor. As of June 2017, 

under the current uniforms contract, 58 percent of the value of ordered 

uniform items by DHS came from foreign sources. In addition, DHS 

officials stated that the current body armor contracts source all textile 

items from the United States.

 33According to U.S. Coast Guard officials, FAR requirements apply to the U.S. Coast 

Guard regarding the procurement of textiles (product service codes 83 and 84) in the 

same manner as they apply to other DHS components (except TSA). In other words, the 

U.S. Coast Guard’s procurement of textiles are covered under applicable U.S. 

international trade agreements and the Kissell Amendment restriction does not limit 

procurement to domestic products when the relevant procurement threshold has been 

met.

34In this report we did not include the U.S. Coast Guard as part of our analysis because 

they primarily order U.S.-made uniform items through the DOD, according to Coast Guard 

officials.

The Kissell 

Amendment 

Restriction Has a 

Limited Effect on DHS 

Textile Procurements
Page 15 GAO-18-116 Government Procurement

The number of DHS’s textile procurements that could be affected by the 

Kissell Amendment restriction is limited by multiple factors. The Kissell 

Amendment restriction applies only to those textile items that are directly 

related to national security interests for procurements above the $150,000 

simplified acquisition threshold,35 and must be applied in a manner 

consistent with U.S. obligations under international agreements.36 In 

practice, this limits the number of procurements that could be affected by 

the amendment’s restriction to those of Kissell-covered items between the 

current simplified acquisition threshold and the current WTO GPA 

threshold of $191,000, a $41,000 range, for most DHS components.37

Furthermore, statutory and regulatory provisions generally require that 

government agencies acquire U.S.-made or designated country end 

products and services for procurements covered by the WTO GPA.38 For 

most of DHS, the procurement of certain textiles is covered by the WTO 

GPA. Therefore, due to these regulations, most DHS components are 

limited in their textile procurements at or above $191,000 to the United 

States or designated countries, regardless of the Kissell Amendment. 

However, the number of TSA contracts that could be affected by the 

Kissell Amendment restriction is potentially greater since procurement of 

textiles by TSA is not subject to statutory and regulatory provisions that 

affect the rest of DHS’s procurement of textiles.

U.S. obligations under international agreements, as implemented by the 

TAA and FAR, require that offers of eligible products receive equal 

consideration with domestic offers.39 The FAR additionally specifies that 

agencies, “in acquisitions covered by the WTO GPA, acquire only U.S.-

made or designated country end products unless offers for such end 

 35See 6 U.S.C. § 453b(f), 41 U.S.C. § 134, and FAR 2.101. The simplified acquisition 

threshold varies depending on the purpose of the procurement. Procurements not 

exceeding the simplified acquisition threshold are to follow simplified contracting 

procedures to the maximum extent possible. The purpose of simplified contracting 

procedures is to reduce administrative costs, promote efficiency, and avoid unnecessary 

burdens for agencies and contractors. For example, when using simplified contracting 

procedures, a number of laws and contract clauses are inapplicable. The simplified 

acquisition threshold changed from $100,000 to $150,000 on October 1, 2010.

366 U.S.C. § 453b(k). 

37The value of DHS’s procurements also has a role in the application of the Kissell 

Amendment. 

3819 U.S.C. § 2512 and FAR 25.403(c)(1). 

39FAR 25.402(a)(1). 

The Kissell Amendment 

Restriction Affects a 

Limited Number of DHS 

Textile Procurements Due 

to Multiple Factors
Page 16 GAO-18-116 Government Procurement

products are either not received or are insufficient to fulfill the 

requirements.”40 To be a U.S. procurement covered by the WTO GPA, 

the procurement must (1) be performed by a covered government entity;

(2) be for a covered item; and (3) be at or above the WTO GPA threshold, 

which is currently $191,000.41 Other international trade agreements have 

their own thresholds currently ranging from $25,000 to $191,000.42 Figure 

3 outlines the various key procurement thresholds that may affect the 

designated and non-designated countries from which DHS could source 

textiles with respect to the Kissell Amendment. Most of these dollar 

thresholds are subject to revision approximately every 2 years.

 40FAR 25.403(c). This purchase restriction does not apply below the WTO GPA threshold 

for supplies and services, even if the acquisition is covered by an FTA. See FAR 25.003 

for a full listing of designated countries.

41Under the WTO GPA, each party’s covered government procurement is defined in part 

through coverage schedules in annexes to the agreement. These annexes identify the

procuring entities covered by the agreements and also identify the goods and services 

and construction services whose procurement by the specified entities is covered by the 

agreement.

42See FAR 25.402 for current thresholds. The applicability of the Kissell Amendment in 

procurements valued above the simplified acquisition threshold and below the WTO GPA 

threshold would depend, in part, on whether an offer included eligible products from a 

Free Trade Agreement country. 
Page 17 GAO-18-116 Government Procurement

Figure 3: Key Procurement Thresholds Affect Application of the Kissell Amendment Restriction on DHS Textile Procurements

Notes: This figure does not apply to Transportation Security Administration (TSA) textile 

procurements.
Page 18 GAO-18-116 Government Procurement

Applicability of an international trade agreement or the Kissell Amendment is subject to factors such 

as the procuring entity, the good being procured, and whether any exceptions apply. This figure does 

not address these other factors and does not illustrate coverage.

The threshold amounts presented are based on 2017 data for supply contracts. Most threshold 

amounts are subject to revision approximately every 2 years.

a

FAR 25.403 limits the procurement of goods to the United States and designated countries beyond 

this point.

b

A “designated country” is defined in the FAR as a WTO GPA country, an FTA country, a least 

developed country, or a Caribbean Basin country. See FAR 25.003 for the full list of designated 

countries.

Due to the multiple factors that affect DHS’s textile procurements, most of 

DHS’s components may source eligible textiles from up to 128 designated 

countries outside the United States in procurements at or above $191,000 

(see fig. 4). This is because most DHS components’ textile procurements 

are considered covered items under the WTO GPA. Therefore, most DHS 

components’ foreign textile procurements that either meet or exceed the 

current $191,000 threshold are restricted to designated countries 

regardless of the Kissell Amendment, due to the FAR.43 These 

designated countries include WTO GPA countries, Free Trade Agreement

countries, least developed countries, and Caribbean Basin countries.44

 43FAR 25.403.

44See FAR 25.003 for the list of designated countries. 
Page 19 GAO-18-116 Government Procurement

Figure 4: Foreign Sources from Which the DHS Could Procure Textile Items

Notes: Although Hong Kong is a special administrative region of China and the United States does 

not have diplomatic relations with Taiwan, we have included them as countries because section 

25.402 of the FAR lists each as a designated country.

This figure is a general illustration of the foreign sources from which DHS could potentially procure 

textiles under the Kissell Amendment and FAR 25.403 and does not take into account the application 

of certain exceptions.

a

A “designated country” is defined in the FAR as a World Trade Organization Government 

Procurement Agreement country, a Free Trade Agreement country, a least developed country, or a 

Caribbean Basin country. See FAR 25.003 for the full list of designated countries.
Page 20 GAO-18-116 Government Procurement

As noted above, multiple factors influence DHS’s procurement of textiles 

and the number of contracts that could be affected by the Kissell 

Amendment restriction. Based on our analysis of contract data from 

FPDS-NG, from October 2009 to June 2017, DHS awarded 111 textile 

contracts above the simplified acquisition threshold.45 Of the 111 

contracts, only 14 DHS textile contracts, excluding TSA, were valued 

between the simplified acquisition threshold and $191,000, the current 

threshold for coverage under the WTO GPA. In part, because FPDS-NG 

does not designate whether or not a contract is directly related to the 

national security interests of the United States, we could not determine 

whether these contracts were subject to the provisions of the Kissell 

Amendment. According to DHS officials, the only current contracts 

considered directly related to U.S. national security and therefore subject 

to the Kissell Amendment are for uniforms and body armor.

The Kissell Amendment includes additional language regarding the use of 

any availability exception and states that any availability exception issued 

by DHS shall be publically posted on a government procurement internet 

site within 7 days of the contract.46 However, according to agency 

officials, since the passage of the Kissell Amendment, DHS has not 

issued any waivers for availability exceptions and has therefore been 

limited to procuring certain textile items from the United States and 

designated countries identified in the FAR.

The Kissell Amendment restriction affects TSA textile procurements 

differently than other DHS components. As implemented, the Kissell 

Amendment restricts TSA’s procurement of certain textiles above 

$150,000 to the United States, Canada, Mexico, and Chile.47 TSA’s 

procurement of textiles is different because it is not included in the U.S. 

coverage schedules of the WTO GPA and all U.S. free trade agreements, 

with the exception of the North American Free Trade Agreement and the 

 45From October 2009 to June 2017, DHS ordered textile items over the simplified 

acquisition threshold through an additional three contracts from the FSS program which 

were not included in our analysis. This analysis does not include U.S. Coast Guard 

contracts because we excluded the U.S. Coast Guard from our review. 

466 U.S.C. § 453b(i). 

4748 C.F.R. § 3025.7002-3(a)(3).

TSA Procurement Is 

Excluded from Coverage 

of Most U.S. International 

Trade Agreements
Page 21 GAO-18-116 Government Procurement

U.S.-Chile Free Trade Agreement.48 According to USTR officials, some of 

TSA’s security functions were originally held by the Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), which is not subject to the FAR. Furthermore, TSA 

was also not subject to the FAR prior to 2008, until Congress passed 

legislation removing the requirement that TSA procurements be subject to 

the acquisition management system established by the administrator of 

the FAA.49 Those circumstances resulted in TSA’s exclusion from the 

WTO GPA for textiles and most other international trade agreements, 

according to USTR officials. Figure 5 illustrates when the Kissell 

Amendment could affect TSA procurements and the applicability of 

international trade agreements. Based on our analysis of FPDS-NG data, 

from October 2009 to June 2017, TSA entered into 13 textile contracts 

above the simplified acquisition threshold.50

 48Although TSA procurement is generally covered under the WTO GPA, TSA’s 

procurement of federal supply codes 83 (textiles, leather, furs, apparel, shoes, tents, and 

flags) and 84 (clothing, individual equipment, and insignia) are excluded from the 

agreement. In FPDS-NG these codes are listed as product services codes 83 (e.g., 

textiles, apparel, shoes) and 84 (e.g., clothing, insignia). 

49Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008, Pub. L. No. 110-161, Div. E, § 568, 121 Stat. 

1844, 2092 (2007).

50In part, because FPDS-NG does not designate whether or not a contract is directly 

related to the national security interests of the United States, we could not determine 

whether these contracts are subject to the provisions of the Kissell Amendment.
Page 22 GAO-18-116 Government Procurement

Figure 5: Key Procurement Thresholds Affect Application of the Kissell Amendment Restriction on TSA Textile Procurements

Notes: Applicability of an international trade agreement or the Kissell Amendment is subject to factors 

such as the procuring entity, the good being procured, and whether any exceptions apply. This figure 

does not address these other factors and does not illustrate coverage.

The threshold amounts presented are based on 2017 data for supply contracts. Threshold amounts 

for the free trade agreements in this figure are subject to revision approximately every 2 years.

a

With respect to free trade agreements, TSA textile procurements are only covered by the Chile FTA 

and NAFTA.

From October 2014 to June 2017, 58 percent of the value of uniform 

items ordered by DHS came from outside the United States. In 

September 2014, DHS entered into its current department-wide uniforms 

contract, the largest value textile contract since the passage of the Kissell 

Amendment in 2009. In the request for proposals, DHS included a clause 

detailing the Kissell restriction on the purchase of foreign items in the 

uniforms contract documentation. As implemented, when combined with 

the purchasing restriction in the TAA, the clause in the Kissell 

Amendment that states the act shall be applied consistent with U.S. 

obligations under international agreements allows the uniforms contract 

vendor to source items from up to 128 designated countries. In the 

request for proposal for the current uniforms contract, DHS components 

included a list of over 900 uniform items including shirts, pants, shoes, 

and insignias. The vendor that was awarded the contract then reported 

the cost and expected country of origin for each item, which DHS 

approved. Table 1 shows the estimated cost and quantity of items 

DHS Procured Over Half 

of the Value of Textile 

Items for the Current 

Uniforms Contract from 

Foreign Sources
Page 23 GAO-18-116 Government Procurement

estimated to be procured under the contract for components that primarily 

have a national security function.51

Table 1: Source of Items Estimated to Be Procured under the Current DHS Uniforms 

Contract

Reported 

Country of Origin

Estimated Cost 

(dollars in 

thousands)

Estimated 

Cost 

(percentage)

Estimated 

Number of 

Items (in 

hundreds)

Estimated 

Number of 

Items 

(percentage)

United States 195,323 50 5,095 45

Other than 

United States

194,736 50 6,322 55

Total 390,059 11,417

Source: GAO analysis of the current Department of Homeland Security (DHS) uniforms contract file. | GAO-18-116

Note: This analysis includes U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), U.S. Immigration and 

Customs Enforcement (ICE), National Protection and Programs Directorate (NPPD), Transportation 

Security Administration (TSA), and U.S. Secret Service. We identified these five components to 

primarily have a national security function under the current uniforms contract, based on the 

contracting file provided by DHS.

After the uniform contract was entered into by DHS in September 2014, 

DHS components began ordering uniform items under the contract. In 

addition to more than 900 types of uniform items that were agreed upon 

at the initiation of the contract, DHS components issued contract 

modifications to add or remove uniform items from the approved list. 

Common types of items expected to be ordered included uniform shirts, 

pants, socks, and shoes that met DHS component specifications.

From October 2014 to June 2017, $164.6 million in uniform items was 

ordered by DHS components that primarily have a national security 

 51We identified CBP, ICE, NPPD, TSA, and U.S. Secret Service as primarily having a 

national security function under the current uniforms contract. We did not identify FEMA 

and FLETC as components that primarily have a national security function because, 

according to DHS estimates, FEMA determined that none of their estimated items was 

directly related to national security interests and FLETC determined that only 1 out of 88 

items was directly related to national security interests. The U.S. Coast Guard is not 

included because they primarily order U.S.-made uniform items through the DOD, 

according to Coast Guard officials.
Page 24 GAO-18-116 Government Procurement

function.52 Of that amount, 58 percent, or $96 million, in uniform items 

ordered by DHS came from a reported 12 countries outside the United 

States. The remaining 42 percent, or $69 million, in uniform items was 

reported as originating in the United States. By value, Mexico, the largest 

source of uniform items from outside of the United States, accounted for 

30 percent of the ordered uniform items. In addition, 8 percent of the 

value of uniform items was sourced from least developed countries, 

including Cambodia (5 percent) and Bangladesh (2 percent). Figure 6 

illustrates the percentage value of DHS procurement of uniform items by 

reported country of origin for the current contract by components that 

primarily have a national security function.

Figure 6: DHS Procurement of Uniform Items by Reported Country of Origin, 

October 2014 to June 2017

Notes: Percentages may not add to 100 due to rounding.

“Other countries” in the figure include Bangladesh (2 percent); Taiwan (1 percent); South Korea (1 

percent); Canada, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Madagascar, and Peru (all less than 1 percent); 

and items that were manufactured in more than one country (2 percent).

This analysis includes U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), U.S. Immigration and Customs 

Enforcement (ICE), National Protection and Programs Directorate (NPPD), Transportation Security 

Administration (TSA), and U.S. Secret Service. We identified these five components to primarily have 

 52The value of uniform items ordered on the current uniforms contract for CBP, ICE, 

NPPD, TSA, and U.S. Secret Service is $164.6 million. This value does not represent the 

obligated amount on the contract to date because the total obligated amount would 

include orders from additional components, such as FEMA, and administrative costs 

associated with the contract. 
Page 25 GAO-18-116 Government Procurement

a national security function under the current uniforms contract, based on the contracting file provided 

by DHS.

Based on our analysis of the vendor’s ordering data, the majority of the 

value of uniform items ordered by all five components were sourced from 

outside the United States.53 In addition, a larger value of the uniform 

items ordered by three of the five components were sourced from Mexico 

than from any other country, including the United States. Table 2 shows 

the total value of the uniform ordering data for the five DHS components 

that primarily have a national security function under the current uniforms 

contract.

Table 2: Orders under the Current Uniforms Contract by Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Component, October 2014 

to June 2017

Dollars in thousands

Reported Country of Origin, by DHS 

Component

Value and Percentage, by DHS 

Component

Value and Percentage by Reported Country of 

Origin, by DHS Component

U.S. Customs and Border Protection 101,131 61%

United States 47,957 47%

El Salvador 15,627 15%

Mexico 10,569 10%

Honduras 7,944 8%

Cambodia 7,937 8%

Other Countries 11,096 11%

Transportation Security Administration 53,469 32%

Mexico 36,252 68%

United States 17,217 32%

U.S. Immigration and Customs 

Enforcement

5,294 3%

United States 2,522 48%

Honduras 1,043 20%

Cambodia 693 13%

El Salvador 334 6%

Mexico 306 6%

Bangladesh 297 6%

Other Countries 99 2%

 53We did not include the U.S. Coast Guard in our analysis because they primarily order 

U.S. made uniform items through the DOD, according to Coast Guard officials.
Page 26 GAO-18-116 Government Procurement

Reported Country of Origin, by DHS 

Component

Value and Percentage, by DHS 

Component

Value and Percentage by Reported Country of 

Origin, by DHS Component

National Protection and Programs 

Directorate

2,605 2%

Mexico 915 35%

United States 848 33%

El Salvador 208 8%

Bangladesh 193 7%

Cambodia 191 7%

Honduras 119 5%

Other Countries 130 5%

U.S. Secret Service 2,070 1%

Mexico 948 46%

United States 276 13%

Bangladesh 234 11%

Peru 167 8%

Madagascar 150 7%

El Salvador 125 6%

Other Countries 169 8%

Total Dollar Value 164,568

Source: GAO analysis of DHS uniforms ordering data provided by the vendor. | GAO-18-116

Notes: Numbers may not add up due to rounding.

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and Federal Law Enforcement Training Center 

(FLETC) are not included in this table because, according to DHS estimates, FEMA determined that

none of their estimated items was directly related to national security interests and FLETC 

determined that only 1 out of 88 items was directly related to national security interests. The U.S. 

Coast Guard is not included in the table because they primarily order U.S.-made uniform items 

through the Department of Defense, according to Coast Guard officials.

From October 2014 through June 2017, CBP ordered approximately 

$101.1 million in uniform items under the contract, and TSA ordered 

approximately $53.5 million. CBP and TSA accounted for the majority of 

the dollar value of uniform orders from October 2014 through June 2017, 

representing 94 percent of the value of uniform items ordered by DHS 

components that primarily have a national security function under the 

contract. Specifically, 32 percent of the value of TSA ordered uniform 

items were from the United States, with the other 68 percent sourced 

from Mexico. As mentioned above, the Kissell Amendment, as 

implemented, restricts TSA’s foreign procurement of certain textiles 

above $150,000 to Canada, Mexico, and Chile.
Page 27 GAO-18-116 Government Procurement

According to DHS officials and representatives of the current uniforms 

vendor, both the price of the uniform items and the time it would take to 

find appropriate U.S. sources could potentially increase if current 

statutory and trade agreements requirements changed and DHS was 

required to source all of its uniform items from the United States. 

According to the FAR, it is the responsibility of agencies to obtain the best 

value for the U.S. government. According to DHS officials, the best value 

may be sourced from foreign countries, especially when the country is a 

party to an international trade agreement with the United States. DHS 

officials and representatives of the vendor stated that it would be possible 

to source most of the items in the current uniforms contract from the 

United States. However, representatives of the vendor speculated that 

sourcing only from the United States could result in a 50 to 150 percent 

price increase for items that are currently sourced from foreign countries. 

Therefore, DHS costs could increase for over half of the uniform items 

currently procured from foreign sources. Additionally, DHS officials stated 

that the domestic availability of some items, such as footwear, is limited 

and that it could take approximately 2 years to find U.S. suppliers for all 

items currently procured from foreign sources.

The second largest current textile contract is the department-wide 

contract for body armor. Effective November 1, 2016, the departmentwide contract for body armor is not to exceed $93.8 million.54 As of June 

2017, DHS had obligated $6.8 million under these body armor 

contracts.

55 DHS did not provide GAO documentary evidence that the 

body armor is produced in the United States. However, according to DHS 

officials, textile items under the current body armor contracts are 

produced in the United States. According to DHS officials, to verify that 

materials are produced in the United States, DHS visited the site where 

these materials are produced and assembled in the United States. In 

addition, the contract contains specific language restricting the vendor 

from procuring items that are not in compliance with the Kissell 

Amendment.

 54This contract vehicle consists of indefinite-delivery indefinite-quantity contracts with 

three U.S. vendors.

55DHS obligated $42.2 million under the previous department-wide body armor contract,

which was signed in November 2011.

Sourcing Only from the United 

States Could Be More Costly 

for DHS

DHS Reported Procuring 

All Body Armor from U.S. 

Sources
Page 28 GAO-18-116 Government Procurement

We provided a draft of this report for review and comment to DHS and 

USTR. DHS did not provide written comments on the draft report but 

provided a number of technical comments that we incorporated as 

appropriate. USTR did not provide written or technical comments to the 

draft report.

We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional 

committees, to the Secretary of Homeland Security, the U.S. Trade 

Representative, and other interested parties. In addition, the report is 

available at no charge on the GAO website at http://www.gao.gov.

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact 

me at (202) 512-8612 or gianopoulosk@gao.gov. Contact points for our 

Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on 

the last page of this report. GAO staff who made key contributions to this 

report are listed in appendix II.

Kimberly M. Gianopoulos

Director, International Affairs and Trade

Agency Comments
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 29 GAO-18-116 Government Procurement

A Senate Report accompanying Senate Bill 1619, a bill related to the 

Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016, includes a provision for us to 

review the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) implementation and 

compliance with the Kissell Amendment, as well as the effectiveness of 

the policy.1 This report examines the extent to which (1) DHS has 

incorporated the Kissell Amendment into its procurement policies and 

procedures and (2) the Kissell Amendment affects DHS’s procurement of 

textiles.

To address these objectives, we reviewed relevant laws and policies, 

such as Section 604 of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 

2009 (the “Kissell Amendment”), the Trade Agreements Act of 1979 

(TAA) as amended, the Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR), 

Homeland Security Acquisition Regulations (HSAR), and the DHS 

Acquisition Manual, as well as select U.S. free trade agreements. We 

interviewed officials from DHS and the office of the U.S. Trade 

Representative (USTR). We also interviewed officials from the U.S. textile 

and apparel industry, including the National Council of Textile 

Organizations and the American Apparel and Footwear Association. 

Finally, we spoke with officials from the vendor for DHS’s current 

department-wide uniforms contract, VF Imagewear.

To determine the extent to which DHS incorporated the Kissell 

Amendment into its procurement policies and procedures, we reviewed 

relevant DHS documents and policies, including the HSAR, interim and 

final rules on the implementation of the Kissell Amendment, and 

component-level procurement guidance. We also interviewed officials 

from DHS’s Office of the Chief Procurement Officer and from the 

components in DHS that have their own contracting authority, including 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), Federal Emergency 

Management Agency (FEMA), U.S. Immigration and Customs 

Enforcement (ICE), Transportation Security Administration (TSA), U.S. 

Coast Guard, and U.S. Secret Service.

To analyze whether or not language indicating the restriction on the 

procurement of foreign textiles from the Kissell Amendment was included 

in DHS and component level contracts, we reviewed contract files for 11 

available uniforms and body armor contracts entered into since August 

 1

S. Rep. No. 114-68, at 16-17 (2015) (accompanying S. 1619, 114th Cong. (2015), which 

is related to Pub. L. No. 114-113, 129 Stat. 2242 (2015)). 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 30 GAO-18-116 Government Procurement

16, 2009, the date the Kissell Amendment became effective. We 

reviewed contract files from DHS uniform and body armor contracts 

because these are the only DHS textile contracts that are directly related 

to U.S. national security and therefore subject to the Kissell Amendment, 

according to DHS officials. We identified these uniforms and body armor 

contracts through reviews of Federal Procurement Data System–Next 

Generation (FPDS-NG) data for DHS and components contracts in 

groups 83 and 842 since August 16, 2009, and through discussions with 

CBP, DHS, and TSA officials. We were not, however, able to review 

every uniforms contract all DHS components have entered into since 

August 16, 2009, because, for example, some of the contract files were 

no longer available, consistent with federal document retention policies, 

according to DHS officials. The results of our reviews of selected 

contracts are not generalizable to all DHS textile contracts entered into 

since August 16, 2009.

To determine the extent to which the Kissell Amendment affects DHS’s 

procurement of textiles, we reviewed relevant government regulations 

and laws, U.S. international agreements, DHS contract files, and ordering 

data for the largest textile contract since the effective date of the Kissell 

Amendment. We reviewed the FAR to evaluate which international 

agreements are applicable to DHS textile procurements, the thresholds 

for each international trade agreement, and the countries from which DHS 

may procure certain textiles. We reviewed the U.S. central government 

coverage schedule of the World Trade Organization (WTO) Government 

Procurement Agreement (GPA) to determine which procurements by 

DHS component are covered by the WTO GPA and therefore subject to 

the purchasing restriction in the TAA, as implemented in the FAR.3

To identify the dollar range for textile contracts that could be affected by 

the Kissell Amendment, we reviewed the Kissell Amendment and the 

relevant provisions of the FAR. We also interviewed USTR officials and 

DHS officials from the Office of the Chief Procurement Officer, CBP, and 

TSA to understand how international trade agreements affect DHS’s 

textile procurement under the Kissell Amendment. We reviewed award 

and obligation data from the FPDS-NG to identify the number of textile 

contracts awarded by DHS components and delivery orders through the 

 2

For the purposes of this report, textile items represent product service codes groups 83 

(e.g., textiles, apparel, shoes) and 84 (e.g., clothing, insignia).

3

19 U.S.C. § 2512 and FAR 25.403(c). 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 31 GAO-18-116 Government Procurement

General Services Administration’s Federal Supply Schedules program 

above the simplified acquisition threshold and those that could be 

affected by the Kissell Amendment. To assess the reliability of 

procurement data from FPDS-NG, we reviewed relevant documentation 

and performed verification through electronic testing. We determined the 

data to be sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this report.

To evaluate DHS’s procurement of uniform items from the United States 

versus foreign sources, we reviewed the ordering estimates, which were 

provided as an attachment to DHS’s request for proposals for the current 

uniforms contract, and ordering data provided by the vendor for the 

current uniforms contract. The current uniform and body armor contracts 

are the only two active contracts to which the Kissell Amendment applies, 

according to DHS officials. For the purposes of ordering data and 

estimates, we did not review previous contracts. In addition, since all 

body armor items are sourced from the United States, we focused our 

ordering analysis on the current uniforms contract. Because we did not 

evaluate ordering data for previous DHS uniforms contracts, these values 

cannot be extrapolated to all DHS uniforms contracts.

To calculate the ordering estimates for the current uniforms contract, we 

analyzed data created by DHS and the uniform vendor during the 

development phase of the contract. To focus on the DHS components 

that primarily have a national security function under the current uniforms 

contract, we analyzed ordering estimates to identify the number of 

uniform items that DHS components reported as being directly related to 

national security. Under the current uniforms contract estimates, CBP, 

ICE, National Protection and Programs Directorate (NPPD), TSA, and 

U.S. Secret Service are the five DHS components that reported the 

majority of uniform items as being directly related to national security. As 

a result, we included these five DHS components in our analysis of the 

ordering estimates under the current uniforms contract. We did not 

include FEMA or Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC) in 

our analysis because FEMA did not list any uniform items as related to 

national security and FLETC identified only one item out of 88 as related 

to national security. We also did not include ordering estimates from the 

Food and Drug Administration, which is a party to the contract but is not a 

DHS component. In addition, the U.S. Coast Guard did not provide 

ordering estimates since it was not included in the original proposal for 

the current uniforms contract.

For each of the identified DHS components that reported the majority of 

uniform items as directly related to national security, we analyzed the 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 32 GAO-18-116 Government Procurement

estimated data based on description, the estimated quantity, the unit 

price, and the country of origin. While we did not analyze the value of any 

contract modifications that added or removed uniform items from the 

contract, we did review select modifications and found that contract 

modifications were generally consistent with the original contract 

estimates for that non-generalizable sample. To obtain insights into the 

countries of origin in the modifications, we reviewed a small, nongeneralizable sample of 10 modifications. We concluded that the 

breakdown between domestic and foreign sourced items for the items 

added through the modifications was generally consistent with the 

breakdown between domestic and foreign sourced items in the original 

contracts’ estimates.

To determine the reasonableness of the processes by which DHS and its 

vendors generated these estimates, we interviewed knowledgeable 

officials, reviewed documents submitted by the vendor, and performed 

data reliability testing. DHS officials told us that they had provided the 

contractor with detailed lists of the textile items it required, and the vendor 

reported that they determined the prices and countries of origin based on 

prevailing market conditions. DHS officials then reviewed the estimates 

provided by the vendor and approved the items, price, and country of 

origin under the contract. DHS officials and the vendor informed us that 

because these estimates reflected market conditions when the contract 

was signed, actual purchases of items might be from countries other than 

those listed in the contract, depending on changes in those conditions 

and availability of the items. We determined these estimates were 

sufficiently reliable to represent DHS’s intended purchases of textile 

products by country of origin under this contract.

To analyze the orders of uniform items, we relied on ordering data 

provided by the vendor for the current uniform contract. We reviewed 

uniform ordering data for the five DHS components that reported the 

majority of uniform items as being directly related to national security: 

CBP, ICE, NPPD, TSA, and the U.S. Secret Service. The uniform 

ordering data included items ordered by individual DHS employees 

through an allowance system and by DHS components through bulk 

orders. We did not include the U.S. Coast Guard in our analysis since it 

primarily orders U.S.-made uniform items through the Department of 

Defense’s Defense Logistics Agency, according to Coast Guard officials. 

We analyzed the value of uniform items procured from the United States 

and foreign sources based on the reported country of origin and 

component from October 2014 to June 2017.
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 33 GAO-18-116 Government Procurement

To assess the reliability of the ordering data provided by the vendor, we 

reviewed the data for inconsistencies. We clarified with the vendor the 

relevant data sets for our analysis and any discrepancies we identified in 

the data. DHS relies on the vendor to provide the countries of origin, and 

it was beyond the scope of this engagement for us to verify the vendor 

provided country of origin. We determined that the ordering data were 

sufficiently reliable for the purposes of comparing orders to estimates by 

countries of origin for uniforms under the contract, and presenting details 

about purchases from the United States versus other countries of origin. 

The result of our analysis is limited to the current department-wide 

uniforms contract with DHS and cannot be extrapolated to other DHS 

textile contracts.

For the body armor contracts, we relied on FPDS-NG data for the 

obligations under the current and previous contracts. We also interviewed 

DHS officials who identified the country of origin of the items purchased 

under the current body armor contracts; it was beyond the scope of this 

engagement to verify the agency-provided country of origin. To assess 

the reliability of the obligations data from FPDS-NG, we reviewed relevant 

documentation performed verification through electronic testing. We 

determined the data to be sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this 

report.

We conducted this performance audit from January 2017 to November 

2017 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing 

standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to 

obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for 

our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe 

that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings 

and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
Appendix II: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments

Page 34 GAO-18-116 Government Procurement

Kimberly Gianopoulos, (202) 512-8612 or gianopoulosk@gao.gov

In addition to the individual mentioned above, Adam Cowles (Assistant 

Director), Christopher J. Mulkins (Analyst-in-Charge), Martin Wilson, Lynn 

Cothern, Martin de Alteriis, Neil Doherty, Grace Lui, and Julia Kennon 

made key contributions to this report.

Appendix II: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments

GAO Contact

Staff 

Acknowledgments

(101354)
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and investigative 

arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional 

responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability of the 

federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use of public 

funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides analyses, 

recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make informed 

oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s commitment to good government 

is reflected in its core values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost is 

through GAO’s website (http://www.gao.gov). Each weekday afternoon, GAO 

posts on its website newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence. To 

have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products, go to http://www.gao.gov

and select “E-mail Updates.”

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of production and 

distribution and depends on the number of pages in the publication and whether 

the publication is printed in color or black and white. Pricing and ordering 

information is posted on GAO’s website, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 

TDD (202) 512-2537.

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, MasterCard, 

Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information.

Connect with GAO on Facebook, Flickr, LinkedIn, Twitter, and YouTube.

Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E-mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts.

Visit GAO on the web at www.gao.gov and read The Watchblog.

Contact:

Website: http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

Orice Williams Brown, Managing Director, WilliamsO@gao.gov, (202) 512-4400, 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125, 

Washington, DC 20548

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, DC 20548

James-Christian Blockwood, Managing Director, spel@gao.gov, (202) 512-4707

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7814, 

Washington, DC 20548

GAO’s Mission

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

Order by Phone

Connect with GAO

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Congressional 

Relations

Public Affairs

Strategic Planning and 

External Liaison

Please Print on Recycled Paper.