United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548

Comptroller General

of the United States

 

Decision

Matter of: Integrity Supply 

File: B-406860

Date: September 10, 2012

Patrick Conner, Integrity Supply, for the protester.

Joseph R. Weidenburner, Esq., Defense Logistics Agency, for the agency.

Eric M. Ransom, Esq., and Edward Goldstein, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, 

GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

Protest that agency improperly applied a domestic item restriction established by 10 

U.S.C. § 2533a is denied where the agency reasonably determined that items being 

procured (electrical gloves) are items of “clothing” and therefore covered by the 

restrictions set forth in section 2533a.

DECISION

Integrity Supply, of Elkton, Maryland, protests the rejection of its proposal submitted 

in response to request for proposals (RFP) No. SPM1C1-10-R-0024, issued by the 

Defense Logistics Agency for electrical gloves. Integrity maintains that the agency 

improperly applied a domestic item restriction to reject its offer of gloves 

manufactured in Malaysia. In this regard, Integrity argues that the domestic item 

restriction does not apply because the gloves are not an item of “clothing.”

We deny the protest.

The solicitation contemplated the award of an indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity

contract to supply electrical insulation gloves for a base year, and up to four 1-year 

option periods.

1 

 1 Specifically, the solicitation sought proposals for Electrical Gloves, 1,000 Volt 

National Stock Number (NSN) 8415-01-158-9454(s), 7,500 Volt (NSN) 

8415-01-158-9449, and 17,000 Volt (NSN) 8415-01-158-94446(s). RFP at 7-8.
Page 2 B-406860 

As it relates to the protest, the RFP included Department of Defense Federal 

Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) Clause 252.225-7012, “Preference for 

Certain Domestic Commodities.” RFP at 54. This clause provides that articles of 

clothing, defined to include gloves (referred to as “handwear”), offered in response 

to the solicitation, must be produced in the United States. DFARS 252.225-7012. 

This provision implements the requirements of 10 U.S.C. § 2533(a) (2006), 

commonly referred to as the “Berry Amendment.” The Berry Amendment generally 

restricts the Department of Defense’s expenditure of funds for certain articles 

(including “clothing”) to domestically produced products. See 10 U.S.C. § 2533a(b).

Integrity’s offer was one of six submitted in response to the RFP. During the course 

of proposal evaluations, the agency determined that Integrity’s proposal was 

unacceptable because the items proposed by Integrity were to be manufactured in 

Malaysia, and therefore did not qualify as domestically produced.2

Integrity argues that the electrical gloves at issue should not be considered 

“clothing” within the meaning of the Berry Amendment and DFARS Clause 

252.225-7012, and, as a consequence, the domestic source restrictions do not 

apply. In this regard, Integrity maintains that the electrical gloves are worn solely to 

protect against electrical shock and therefore should be regarded as a “tool”

(characterizing the gloves as “’insulating liners’”) rather than an article of “clothing.” 

 Agency Report 

(AR), at 6-7. In a letter dated May 30, 2012, the agency advised Integrity that its 

proposal had been found unacceptable because “the end items proposed [ ] will not 

be produced in the United States.” AR, Encl. 10, Letter to Integrity, May 30, 2012. 

Integrity filed this protest on June 6. 

See Protest at 1; Comments at 1. The protester’s emphasis on the protective 

nature of the gloves is misplaced, however. The term “clothing,” as used in the 

Berry Amendment, is understood to include “a wide variety of items,” including items 

worn for the purpose of protection. Gumsar, Ltd., B-231630, Oct. 6, 1988, 88-2 

CPD ¶ 329 at 4 (holding that term “clothing” in Berry Amendment encompassed 

protective coverings worn by civilian personnel to access toxic areas to dismantle 

chemical munitions). Accordingly, we have no basis to conclude that the agency 

acted unreasonably when it rejected Integrity’s gloves pursuant to the domestic 

production restrictions established by the Berry Amendment. 

The protest is denied.

Lynn H. Gibson

General Counsel

 2 Integrity’s proposal indicated that the place of manufacture of its gloves was 

outside the United States, and that the country of origin of all items to be supplied 

was Malaysia. Integrity’s Proposal at 92, 95.