Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Industry and Security

Textile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments – Preliminary, 2017

BIS/OTE Textile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments 

U.S. Department of Commerce 

Bureau of Industry and Security

Office of Technology Evaluation

U.S. Textile, Apparel, and Footwear 

Industry Assessment

Preliminary Results

2017 JAPBI DLA Troop Support Conference

November 15, 2017

Cherry Hill, NJ

Stamen Borisson

Trade and Industry Analyst

Elizabeth Oakes

Trade and Industry Analyst

1
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Industry and Security

Textile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments – Preliminary, 2017

BIS/OTE Textile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments 2

• Office of Technology Evaluation (OTE)

Mission: OTE is the focal point within BIS for assessing the capabilities 

of the U.S. industrial base to support the national defense and the 

effectiveness of export controls.

• Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) 

Mission: Advance U.S. national security, foreign policy, and economic 

objectives by ensuring an effective export control and treaty compliance 

system and promoting continued U.S. strategic technology leadership.

Develops export control policies

Issues export licenses

Prosecutes violators to heighten national security

Develops and implements programs that ensure a technologically 

superior defense industrial base

Who We Are:
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Industry and Security

Textile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments – Preliminary, 2017

BIS/OTE Textile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments 3

OTE Industry Surveys & Assessments Background:

• Under Section 705 of the Defense Production Act of 1950 and Executive Order 

13603, ability to survey and assess:

Economic health and competitiveness

Defense capabilities and readiness

• Data is exempt from Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Requests.

• Enable industry and government agencies to:

Share data and collaborate in order to ensure a healthy and competitive 

industrial base

Monitor trends, benchmark industry performance, and raise awareness of 

diminishing manufacturing and technological capabilities
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Industry and Security

Textile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments – Preliminary, 2017

BIS/OTE Textile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments 4

U.S. Textile, Apparel and Footwear Industry Assessments

Background

• At the request of the U.S. Congress, BIS/OTE is updating a 2003 assessment of the 

U.S. Textile, Apparel and Footwear Industry. The updated assessment will focus on the 

health, competitiveness, and contribution of the industry to the U.S. economy. Other 

topics to be reviewed include:

 Identify dependencies on foreign sources for critical materials

 Evaluate potential threats to security due to foreign sourcing and dependency

 Locate points of weakness within the domestic supply chain

 Measure the industry’s capacity to increase production in a national emergency

 Examine Berry Amendment and other Buy-American provisions

 Explore concerns and issues faced by domestic producers

• Project divided into two parts:

 Footwear – survey deployed in November 2016

 Textiles and Apparel – survey deployed in February 2017
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Industry and Security

Textile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments– Preliminary, 2017

BIS/OTE Textile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments 

Methodology – Textiles and Apparel

• Scope of survey and assessment was limited to U.S. manufacturers of textiles, textile 

products, and apparel, as defined and classified by the North American Industry 

Classification System (NAICS). 

• Excluded from the scope of the survey were organizations such as distributors/importers, 

service providers, suppliers, designers, etc.

• BIS decided to provide exemption from the survey requirement, if requested, for 

organizations with less than 10 employees.

• The primary product line reported (some respondents reported more than one capability) 

was used to categorize the respondent into the following:

5

Textile Mills

• Fiber, Yarn, Thread

• Broadwoven Fabric

• Narrow Fabric Mill / Schiffli 

Machine Embroidery

• Non-Woven Fabric

• Knit Fabric

• Textile and Fabric Finishing

• Fabric Coating

Textile Product Mills

• Carpet and Rug

• Curtain and Linen

• Textile Bag and Canvas

• Rope, Cordage, Twine, Tire 

Cord, or Tire Fabric

• Other Textile Products

Apparel Manufacturers

• Hosiery and Socks

• Other Apparel Knitting

• Cut and Sew Apparel Contractor

• Men's and Boys' Cut and Sew 

Apparel

• Women's and Girls' Cut and 

Sew Apparel

• Other Cut and Sew Apparel

• Apparel Accessories and Other 

Apparel
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Industry and Security

Textile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments– Preliminary, 2017

BIS/OTE Textile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments 

• Organization size was established based on sales from products 

manufactured in the U.S.

• Small: Under $10M in annual sales

• Medium: $10M-$50M in annual sales

• Large: Over $50M in annual sales

• U.S. Government suppliers and U.S. Berry Amendment manufacturers were 

categorized based on survey responses.

• Today’s presentation’s data set consists of completed survey responses from 

499 organizations; the final assessment data set will include additional 

organizations. 

6

Methodology - Textiles and Apparel (continued)
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Industry and Security

Textile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments– Preliminary, 2017

BIS/OTE Textile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments 

Methodology - Footwear

• Scope of survey and assessment was limited to U.S. manufacturers of footwear, as 

defined and classified by the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS). 

• Excluded from the scope of the survey were organizations such as distributors/importers, 

service providers, suppliers, designers, etc.

• BIS decided to provide exemption from the survey requirement, if requested, for 

organizations with less than 10 employees.

• Organization size was established based on sales from products manufactured in the 

U.S.

• Small: Under $10M in annual sales

• Medium: $10M-$50M in annual sales

• Large: Over $50M in annual sales

• U.S. Government suppliers and U.S. Berry Amendment manufacturers were 

categorized based on survey responses.

• Assessment data set consists of completed survey responses from 44 organizations. 

7
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Industry and Security

Textile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments– Preliminary, 2017

BIS/OTE Textile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments 

Respondent Profile – U.S. Textile and Apparel

• 499 companies operating 764 Textile and/or Apparel manufacturing facilities in the 

U.S.

• Total 2016 Sales of $39 Billion

• 2016 Sales of $19 Billion from products manufactured in the U.S.

8

RP/1b/7 499 respondents

Small: Under $10M in annual sales Medium: $10M-$50M in annual sales Large: Over $50M in annual sales

198

107

194

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

Textile Mill Textile

Products

Apparel

Manufacturer

# of Companies

Number of Companies Segmented by 

Type

288

144

67

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Small Medium Large

# of Companies

Number of Companies Segmented by 

U.S.-made Textile and Apparel Sales 
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Industry and Security

Textile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments – Preliminary, 2017

BIS/OTE Textile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments 9

499 respondents

U.S. Textile and Apparel Manufacturing Organizations - Location

64

6

6

7

8

14

18

20

55

Others

New Jersey

Tennessee

Rhode Island

California

Georgia

Pennsylvania

South Carolina

North Carolina

# of Responses

Textile Mills

Q1a, A

93

7

7

7

8

8

9

12

41

Others

Georgia

Ohio

Tennessee

Alabama

California

Texas

New York

North Carolina

# of Responses

Apparel Manufacturers

54

5

5

6

6

6

6

7

12

Others

Pennsylvania

South Carolina

California

Georgia

New York

Ohio

Minnesota

North Carolina

# of Responses

Textile Product Mills
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Industry and Security

Textile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments – Preliminary, 2017

BIS/OTE Textile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments 10

499 respondents

U.S. Textile and Apparel Manufacturing Facilities

764

167

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

U.S. Non-U.S

How many total textile and/or 

apparel manufacturing 

facilities does your 

organization currently 

operate?

Q1b, A

31

54

4

38

90

41

88

5

33

6

32

16

63

43

30

28

54

108

Apparel Accessories and Other Apparel

Other Cut and Sew Apparel

Women's and Girls' Cut and Sew Apparel

Men's and Boys' Cut and Sew Apparel

Cut and Sew apparel Contractor

Hosiery and Socks

Other Textile Products

Rope, Cordage, Twine, Tire Cord, or Tire Fabric

Textile Bag and Canvas

Curtain and Linen

Carpet and Rug

Fabric Coating

Textile and Fabric Finishing

Knit Fabric Mill

Non-Woven Fabric

Narrow Fabric / Schiffli Machine Embroidery

Broadwoven Fabric

Fiber, Yarn, Thread

U.S. Facilities by Primary Product Line
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Industry and Security

Textile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments – Preliminary, 2017

BIS/OTE Textile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments 11

499 respondents

U.S. Textile and Apparel Manufacturing Facilities –Location

80

10

10

10

11

12

13

13

14

15

15

15

15

16

17

21

22

23

25

29

29

30

68

86

169

Other

New Hampshire

Florida

Illinois

Michigan

Indiana

Maryland

Minnesota

Rhode Island

New Jersey

Massachusetts

Ohio

Puerto Rico

Wisconsin

Kentucky

Texas

New York

Virginia

California

Pennsylvania

Tennessee

Alabama

South Carolina

Georgia

North Carolina

Number of Facilities

Q1b, B

5,853 

620 

628 

847 

861 

881 

1,042 

1,261 

1,299 

1,554 

1,599 

1,603 

1,625 

1,626 

1,748 

1,833 

2,005 

2,161 

2,736 

3,203 

3,493 

4,543 

9,384 

20,342 

20,807 

Other

Utah

Maryland

Washington

Kansas

Ohio

Wisconsin

Rhode Island

New Jersey

Kentucky

New Hampshire

Massachusetts

New York

Illinois

Florida

California

Texas

Virginia

Tennessee

Pennsylvania

Puerto Rico

Alabama

South Carolina

Georgia

North Carolina

Facility Employees
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Industry and Security

Textile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments– Preliminary, 2017

BIS/OTE Textile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments 

Respondent Profile – U.S. Footwear

• 44 companies operating 65 Footwear manufacturing facilities in 

the U.S.

• Total 2016 Footwear Sales of $8.5 Billion

12

RP/1b/7 44 respondents

Small: Under $10M in annual sales Medium: $10M-$50M in annual sales Large: Over $50M in annual sales

24

12

8

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Small Medium Large

# of Organizations

Number of Organizations Segmented by Sales of U.S.-manufactured 

Footwear
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Industry and Security

Textile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments– Preliminary, 2017

BIS/OTE Textile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments 

Footwear Manufacturing Facilities - Location

13

13

65

0 50 100

NonU.S*

U.S.

Total Footwear Manufacturing 

Facilities

* Includes China, 

Dominican Republic, etc. 11

3

3

3

3

4

4

4

5

6

9

10

0 5 10 15

Others

Missouri

Oregon

Washington

New York

California

Pennsylvania

Wisconsin

Massachusetts

Arkansas

Texas

Maine

# of Facilities

Top 10 U.S.-based Footwear 

Manufacturing Facilities by State

Q1b, A 44 respondents
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Industry and Security

Textile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments – Preliminary, 2017

BIS/OTE Textile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments 14

44 respondents

U.S. Footwear –

Top 10 U.S. States- Full Time Equivalent (FTE) Employees

Q1b, B

413

516

767

887

896

995

1,064

1,188

1,320

2,234

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500

North Carolina

Oregon

Massachusetts

Wisconsin

Arkansas

Puerto Rico

Missouri

Minnesota

Maine

Texas

# of Employees

12,142 Total U.S. 
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Industry and Security

Textile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments– Preliminary, 2017

BIS/OTE Textile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments 

U.S. Textile and Apparel Sales (2012-2016)

$36,550 $37,387 

$40,523 $40,542 $39,453 

$19,348 $19,146 $20,704 $20,038 $18,716 

 $-

 $5,000

 $10,000

 $15,000

 $20,000

 $25,000

 $30,000

 $35,000

 $40,000

 $45,000

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

$ Millions

U.S. Textile and Apparel Manufacturers

Total Textile and Apparel-Related Sales

Total Sales from Products Manufactured in the U.S.

15

Q7 499 respondents
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Industry and Security

Textile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments– Preliminary, 2017

BIS/OTE Textile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments 

U.S. Textile and Apparel Sales (2012-2016)

$13.4 $13.0 $13.5 $13.5

$12.6

$10.9 $10.5 $11.0 $11.1

$10.2

 $-

 $5

 $10

 $15

 $20

 $25

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Billions

U.S. Textile Mills

Total Textile and Apparel-Related Sales

Total Sales from Products Manufactured in

the U.S. (81% five-year average)

16

Q7 499 respondents

$5.5 $5.8 $5.6 $6.0 $5.6

$5.0 $5.4 $5.2 $5.5 $5.1

 $-

 $5

 $10

 $15

 $20

 $25

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Billions

U.S. Textile Products

Total Textile and Apparel-Related Sales

Total Sales from Products Manufactured in

the U.S. (92% five-year average)

$17.6

$18.5

$21.4 $21.0 $21.2

$3.4 $3.2

$4.5

$3.4 $3.3

 $-

 $5

 $10

 $15

 $20

 $25

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Billions

U.S. Apparel Manufacturers

Total Textile and Apparel-Related Sales

Total Sales from Products Manufactured in

the U.S. (18% five-year average)
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Industry and Security

Textile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments– Preliminary, 2017

BIS/OTE Textile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments 

$19,348 $19,146 $20,704 $20,038 $18,716 

$2,473 $1,994 $2,002 $2,251 $2,131 

 $-

 $5,000

 $10,000

 $15,000

 $20,000

 $25,000

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

$ Millions

U.S. Textile and Apparel Manufacturers

Total Sales From Products Manufactured in the U.S.

Total Berry Amendment-Related Sales to DoD and Armed Services

17

Q7 499 respondents

U.S. Textile and Apparel Sales (2012-2016)
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Industry and Security

Textile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments – Preliminary, 2017

BIS/OTE Textile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments 18

U.S. Footwear Sales (2012-2016)

Q7 42 respondents

$7,216 

$8,355 $8,664 $8,701 $8,523 

$1,361 $1,396 $1,358 $1,443 $1,511 

$168 $198 $164 $215 $292 $-

 $1,000

 $2,000

 $3,000

 $4,000

 $5,000

 $6,000

 $7,000

 $8,000

 $9,000

 $10,000

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

$ Millions

Total Footwear-Related Sales Total Sales from Footwear Manufactured in the U.S. Footwear-Related Government Sales
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Industry and Security

Textile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments – Preliminary, 2017

BIS/OTE Textile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments 19

499 respondents

U.S. Textile and Apparel - Manufacturing Utilization Rate

Q6, B

48% 48% 48% 49% 49%

58% 58% 59% 59% 59%

41% 40% 39% 39% 39%

43% 43% 43% 44% 44%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

55%

60%

65%

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Utilization Rate %

Estimate your organization's average annual manufacturing utilization 

rate for 2012-2016, as a percentage of maximum production possible 

under a 7-day-a-week, 24-hour-per-day operation

Overall Textile Mill Textile Products Apparel Manufacturer

Average manufacturing utilization rate for each of the years 2012-2015, as a percentage of production possible under a 7 day-per-week, 24-

hour-per-day operation.

• Note: a 100% utilization rate equals full operation with no downtime beyond that necessary for maintenance. Assuming little 

maintenance downtime, one 8-hour shift, 5 days per week is approximately 25% capacity utilization; two 8-hour shifts, 7 days per week 

is approximately 65% capacity utilization.
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Industry and Security

Textile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments – Preliminary, 2017

BIS/OTE Textile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments 20

499 respondents

Limiting Factors to Ramping Production to Maximum Manufacturing Capacity:

Availability of Workforce

Q6, D

61%

22%

7%

10%

Textile Mills

Yes No Not Sure N/A

68%

10%

8%

14%

Textile Products

Yes No Not Sure N/A

72%

13%

9%

6%

Apparel Manufacturers

Yes No Not Sure N/A

U.S. Textile and Apparel – Manufacturing Utilization Rate

19

66

97

118

120

172

200

331

Other

Quality control

Manufacturing space

Equipment capacity

Availability of additional equipment

Cost of workforce

Availability of input materials

Availability of workforce

# of Responses 

Identify which of the factors below would limit your organization's ability to raise its manufacturing 

utilization rate to 100% (maximum current capacity) to meet a surge in demand.
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Industry and Security

Textile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments – Preliminary, 2017

BIS/OTE Textile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments 21

462 respondents

U.S. Textile and Apparel – Surge Production Capabilities

Q6, C.2

126

200

79

57

0

50

100

150

200

250

Very Confident Somewhat Confident Not Confident Unsure

# of Respondents

How confident are you that your organization could obtain the 

material necessary to rapidly ramp up production in the event 

of a national emergency?
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Industry and Security

Textile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments – Preliminary, 2017

BIS/OTE Textile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments 22

462 respondents

U.S. Textile and Apparel – Surge Production Capabilities

Q6, C.2

20

25

81

56

Unsure

Not Confident

Somewhat Confident

Very Confident

Textile Mills

How confident are you that your organization could obtain the material necessary 

to rapidly ramp up production in the event of a national emergency?

16

16

48

20

Unsure

Not Confident

Somewhat Confident

Very Confident

Textile Products

21

38

70

50

Unsure

Not Confident

Somewhat Confident

Very Confident

Apparel Manufacturers

23

37

126

77

Unsure

Not Confident

Somewhat Confident

Very Confident

USG Suppliers

34

42

74

49

Unsure

Not Confident

Somewhat Confident

Very Confident

Others
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Industry and Security

Textile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments – Preliminary, 2017

BIS/OTE Textile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments 23

Average Annual U.S. Footwear Capacity Utilization Rate 

(2012-2016)

Q6,B 44 respondents

33% 32% 33% 34% 34%

40%

36%

39% 38%

44%

31% 30%

28%

29% 28%

31% 32%

34% 34%

33%

25%

27%

29%

31%

33%

35%

37%

39%

41%

43%

45%

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Utilization Rate %

Average Utilization Rate Large >$50M Medium $10M-$50M Small <$10M
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Industry and Security

Textile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments – Preliminary, 2017

BIS/OTE Textile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments 24

U.S. Footwear - Manufacturing Utilization Rate

Q6,D 44 respondents

0

1

1

3

3

5

3

11

2

9

9

9

14

13

16

24

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

Other

Manufacturing space

Quality control

Equipment capacity

Availability of additional equipment

Availability of input materials

Cost of workforce

Availability of workforce

# of Responses 

Identify which of the factors below would limit your organization's ability 

to raise its manufacturing utilization rate to 100% (maximum current 

capacity) to meet a surge in demand. 

Berry Amendment Manufacturers Other Manufacturers
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Industry and Security

Textile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments – Preliminary, 2017

BIS/OTE Textile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments 25

U.S. Footwear – Surge Production Capabilities

Q6,D 44 respondents

4

7

1

0

5

11

9

7

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

Very Confident Somewhat Confident Not Confident Unsure

# of Respondents

How confident are you that your organization could obtain the 

material necessary to rapidly ramp up production in the event of 

a national emergency?

Berry Amendment Manufacturers Other Manufactuers
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Industry and Security

Textile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments – Preliminary, 2017

BIS/OTE Textile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments 26

499 respondents

U.S. Textiles and Apparel - Workforce

Q11a, A

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000

160,000

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

# of Employees

Total number of full-time equivalent (FTE) textile and/or apparelrelated employees for all your U.S.-based operations (2012-2016)

Other

Testing Operators, Quality Control, and

Support Technicians

Production Line Workers - Machine

Technicians

Marketing & Sales

Information Technology Professionals

Designers

Facility & Maintenance Staff

Engineers, Scientists, and R&D Staff

Administrative, Management, & Legal

Staff

Production Line Workers - Operators
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Industry and Security

Textile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments – Preliminary, 2017

BIS/OTE Textile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments 27

475 respondents

U.S. Textiles and Apparel - Workforce

Q11a, B

No, 166, 35%

Yes, 309, 65%

Does your organization have difficulty hiring and/or retaining any 

type of employees for your textile and/or apparel-related 

operations? 
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Industry and Security

Textile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments – Preliminary, 2017

BIS/OTE Textile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments 28

499 respondents

U.S. Textiles and Apparel - Workforce

Q11a, B

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400

Other

Information Technology Professionals

Design

Marketing & Sales

Administrative, Management, & Legal

Engineers, Scientists, and R&D

Testing Operator, Quality Control, and Support

Facility and Maintenance

Production Line - Machine Technicians

Production Line - Operators

#of Responses

Does your organization have difficulty hiring and/or retaining any type of 

employees for your textile and/or apparel-related operations? 

Both Hiring Retaining Neither Not Applicable
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Industry and Security

Textile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments – Preliminary, 2017

BIS/OTE Textile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments 29

499 respondents

U.S. Textiles and Apparel - Workforce

Q11b, B

Very Concerned

23%

Somewhat 

Concerned

37%

Neutral

18%

Not Worried

22%

How concerned is your organization about your current textile 

and/or apparel-related workforce retiring in the near future?
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Industry and Security

Textile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments – Preliminary, 2017

BIS/OTE Textile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments 30

499 respondents

U.S. Textiles and Apparel - Workforce

Q11b, C

154

185

188

198

271

315

337

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400

Significant portion of workforce retiring

Employee turnover

Attracting workers to location

Transfer of knowledge

Quality of workforce

Finding experienced workers

Finding skilled/qualified workers

# of Responses

Select and explain the key workforce issues you anticipate 

between 2017-2021 
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Industry and Security

Textile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments – Preliminary, 2017

BIS/OTE Textile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments 31

U.S. Footwear - Workforce

Q11a,A 44 respondents

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

# of Employees

Other

Testing Operators, Quality Control,

and Support Technicians

Marketing & Sales

Information Technology

Professionals

Facility and Maintenance Staff

Engineers, Scientists, and R&D

Staff

Designers

Admin

Production Line Workers
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Industry and Security

Textile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments – Preliminary, 2017

BIS/OTE Textile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments 32

U.S. Footwear - Workforce

Q11a,B 44 respondents

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Testing Operator, Quality Control, and

Support

Administrative, Management, & Legal

Facility and Maintenance

Information Technology

Design

Marketing & Sales

Engineers, Scientists, and R&D

Production Line

# of Responses

Does your organization have difficulty hiring and/or retaining any type of 

employees for your footwear-related operations? 

Both Hiring Retaining Neither N/A
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Industry and Security

Textile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments – Preliminary, 2017

BIS/OTE Textile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments 33

U.S. Footwear - Workforce

Q11b,C 44 respondents

12

18

18

21

23

24

27

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Significant portion of workforce retiring

Employee turnover

Transfer of knowledge

Finding experienced workers

Attracting workers to location

Finding skilled/qualified workers

Quality of workforce

# of Responses

Select and explain the key workforce issues you anticipate 

between 2017-2021 
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Industry and Security

Textile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments – Preliminary, 2017

BIS/OTE Textile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments 34

499 respondents

U.S. Textiles and Apparel - Competitive Attributes

Q12b, A

61

31

43

45

47

186

316

492

0 100 200 300 400 500 600

Other

Productivity

Quality

Innovation

Delivery time

Other

Range of capabilities

Price

# of Responses

Primary competitive attributes of 

leading U.S. competitors

11

18

19

20

60

80

312

0 100 200 300 400

Delivery time

Innovation

Receipt of government

subsidies

Quality

Other

Range of capabilities

Price

# of Responses

Primary competitive attributes of 

leading non-U.S. competitors
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Industry and Security

Textile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments – Preliminary, 2017

BIS/OTE Textile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments 35

44 respondents

U.S. Footwear - Competitive Attributes

Q12b, A

1

2

2

3

4

5

21

30

41

0 10 20 30 40 50

Financing

Reliability

Productivity

Innovation

Delivery time

Quality

Range of Capabilities

*Other

Price

# of Responses

Primary competitive attributes of leading 

U.S. competitors

* Offshore 

manufacturing, 

economies of scale, 

others. 1

1

1

1

2

3

8

8

30

0 10 20 30 40

Delivery time

Financing

Government subsidies

Reliability

Innovation

Range of capabilities

Quality

Other

Price

# of Responses

Primary competitive attributes of leading 

non-U.S. competitors
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Industry and Security

Textile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments – Preliminary, 2017

BIS/OTE Textile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments 36

499 respondents

U.S. Textiles and Apparel – Top Competitive Advantages 

Q12b, B

33

34

70

101

102

126

168

172

200

259

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

Supply of skilled workers

Reduced process variability

Productivity

Design

Overall finished products

Other

Performance

Innovation

Lead time

Quality

# of Times Listed

Identify the top five competitive advantages your organization's 

U.S.-based manufacturing operations possess as they relate to 

foreign competition
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Industry and Security

Textile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments – Preliminary, 2017

BIS/OTE Textile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments 37

Q12b, B 499 respondents

51

59

60

63

73

73

94

129

139

232

0 50 100 150 200 250

Trade barriers

Reduced cost

Equipment costs

Building space costs

Environmental compliance costs

Energy costs

Other

Supply of skilled workers

Material costs

Labor costs

# of Times Listed

Identify the top five competitive disadvantages your 

organization's U.S.-based manufacturing operations possess as 

they relate to foreign competition

U.S. Textiles and Apparel – Top Competitive Disadvantages 
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Industry and Security

Textile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments – Preliminary, 2017

BIS/OTE Textile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments 38

U.S. Footwear - Top Competitive Advantages

Q12b,B 44 respondents

5

5

13

15

16

17

17

20

24

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Productivity

Supply of skilled workers

Innovation

Overall finished products

Design

Lead time

Performance

Other

Quality

# of Responses

Identify the top five competitive advantages your organization's U.S.-based 

footwear manufacturing operations possess as they relate to foreign 

competition.
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Industry and Security

Textile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments – Preliminary, 2017

BIS/OTE Textile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments 39

U.S. Footwear - Top Competitive Disadvantages

Q12b,B 44 respondents

6

7

7

7

9

18

20

29

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Reduced cost

Equipment costs

Lead time

Building space costs

Supply of skilled workers

Material costs

Other

Labor costs

# of Responses

Identify the top five competitive disadvantages your organization's U.S.-

based footwear manufacturing operations possess as they relate to foreign 

competition.
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Industry and Security

Textile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments – Preliminary, 2017

BIS/OTE Textile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments 40

499 respondents

U.S. Textiles and Apparel: 

Competitive Outlook (Defense-related and Commercial)

Q13a, B2

Anticipated changes in competitive prospects for U.S. textile and/or apparel 

operations (both defense-related and commercial) from 2017 through 2021?

Improve, 

147, 32%

Decline, 

23, 5%

Remain the 

Same, 125, 

27%

Not 

Applicable, 

162, 36%

Defense-related: 457 respondents

Improve, 

241, 53%

Decline, 

25, 6%

Remain 

the Same, 

142, 31%

Not 

Applicable, 

47, 10%

Commercial: 455 respondents
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Industry and Security

Textile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments – Preliminary, 2017

BIS/OTE Textile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments 41

U.S. Footwear - Competitive Outlook (2017-2021)

(Defense-Related and Commercial)

Q13a,B 44 respondents

Improve

, 9, 50% Remain 

the 

Same, 

6, 33%

Decline, 

3, 17%

Defense-Related

* 26 of 44 respondents 

selected ‘Not Applicable’ 

Improve

, 23, 

56%

Remain 

the 

Same, 

15, 37%

Decline, 

3, 7%

Commercial

*3 of 44 respondents 

selected ‘Not Applicable’ 
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Industry and Security

Textile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments – Preliminary, 2017

BIS/OTE Textile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments 42

499 respondents

U.S. Textiles and Apparel – Challenges

Q15, A

144

189

190

192

215

259

266

270

336

339

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400

Commercial Demand

Taxes

U.S. Trade Policy

Domestic Competition

Aging Equipment

Worker/skills Retention

Aging Workforce

Foreign Competition

Healthcare Costs

Labor Availability

# of Respondents

Top 10 Challenges
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Industry and Security

Textile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments – Preliminary, 2017

BIS/OTE Textile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments 43

499 respondents

U.S. Textiles and Apparel – Challenges

Percentage of Respondents Selecting Adversely Affecting Issues

Q15, A

28%

31%

32%

33%

39%

43%

47%

48%

55%

56%

67%

71%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

Apparel Manufacturers

16%

19%

47%

25%

42%

37%

49%

66%

59%

53%

72%

67%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

Government Acquisition

Process

Access to Capital

U.S. Trade Policy

Government Purchasing

Volatility

Taxes

Domestic Competition

Aging Equipment

Foreign Competition

Aging Workforce

Worker/Skills Retention

Healthcare Costs

Labor Availability

Textile Mills

21%

25%

32%

24%

28%

32%

34%

42%

39%

43%

61%

64%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

Textile Product Mills
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Industry and Security

Textile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments – Preliminary, 2017

BIS/OTE Textile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments 44

44 respondents

U.S. Footwear - Challenges

Q15, A

12

12

15

20

21

24

25

25

29

31

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Environmental Regs - Domestic

Reduction in USG Demand

Taxes

Aging Workforce

Aging Equipment

Worker/Skills Retention

Domestic Competition

Foreign Competition

Labor Availability

Healthcare Costs

# of Responses

Top 10 Challenges
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Industry and Security

Textile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments – Preliminary, 2017

BIS/OTE Textile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments 

282

217

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Yes No

# of Respondents

45

Q3a, A 499 respondents

U.S. Textile and Apparel - Participation in U.S. 

Government Programs (2012-2016)

122

72

105

93

55 52

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

Yes No

Apparel Manufacturers Textile Mills Textile Product Mills

185 organizations reported having interest in 

manufacturing for the USG.

Has your organization manufactured textiles and/or apparel for the U.S. 

Government (defense and/or non-defense) during 2012 through 2016?
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Industry and Security

Textile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments– Preliminary, 2017

BIS/OTE Textile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments 

$2,473 

$1,994 $2,002 

$2,251 $2,131 

$860 $756 $753 $808 $720 

$207 $176 $142 $169 $166 

$1,396 

$1,052 $1,098 

$1,259 $1,227 

 $-

 $500

 $1,000

 $1,500

 $2,000

 $2,500

 $3,000

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

$ Millions

U.S. Textile and Apparel Manufacturers

Total Berry Amendment-Related Sales to DoD and Armed Services

Textile Mills

Textile Products

Apparel Manufacturers

46

Q7 499 respondents

U.S. Textile and Apparel - USG Sales (2012-2016)
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Industry and Security

Textile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments – Preliminary, 2017

BIS/OTE Textile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments 47

U.S. Footwear - Participation in USG Programs (2012-2016)

Q3a,A 44 respondents

13

31

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Yes No

# of Respondents

Has your organization 

manufactured footwear for the 

U.S. Government (defense 

and/or non-defense) during 2012 

through 2016? )

10 organizations reported having 

interest in manufacturing footwear for 

the U.S. Government

Types of footwear products interested in 

supplying:

• Boots

• Custom shoes and boots

• Direct Attach

• Ice Skates & Roller Skates

• injection molded PVC boots

• Men's and Women's Boots, Oxfords, Athletic 

Shoes

• Men's and Women's boots/shoes

• Men's dress shoes; non-skid work shoes

• Military boots

• Outsoles, Shoe Lasts, Insoles, Foot beds

• Wildland Firefighting boots or derivative
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Industry and Security

Textile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments – Preliminary, 2017

BIS/OTE Textile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments 48

U.S. Footwear - USG Sales (2012-2016)

Q7 42 respondents

$1,361 $1,396 $1,358 

$1,443 $1,511 

$168 $198 $164 $215 

$292 

$141 $159 $126 $179 

$253 

$0 $7 $8 $17 $13 $21 

$200

$400

$600

$800

$1,000

$1,200

$1,400

$1,600

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

$ Millions

Total Sales from Finished Pairs Manufactured in the U.S. Footwear-Related Government Sales

Total Berry Amendment-Related Sales to DoD Total footwear-related Foreign Military Sales (FMS)
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Industry and Security

Textile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments – Preliminary, 2017

BIS/OTE Textile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments 49

272 respondents

2

4

10

33

40

41

44

98

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

Cost Reimbursement

Time and Materials

Indefinity Delivery

Not Applicable

Lowest Price Technically

Acceptable (LPTA)

Best Value

Other (explain below)

Fixed Price

# of Responses

Select the contract type your organization 

most frequently uses to do business with 

the U.S. Government.

Q3b, A.2

U.S. Textiles and Apparel – USG Contracting

COMMENTS:

Best Value

• Best Value, Fixed Price, IDIQ

• While the method of 

competing/evaluation/selection may be 

"best value" the type of contracts are fixed 

price contracts.

Fixed Price

• Fixed price contracts are the norm in our 

industry.

• Fixed Price Indefinite Quantity Contracts, 

specifically

Lowest Price Technically Acceptable 

(LPTA)

• LPTA- open bidding response to DLA

Other

• Mandatory source from prime

• Source America set aside

• Sub Contract

• We don't have contracts with the U.S. 

Government, we are subcontracted.
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Industry and Security

Textile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments – Preliminary, 2017

BIS/OTE Textile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments 50

Q3b, A.4 241 respondents

32

47

11

19

26

5

37

59

5

Yes No Not Applicable

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Does your organization have any recommendations to 

improve the overall U.S. Government acquisition process for 

textiles and apparel?

Textiles

Textile Products

Apparel

U.S. Textiles and Apparel - USG Contracting

RECOMMENDATIONS (sample):

• Contracting officers need to have a working knowledge and understanding of the industry they are soliciting in before soliciting. 

Fixed pricing for multiple years does not work in the uniform industry. Due to volatility of raw materials and of government

purchasing, a guess is all that a contractor can do. This results in higher prices to the government and volatile profitability to the 

contractor, so that neither party truly receives the best value.

• Cost adjustments for raw materials during contract, like the apparels have

• Delivery orders in 3 month increments do not give agencies volume buying power thereby increasing costs to the government. 

Nor do the short term orders allow for long term business planning/staffing/equipment for the agency.

• Deviations for product improvements should be allowed; obsolete specifications need to be updated.
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Industry and Security

Textile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments – Preliminary, 2017

BIS/OTE Textile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments 51

Q3b, B.4 276 respondents

8

48

17

28

9

22

8

16

31

57

21

11

Yes No Not Sure Not Applicable

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Would your organization suggest any changes in the mandatory 

source regulations or contracting practices?

Textiles

Textile Products

Apparel

U.S. Textiles and Apparel - USG Mandatory Sourcing

Comments:

• Change the ranking of priorities. Source America, then NIB, and then FPI.

• Do not allow FPI/UNICOR to bid on small business set asides.

• Eliminate FPI from offering on any type of Small Business Set-Aside

• Eliminate Mandatory Sourcing. In many cases suppliers are no longer in business.

• Federal Prison Industries has to go. Federal gov't is subsidizing the cost of sewn products by using prison labor. Why are we training 

prisoners for the very few sewing jobs that are still around? 
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Industry and Security

Textile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments – Preliminary, 2017

BIS/OTE Textile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments 52

14 respondents

1

1

1

2

2

7

0 2 4 6 8

Lowest Price Technically

Acceptable (LPTA)

Other (specify below)

Time and Materials

Fixed Price

Not Applicable

Best Value

# of Responses

Select the contract type your 

organization most frequently uses to do 

business with the U.S. Government.

Q3a, E.2

U.S. Footwear – USG Contracting

COMMENTS:

Best Value

• Best value in military boots defaults 

primarily to cost. Most contractors are 

deemed equivalent so best value tradeoffs 

default to cost. Small Businesses are 

poorly represented in solicitations.

• Best Value via TLS

• We prefer best value procurements as it 

includes past performance (i.e. delivery and 

quality record) as an evaluation factor. The 

majority of our contracts are firm-fixed 

price.

Fixed Price

• IDIQ has also been a factor in all previous 

contracts.

Lowest Price Technically Acceptable 

(LPTA)

• Always been this way
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Industry and Security

Textile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments – Preliminary, 2017

BIS/OTE Textile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments 53

Q3a, E.4 12 respondents

7

5

Yes No

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

# of Respondents

Does your organization have any 

recommendations to improve the 

overall U.S. Government acquisition 

process for footwear?

U.S. Footwear – USG Contracting

RECOMMENDATIONS:

• Expand Small Business utilization in 

solicitations and stop removing Small Business 

Lots during negotiations for price. This defeats 

the purpose of protecting Small Businesses.

• Quicker turn-around times from market survey 

to pre-solicitation to solicitation to contract 

award. Longer lead times are needed from 

award to the initial delivery of product. Need 

government to rely in a more faithful manner 

on expert footwear manufacturers as it relates 

to product specifications and the amount of 

time needed to manufacture product with the 

highest possible quality. We would 

recommend the elimination of small business 

set-asides and HUB Zone pricing advantages.

• Shorten the time from solicitation to award

• Shorting the amount of time from bid closings 

to award 
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Industry and Security

Textile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments – Preliminary, 2017

BIS/OTE Textile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments 54

Q3b, C1 280 respondents

26

169

85

Not Applicable

No

Yes

0 50 100 150 200

# of Respondents

Has your organization experienced difficulties 

working with textile and apparel-related 

military specifications (MILSPECs)? 

• Fabric manufacturers have a difficult 

time meeting the shade and physical 

spec on some product lines.

• Inconsistencies and errors noted in 

Purchase Description (PD's)

• It is sometimes difficult to obtain 

MILSPEC documents

• It is sometimes difficult to source 

materials, costs are high due to military 

procurement of textiles we need for 

other applications.

• Maintaining Berry compliance in 

relation to raw materials

• Majority of these specs are out of date!

• Many specifications are extremely 

outdated and non-applicable to current 

products

U.S. Textiles and Apparel – Military Specifications 

(MILSPECs)
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Industry and Security

Textile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments – Preliminary, 2017

BIS/OTE Textile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments 55

Q3a, F1 14 respondents

3

8

3

Not Applicable

No

Yes

0 2 4 6 8 10

# of Respondents

Has your organization experienced difficulties 

working with footwear-related military 

specifications (MILSPECs)? • Military specifications are very outdated 

and need to be updated to include any 

amendments/modifications the DoD 

has made prior to procurement 

issuance. A single, updated and 

finalized document needs to be issued 

to industry prior to the procurement to 

allow adequate time for response at 

time of procurement release. We would 

recommend the USG provide finalized 

specifications to be utilized in upcoming 

procurements at a minimum of 30 days 

in advance of the procurement.

• Only as it related to construction 

method. No other issues have been 

noticed. 

U.S. Footwear – Military Specifications (MILSPECs)
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Industry and Security

Textile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments – Preliminary, 2017

BIS/OTE Textile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments 56

295 respondents

Yes, 202, 68%

No, 37, 

13%

Not Sure, 40, 

14%

Not 

Applicable, 

16, 5%

Does the Berry Amendment have a positive impact 

on your organization's business?

Q3c, A.2

U.S. Textile and Apparel - Berry Amendment Impact
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Industry and Security

Textile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments – Preliminary, 2017

BIS/OTE Textile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments 57

Q3d, A 289 respondents

69

24

8

35

26

11

115

145

127

30

16

11

40

32

14

38

42

26

80

84

33

36

43

51

91

55

96

16

19

14

34

34

45

3

7

13

25

82

187

117

116

139

7

9

7

64

61

34

25

35

26

31

28

20

Decreasing the acquisition threshold (currently $150,000)

Increasing the acquisition threshold (currently $150,000)

Repealing the Berry Amendment in its entirety

Reducing the percentage of the 100% U.S.-origin

requirement

Allowing for more Berry Amendment exemptions

Reducing the number of product groups subject to the

Berry Amendment

Expanding the number of product groups subject to the

Berry Amendment (e.g., Athletic Shoes)

Expanding the number of USG agencies subject to the

Berry Amendment

Leaving the provisions of the Berry Amendment unchanged

# of Responses

For the following actions, indicate the impacts on your organization as 

they relate to the Berry Amendment

Positive Somewhat Positive No Impact Somewhat Negative Negative Too Difficult to Determine

U.S. Textile and Apparel - Berry Amendment
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Industry and Security

Textile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments – Preliminary, 2017

BIS/OTE Textile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments 58

U.S. Footwear - Berry Amendment Impact

Q3b,A.2 13 respondents

Yes, 11, 85%

No, 2, 15%

Does the Berry Amendment have a positive 

impact on your organization's business?
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Industry and Security

Textile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments – Preliminary, 2017

BIS/OTE Textile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments 59

U.S. Footwear - Berry Amendment

Q3c,A 13 respondents

7

9

6

2

2

4

1

1

2

1

2

2

3

1

2

3

1

1

2

2

3

2

1

1

7

1

1

8

9

8

11

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

Leaving the provisions of the Berry Amendment unchanged

Expanding the number of USG agencies subject to the Berry

Amendment

Expanding the number of product groups subject to the Berry

Amendment (e.g., Athletic Shoes)

Reducing the number of product groups subject to the Berry

Amendment

Allowing for more Berry Amendment exemptions

Reducing the percentage of the 100% U.S.-origin requirement

Repealing the Berry Amendment in its entirety

Increasing the acquisition threshold (currently $150,000)

Decreasing the acquisition threshold (currently $150,000)

# of Responses

Positive Somewhat Positive No Impact Somewhat Negative Negative Too Difficult to Determine
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Industry and Security

Textile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments – Preliminary, 2017

BIS/OTE Textile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments 60

Q3d, B2 289 respondents

Yes, 74, 26%

No, 49, 17%

Not Sure, 94, 

32%

N/A, 72, 25%

Does the Kissell Amendment have a positive impact on your 

organization's business? 

U.S. Textile and Apparel - Kissell Amendment Impact

• 44 respondents reported having used 

or worked under the provisions of the 

Kissell Amendment
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Industry and Security

Textile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments – Preliminary, 2017

BIS/OTE Textile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments 61

U.S. Footwear - Kissell Amendment Impact

Q3c,B.2 13 respondents

Yes, 5, 39%

No, 1, 

8%

Not Sure, 5, 38%

N/A, 2, 15%

Does the Kissell Amendment have a positive impact on your 

organization's business? 

• 6 respondents reported having used or 

worked under the provisions of the 

Kissell Amendment
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Industry and Security

Textile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments – Preliminary, 2017

BIS/OTE Textile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments 

U.S. Department of Commerce

Bureau of Industry and Security

1401 Constitution Avenue, NW

HCHB 1093

Washington, DC 20230

Elizabeth Oakes

Trade and Industry Analyst

(202) 482-4615

elizabeth.oakes@bis.doc.gov

62

Brad Botwin

Director, Industrial Studies

(202) 482-4060

brad.botwin@bis.doc.gov

Stamen Borisson

Trade and Industry Analyst

(202) 482-3893

stamen.borisson@bis.doc.gov

BIS/OTE Contact Information

Industrial Base Reports:

www.bis.doc.gov/DIB

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Industry and Security 

UNCLASSIFIED

Section 232 Investigations: 

www.bis.doc.gov/232

Erika Maynard

Special Projects Director

(202) 482-5572

erika.maynard@bis.doc.gov