The Trade Agreements Act 1979 (TAA), Pub.L. 96-39, 93 Stat. 144, promulgated July 26, 1979, codified as 19 U.S.C ch. 13 (19 U.S.C§ 2501-2581), is an act of Congress that regulates trade agreements negotiated between the United States and other countries under the Trade Act of 1974. It provided modalities for the implementation of the Tokyo Round of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. The second of these statutes is the TAA. The TAA was designed to encourage foreign countries to enter into reciprocal trade agreements on government procurement. These agreements prohibit foreign countries from discriminating against products made in America and prohibit the United States from discriminating against products of foreign origin. By law, countries that have such agreements and do not discriminate against products made in the United States can compete with non-discriminatory conditions to obtain a U.S. government. At the same time, products from countries that have not concluded such trade agreements are excluded from government procurement. Countries that have concluded such agreements are designated as parties to the World Trade Organization (“WTO”) agreement.
. Our team assists contractors in evaluating or implementing taa compliance programs, including measures to ensure that TAA compliant products are removed from FSS contract product lists. We can also help resolve cases of non-compliance with the TAA. With respect to the merits of the protest and the Federal Court of Claims` analysis, the Federal Circuit first rejected the government`s argument that CBP`s country of origin determination was binding on the VA. The court ruled that it is the central purchasing body, not CBP, that “is responsible for determining whether a proposed product qualifies as a finished product manufactured in the United States.” CBP`s observations to the contrary are not entitled to reservations. The court agreed with the government that the protester no longer had the power to challenge the current claim on the light of a prize that excluded him from the award. However, the Court found that the VA was “virtually certain” to make similar purchases in the future and that, without the VA`s incorrect application of the TAA, the protester was “very likely” to offer to those markets. The Tribunal stated that the Federal Claims Court has jurisdiction to deal with complaints against “any alleged violation of laws or regulations related to a procurement or proposed acquisition,” and that its own precedents have established that “related to” is very broad.
The court ruled that the protester was in a state of progress with regard to future purchases expected in the relatively near future. The court found that the protester had a considerable chance of securing future contracts for similar products and that the TAA`s interpretation, as explained by the VA, caused the protester a “non-trivial breach of competition”. Therefore, the protester was an interested party with the power to bring the protest. . . .