Military Uniforms
Issues Related to the Supply of Flame Resistant Fibers for the Production of Military Uniforms Gao ID: GAO-11-682R June 30, 2011Prior to Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom, Department of Defense (DOD) personnel with flame resistant (FR) uniforms were mainly aviators, fuel handlers, and tank crews. With the growing prevalence of the improvised explosive device (IED) threat, all ground forces serving in Iraq and Afghanistan have been exposed to the possibility of fire-related injuries. The Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 extended to 2015 the authority to procure fire resistant rayon fiber for the production of uniforms from certain foreign countries, provided by section 829 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 and originally set to expire in 2013. This letter discusses the briefing developed in response to the requirement in the Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 to report on the supply chain for FR fiber for the production of military uniforms. Specifically, the act required GAO to analyze several elements of the supply chain, including the current and anticipated sources of FR rayon fiber; actions DOD has taken to identify alternatives to FR rayon fiber; impediments to the use of such alternatives; and the impediments posed to efficient procurement of FR rayon fiber by existing statutory or regulatory requirements; among others. On March 15, 2011, we provided a draft of the briefing to Congress to satisfy this requirement.
In summary, an Austrian-headquartered company is presently the only source used for FR rayon fiber to support the manufacturing of FR uniforms for DOD. However, the department has taken a number of steps over the past 5 years to identify alternative FR fabric blends. For example, the military services have sought fabric/garment submissions through sources sought notices, market surveys, or solicitations in 2006, 2007, 2009, and 2010 to explore available options and have tested a wide variety of FR fabrics. Based on our review of military service testing, it is unclear if FR rayon's flame resistant characteristics are better than all other alternatives. Further, some DOD and industry officials stated that FR rayon has several advantages, including improved comfort, moisture absorbency, and ability to be dyed, while others have stated that fabrics with FR rayon tend to be less durable than those using other FR fibers. With respect to legal requirements applying to the production and use of FR rayon fibers, immediately relevant to our assessment was the Berry Amendment, which generally prohibits the use of funds available to DOD for the procurement of certain items when not grown, reprocessed, reused, or produced in the United States, absent an exception. Two exceptions relevant to FR rayon fiber are the general availability exception under the Berry Amendment itself, which results in a domestic nonavailability determination (DNAD), and the exception unique to FR rayon provided by the authority found in section 829 of the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2008. DOD indicated that a DNAD issued in 2001 for rayon yarn for use in military clothing and textile items provides the basis for the waiver presently used for purchase of FR rayon for military uniforms. We are not making any recommendations in this report.
GAO-11-682R, Military Uniforms: Issues Related to the Supply of Flame Resistant Fibers for the Production of Military Uniforms
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-11-682R
entitled 'Military Uniforms: Issues Related to the Supply of Flame
Resistant Fibers for the Production of Military Uniforms' which was
released on June 30, 2011.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as
part of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility.
Every attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data
integrity of the original printed product. Accessibility features,
such as text descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes
placed at the end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters,
are provided but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format
of the printed version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an
exact electronic replica of the printed version. We welcome your
feedback. Please E-mail your comments regarding the contents or
accessibility features of this document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. 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.
GAO-11-682R:
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
June 30, 2011:
The Honorable Carl Levin:
Chairman:
The Honorable John McCain:
Ranking Member:
Committee on Armed Services:
United States Senate:
The Honorable Buck McKeon:
Chairman:
The Honorable Adam Smith:
Ranking Member:
Committee on Armed Services:
House of Representatives:
Subject: Military Uniforms: Issues Related to the Supply of Flame
Resistant Fibers for the Production of Military Uniforms:
Prior to Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom,
Department of Defense (DOD) personnel with flame resistant (FR)
uniforms were mainly aviators, fuel handlers, and tank crews. With the
growing prevalence of the improvised explosive device (IED) threat,
all ground forces serving in Iraq and Afghanistan have been exposed to
the possibility of fire-related injuries. The Ike Skelton National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 extended to 2015 the
authority to procure fire resistant[Footnote 1] rayon fiber for the
production of uniforms from certain foreign countries, provided by
section 829 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2008 and originally set to expire in 2013.[Footnote 2]
This letter formally transmits the enclosed briefing developed in
response to the requirement in the Ike Skelton National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 to report on the supply chain
for FR fiber for the production of military uniforms. Specifically,
the act required GAO to analyze several elements of the supply chain,
including the current and anticipated sources of FR rayon fiber;
actions DOD has taken to identify alternatives to FR rayon fiber;
impediments to the use of such alternatives; and the impediments posed
to efficient procurement of FR rayon fiber by existing statutory or
regulatory requirements; among others.[Footnote 3] On March 15, 2011,
we provided a draft of the enclosed briefing to your offices to
satisfy this requirement. Based on subsequent briefings to your
offices, we updated the enclosed briefing by adding slide 28.
To conduct this work, we interviewed and analyzed data from a number
of DOD and military service officials, as well as from representatives
of companies that manufacture or use flame resistant fibers, and
relevant officials from trade associations, academia, and testing
facilities about sources of FR rayon and available alternatives to FR
rayon. Additionally, we obtained DOD and industry views on relevant
laws and regulations. We conducted this performance audit from
February 2011 to June 2011 in accordance with generally accepted
government auditing standards (GAGAS). These standards required 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.
In summary, an Austrian-headquartered company is presently the only
source used for FR rayon fiber to support the manufacturing of FR
uniforms for DOD. However, the department has taken a number of steps
over the past 5 years to identify alternative FR fabric blends. For
example, the military services have sought fabric/garment submissions
through sources sought notices, market surveys, or solicitations in
2006, 2007, 2009, and 2010 to explore available options and have
tested a wide variety of FR fabrics. Based on our review of military
service testing, it is unclear if FR rayon's flame resistant
characteristics are better than all other alternatives. Further, some
DOD and industry officials stated that FR rayon has several
advantages, including improved comfort, moisture absorbency, and
ability to be dyed, while others have stated that fabrics with FR
rayon tend to be less durable than those using other FR fibers. With
respect to legal requirements applying to the production and use of FR
rayon fibers, immediately relevant to our assessment was the Berry
Amendment,[Footnote 4] which generally prohibits the use of funds
available to DOD for the procurement of certain items when not grown,
reprocessed, reused, or produced in the United States, absent an
exception.[Footnote 5] Two exceptions relevant to FR rayon fiber are
the general availability exception under the Berry Amendment itself,
which results in a domestic nonavailability determination (DNAD),
[Footnote 6] and the exception unique to FR rayon provided by the
authority found in section 829 of the National Defense Authorization
Act for fiscal year 2008.[Footnote 7] DOD indicated that a DNAD issued
in 2001 for rayon yarn for use in military clothing and textile items
provides the basis for the waiver presently used for purchase of FR
rayon for military uniforms.[Footnote 8]
We are not making any recommendations in this report.
Enclosure I contains briefing slides that provide additional details
regarding our findings. DOD did not provide written comments on this
report. However, after reviewing a draft of this report, DOD officials
agreed with its content and provided technical comments, which we
incorporated where appropriate. Additionally, we provided information
related to this briefing to industry and academic officials to ensure
its technical accuracy. They generally agreed and provided technical
comments which we incorporated as appropriate.
We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional
committees. We are also sending a copy to the Secretary of Defense. In
addition, this report will be available at no charge on our Web site
at [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/].
Should you or your staff have any questions concerning this report,
please contact me at (202) 512-8365 or solisw@gao.gov. Key
contributors to this report are listed in enclosure II. Contact points
for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be
found on the last page of this report.
Signed by:
William Solis:
Director:
Defense Capabilities and Management:
Enclosures - 2:
[End of section]
Enclosure I: Military Uniforms: Issues Related to the Supply of Flame
Resistant Fibers for the Production of Military Uniforms:
Briefing to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the
House of Representatives:
Updated June 2011:
Overview:
* Introduction:
* Review Elements:
* Scope and Methodology:
* Background:
* Findings:
* Agency and Third Party Views:
* List of Department of Defense (DOD), Industry, and Other
Organizations Contacted:
* Elements: Section 821(c) of the Ike Skelton National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011:
Introduction:
As the threat from Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs) emerged during
Operation Iraqi Freedom and continues today, numerous capabilities
have been developed to protect the warfighter. These solutions include
such items as armored vehicles, improved body armor, and flame
resistant (FR) uniforms.
A component used in many of the FR uniforms has been FR rayon, a
material not produced domestically. Accordingly, DOD has been
procuring FR rayon from foreign sources through a domestic
nonavailability determination, a waiver of a legal requirement to use
domestic sources.
There has been debate about whether there are domestically available
alternatives to FR rayon and whether DOD should be allowed to continue
procuring foreign source FR rayon.
* In January 2011, the Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2011 extended a waiver provided by section 829 of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008, set to expire
in 2013, to 2015.[Footnote 9] The act also required GAO to assess
issues related to the supply chain for fire resistant[Footnote 10]
fiber for the production of military uniforms. This briefing satisfies
that requirement.
Review Elements:
In response to the requirements in the Ike Skelton National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011, this briefing addresses the
following objectives:[Footnote 11]
(A) The current and anticipated sources of FR rayon fiber for the
production of military uniforms.
(B) The extent to which FR rayon fiber has unique properties that
provide advantages for the production of military uniforms.
(C) The extent to which the efficient procurement of FR rayon fiber
for the production of military uniforms may be impeded by existing
statutory or regulatory requirements.
(D) The actions the Department of Defense has taken to identify
alternatives to FR rayon fiber for the production of military uniforms.
(E) The extent to which such alternatives provide an adequate
substitute for FR rayon fiber for the production of military uniforms.
(F) Any impediments to the use of such alternatives, and the actions
the department has taken to overcome such impediments.
(G) The extent to which any uncertainty regarding the future
availability of FR rayon fiber results in instability or inefficiency
for elements of the U.S. textile industry that use FR rayon fiber, and
the extent to which that instability or inefficiency results in less
efficient business practices, impedes investment and innovation, and
thereby results or may result in higher costs, delayed delivery, or a
lower quality of product delivered to the government.
(H) The extent to which any modifications to existing law or
regulation may be necessary to ensure the efficient acquisition of FR
fiber or alternative FR products for the production of military
uniforms.
Scope and Methodology:
To determine current and future DOD plans for using FR fibers or flame
retardants in military uniforms, and to analyze relevant federal laws
and regulations, we collected data, as well as information on
pertinent laws and regulations from DOD, military departments, and
service components, and met with relevant officials.
To determine current and future sources of FR fibers in military
uniforms, to analyze the advantages of or impediments to using FR
fibers (both rayon and alternatives) in military uniforms, to obtain
perspectives on pertinent laws and regulations, and to determine the
impact on the textile industry from uncertainty about the availability
of FR rayon and any alternative fibers, we interviewed representatives
from companies that manufacture or use FR rayon and alternative
fibers, and relevant officials from trade associations, academia, and
testing facilities.
A list of DOD, industry, and other organizations we contacted can be
found on slides 34 and 35.
We conducted this performance audit from February 2011 to June 2011 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards
(GAGAS).
We provided information related to this briefing to DOD, industry, and
academic officials to ensure its technical accuracy. They generally
agreed and provided technical comments which we incorporated as
appropriate.
Background:
Prior to Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom, DOD
personnel with FR uniforms were mainly aviators, fuel handlers, and
tank crews. In addition to DOD personnel, utility workers,
firefighters, oil/gas industry workers, mechanics, and certain types
of engineers also use FR uniforms. These personnel required FR
uniforms because of their potential exposure to fire or other thermal
energy.
With the prevalence of the IED threat, all ground forces serving in
Iraq and Afghanistan were exposed to the possibility of fire-related
injuries. However, according to DOD officials, personnel raised
concerns that existing FR uniforms were uncomfortable and not suited
for the desert environment.
In July 2006, the Army issued a notice seeking sources to gain
information on industry capabilities for FR materials and subsequently
evaluated 18 FR fabrics for future FR uniforms. The Army chose a
fabric called TenCate Defender™ M--a blend of three different fibers,
including FR rayon. According to the Army's Program Executive Office
(PEO) Soldier, TenCate Defender™ M provided the best combination of
flame resistance, durability, and breathability while also closely
matching the non-FR uniform in texture and appearance. The Marine
Corps also selected TenCate Defender™ M for its FR uniforms based on
its own internal testing.
In August 2007, the Army and Air Force jointly issued a solicitation
to identify alternatives to TenCate Defender™ M based on concerns
about the availability of FR rayon given a projected increase in
demand from both services. According to Army officials, 26 proposals
were evaluated, and two solutions were recommended--TenCate Defender™
M and a Nomex® and FR treated cotton-based blend called Abrams™ V.
However, the Abrams™ V fabric had a different weave that did not match
the Army's existing TenCate Defender™ M uniforms, creating variations
in appearance that Army leadership found unacceptable. According to
the officials, the Air Force agreed to purchase the Abrams™ V uniforms
under the newly awarded contract to alleviate concerns about the
availability of FR rayon to meet the Army's surge in FR uniform
requirements. The officials stated that the Army, however, purchased
only the minimum quantity of Abrams™ V uniforms required by the
contract, electing instead to continue buying TenCate Defender™ M
uniforms under its existing contract.
Over the past 5 years, the military has sought fabric/garment
submissions to explore and test a wide variety of fabrics. For
example, the Army issued FR Army combat uniform sources sought
notices[Footnote 12] or solicitations in July 2006, August 2007, and
February 2010.
Most recently, the Army and Marine Corps have been testing FR fabrics
as part of ongoing efforts to identify alternative fabrics with
improved durability and equal FR capabilities.
Currently, the Air Force uses Abrams™ V, a Nomex® and FR treated
cotton-based blend fabric for its FR ground combat uniforms. However,
the Air Force recently changed its wear policy for Afghanistan
directing its personnel in that area of operation to wear the Army's
Multicam® uniform, if available. Also known as the Operation Enduring
Freedom Camouflage Pattern (OCP) uniform, it provides better
camouflage in the Afghanistan environment and is constructed from an
FR rayon-based fabric. Air Force officials told us that they are
interested in the Army's ongoing study to select new ground combat
uniforms and may consider adopting the same should it meet their needs.
The Navy does not currently have a FR ground combat uniform. However,
the Navy uses the Marine Corps FR uniform and Nomex® flight suits
provided from the Marine Corps Systems Command and the Defense
Logistics Agency (DLA), respectively. In addition, Navy personnel
assigned to Army and Marine Corps units may wear the FR garment issued
by those services when deployed.
Flame resistance in fabrics can be achieved in two ways:
(1) By using inherently FR materials and fibers. Flame resistance is
the property of a material whereby flaming combustion is prevented,
terminated, or inhibited following application of a flaming or
nonflaming source of ignition with or without subsequent removal of
the ignition source.[Footnote 13] For example, Nomex® is an inherently
FR fiber.
(2) By using special treatments of fibers or fabrics. A flame
retardant is a chemical used to impart flame resistance.[Footnote 14]
For example, cotton blends are treated with a topical chemical
application.[Footnote 15]
FR fabrics can be produced from a single fiber (e.g., modacrylic) or
from blends of two or more fibers. A variety of fibers may be used to
create a fabric blend, including FR rayon, Nomex®, Twaron®, Kevlar®,
FR cotton, polybenzimidazole (PBI), modacrylic, oxidized
polyacrylonitrile (OPAN), and nylon, among others--each having its own
unique properties.
Blending of fibers is a common practice in industry to optimize the
desired flame resistance and other properties, such as cost,
durability, comfort, moisture absorbency, ability to be dyed, and fade
resistance.
Figure 1: Supply Chain Flow Chart for TenCate Defender™ M Fabric:
[Refer to PDF for image: illustration]
Fiber manufacturer:
Netherlands: Twaron;
Austria: Fire resistant rayon;
United States: Nylon.
In the United States:
Fabric manufacturer:
Yarn Mill: spins fiber into yarn;
Weaving Mill: Weaves yarn into fabric;
Finishing Mill: Dyes, prints, and finishes fabric.
Garment manufacturer:
Cuts and sews fabric into uniforms.
Military:
Issues to servicemembers.
Source: GAO analysis of DOD and industry data.
[End of figure]
A variety of laws, such as the Buy American Act, are designed to
encourage federal agencies to purchase U.S. supplies and services,
commonly referred to as domestic source restrictions. In addition,
Congress has passed domestic source restrictions that apply only to
particular federal agencies, such as the Berry Amendment, which
applies only to DOD.
The Berry Amendment:
* Generally, the Berry Amendment[Footnote 16] prohibits use of funds
available to DOD for the procurement of certain items when such an
item "is not grown, reprocessed, reused, or produced in the United
States."[Footnote 17]
* A number of statutory and regulatory exceptions apply to the Berry
Amendment,[Footnote 18] but two availability exceptions are the most
relevant to this report:
(1) The general availability exception under the Berry Amendment
itself:
- DOD indicated that this exception provides the basis for the waiver
presently used for FR rayon.
(2) The exception specific to FR rayon provided by the authority found
in section 829 of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for
Fiscal Year 2008:
- DOD indicated that this authority is not presently used for FR rayon.
The Exceptions to the Berry Amendment:
First, the availability exception under the Berry Amendment itself
applies where certain officials determine that articles or items in
satisfactory quality and sufficient quantity cannot be obtained from
the domestic base "as and when needed at United States market
prices."[Footnote 19] The relevant official issues a domestic
nonavailability determination (DNAD).[Footnote 20] On July 20, 2001,
the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition,
Technology, and Logistics (USD(AT&L)) issued a DNAD for rayon yarn for
use in military clothing and textile items.[Footnote 21] In
correspondence with members of Congress in 2009, the USD(AT&L)
indicated that this DNAD covers the procurement of FR rayon.[Footnote
22]
Second, the exception found in section 829 of the NDAA for FY 2008
provides the authority to procure FR rayon fiber from certain foreign
countries, following necessary determinations.[Footnote 23]
* To use the authority, the Secretary of Defense must determine either
that (1) FR rayon fiber for uniform production is unavailable from
sources within the national technology and industrial base; or (2)
Procuring FR rayon fiber manufactured from suppliers within the
national technology and industrial base would result in sole-source
contracts or subcontracts that are not in the best interests of the
government or consistent with the objectives of competition in
contracting.[Footnote 24]
* Although the authority was to expire on January 28, 2013, section
821(a) of the Ike Skelton NDAA for FY 2011 provided an extension until
January 1, 2015.[Footnote 25]
* In his 2009 correspondence, the USD(AT&L) suggested that DOD has not
issued a determination pursuant to section 829 because it is relying
instead on the 2001 DNAD for rayon yarn.[Footnote 26]
The Buy American Act:
The Buy American Act restricts the acquisition of articles
manufactured outside the United States and articles manufactured
domestically but substantially all from articles, materials, or
supplies from foreign sources.[Footnote 27]
* An exception can be made based on a determination that (1)
acquisition of domestic articles is "inconsistent with the public
interest," (2) their cost is "unreasonable," or (3) items are not made
domestically in sufficient and reasonably available quantities and are
not of a satisfactory quality, among other circumstances.[Footnote 28]
* Under DOD implementing regulations, a manufactured end product is
considered domestic if it is manufactured in the United States and if
the cost of its components from the U.S. and qualifying countries
exceeds 50 percent of the cost of all components.[Footnote 29]
Findings: Sources of Rayon Fiber:
(A) The current and anticipated sources of FR rayon fiber for the
production of military uniforms.
* Currently, there is only one source of FR rayon fibers to support
the manufacturing of FR uniforms for the Department of Defense--an
Austrian-headquartered company, Lenzing.
* Other types of FR rayon fibers are produced by other companies in
Finland, China, and Japan, but these fibers are used for nonwoven
products, such as FR fibers for mattresses and cannot be used to make
uniforms, according to an industry official.
* No U.S. source currently exists for the production of FR rayon.
According to several industry officials, it is unlikely that the U.S.
textile industry will develop any FR rayon production given the costs
to build and maintain environmentally compliant manufacturing
facilities, uncertain demand from DOD, and a limited commercial market.
Findings: Properties of Rayon Fiber:
(B) The extent to which FR rayon fiber has unique properties that
provide advantages for the production of military uniforms.
* Based on our review of military service testing, it is unclear if FR
rayon's flame resistant characteristics are better than all other
alternatives. Some tests indicate that fabric blends with FR rayon
provide better protection; however, other tests show that fabrics
without FR rayon may perform as well or better than those with FR
rayon. According to Army and Marine Corps officials, fabric blends
containing FR rayon have met FR test requirements.
* However, DOD and industry officials stated that FR rayon has several
advantages such as improved comfort, moisture absorbency, and ability
to be dyed.
* On the other hand, according to DOD and industry officials, FR rayon
tends to be less durable than other FR fibers. To mitigate this
weakness, FR rayon can be blended with other fibers to produce a
fabric with increased durability. For example, TenCate Defender™ M is
a fabric blend that combines FR rayon with a para-aramid fiber (such
as Twaron®) and nylon to improve durability.
Findings: Statutes and Regulations:
(C) The extent to which the efficient procurement of FR rayon fiber
for the production of military uniforms may be impeded by existing
statutory or regulatory requirements.
We discussed statutory or regulatory requirements that might apply to
the production of FR rayon with industry representatives and DOD
officials to determine which one(s) they view as potentially affecting
the procurement of FR rayon for the production of military uniforms.
In addition to asking generally about potential impediments, we
specifically discussed the following:
* the Berry Amendment,
* environmental laws and regulations,
* the Buy American Act, and:
* workplace safety laws and regulations.
The Berry Amendment:
DOD and military service officials suggested that the Berry Amendment
was not an impediment, due to the availability of a Berry Amendment
waiver.
* However, several military service officials recognized the need to
seek entirely domestic solutions if a waiver no longer existed.
* In fact, officials from one service indicated that their ultimate
goal is to find an entirely domestic solution that does not depend on
a waiver.
Industry representatives similarly expressed the view that the Berry
Amendment was not an impediment, due to use of a waiver. However,
there were mixed views on how a waiver impacts innovation.
* Several suggested that the absence of a waiver would preclude the
use of FR rayon, limiting their choice of fibers, and constraining
their ability to develop FR solutions that meet desired
characteristics (e.g., flame resistance, durability, comfort, etc.).
* Others suggested that a waiver limits innovation by encouraging use
of FR rayon as opposed to developing alternative solutions.
* Representatives from one company expressed concern that DOD might
not consider alternatives from a foreign source where a waiver does
not already exist.
Although some industry representatives and DOD officials correctly
identified a DNAD under the Berry Amendment itself as the waiver
presently used for FR rayon, others appear to believe that DOD relied
to some extent on the authority provided by section 829 of the NDAA
for 2008.
Environmental Laws and Regulations:
Industry representatives stated that environmental laws impacted the
production of FR rayon in the United States by raising the costs to
build and maintain manufacturing facilities, but they did not identify
any specific laws or regulations that posed impediments.[Footnote 30]
Most industry representatives stated that the cost to comply with
environmental laws and regulations was just one factor that industry
would have considered in a business decision to open a domestic FR
rayon production plant. For example, several representatives and
officials noted that environmental regulations existed in Austria,
where at least one firm has found it cost effective to continue FR
rayon production and expand plant capacity. Industry officials cited
other business factors that would have to be considered, including:
* whether DOD's demand for FR rayon alone is sufficient and
predictable to support a business case for new plant construction; and:
* the likelihood that a new start U.S. rayon production plant will be
able to recapture a sufficient share of the commercial rayon fiber
market to produce a positive return on investment, recover its initial
start-up costs, and make a profit.
The Buy American Act:
DOD officials did not view the Buy American Act as an impediment,
since the act is generally less restrictive than the Berry Amendment.
They confirmed that FR uniforms are generally manufactured in the
United States using materials from domestic or qualifying country
sources, which would likely make them compliant with the Buy American
Act.
Workplace Safety Laws and Regulations:
Industry representatives and DOD officials did not identify any
workplace safety or labor legal regimes as an impediment to efficient
procurement.
Findings: Alternatives:
(D) The actions the Department of Defense has taken to identify
alternatives to FR rayon fiber for the production of military uniforms.
The Department of Defense has taken actions since 2006 to identify
alternative FR fibers for military uniforms, including maintaining
contact with industry organizations through site visits and Industry
Day events; conducting a market survey; issuing sources sought
notices; and testing fabric blends to gain information about the
latest improvements in FR fabric blends.
FR fabrics are currently being tested by the services to identify
alternative FR fabrics or to improve flame protection, durability,
laundering reaction, comfort, and price. Just over half of the fabrics
currently being tested contain FR rayon fibers; alternative fibers are
being tested in fabric blends as well, including domestically produced
fibers such as meta-aramids (e.g., Nomex®), modacrylic, PBI, and FR-
treated cotton.
* For example, the Army is currently testing fabrics in an attempt to
qualify more than one fabric for use in the production of its future
FR uniforms. Of the 52 samples submitted for review by industry, 39
samples contained FR rayon, while 12 samples did not contain FR rayon
fibers.[Footnote 31]
* The Marine Corps is currently field testing five fabrics from
approximately 100 industry proposals in an effort to identify a more
durable uniform fabric that provides the same level of flame
resistance. Four of these five fabric blends contain FR rayon.
* In 2008, in response to an urgent operational need request for flame
resistant ground combat equipment in U.S. Central Command's area of
operation, the Air Force tested 26 FR fabric blends. Of the 26 samples
tested, 14 contained FR rayon, while 12 did not contain FR rayon. The
Air Force chose the Abrams V® fabric, a domestically produced blend of
nylon, cotton, and Nomex®.
* In 2010, the Navy Clothing and Textile Research Facility (NCTRF)
conducted a market survey to determine the availability of cost-
effective FR materials for use in military clothing and equipment.
- Of the 33 industry submissions, the Navy determined that 11 of the
samples met the requirements of the market survey, of which 9 did not
contain FR rayon.
- Testing results in the market survey were limited by considering
only flame resistance and cost, with no specified end product. The
resulting market study report recommended more extensive flame and
physical property testing for materials with potential application to
specific end items to determine if they meet specified requirements
particular to the item.
- The list of cost-effective FR materials identified as meeting the
requirements of the Navy's market survey have been provided to each
service to determine if there are potential applications of the tested
samples to current or developmental items.
The extent to which DOD will evaluate non-Berry Amendment compliant
[Footnote 32] sources was uncertain. For example:
* An Army sources sought notice in 2006 provided that Berry Amendment
noncompliance did not exclude items from consideration. In comparison,
a sources sought notice from 2010 does not explicitly address Berry
Amendment compliance.
* Army and Marine Corps officials stated that Berry Amendment
compliance does not prevent them from evaluating and burn testing the
noncompliant materials.
- However, representatives from one manufacturer indicated that their
submission in response to the 2010 Army sources sought notice was not
evaluated because their product was noncompliant with the Berry
Amendment. According to the representatives, without an opportunity to
demonstrate the capabilities of their material, they would be unlikely
to obtain an exception to the Berry Amendment or have sufficient
information to develop a business case for developing domestic
production. The Department of the Army responded to the submission and
indicated the Army was unable to consider it, characterizing Berry
Amendment compliance as mandatory for that review of sources.
Navy officials stated that they would evaluate noncompliant materials
to determine if they meet or exceed current warfighter requirements.
However, Air Force officials stated that they would not request,
review, or test flame resistant materials that are not Berry Amendment
compliant and that they do not have a mechanism in place to obtain
information about materials that are noncompliant.
Findings: Adequate Alternatives:
(E) The extent to which such alternatives provide an adequate
substitute for FR rayon fiber for the production of military uniforms.
Alternatives to FR rayon fibers exist; however, in evaluating FR
fabrics for use in uniforms there are many factors to consider beyond
flame resistance.
The services have identified a number of performance measures used to
evaluate FR fabrics. The measures include flame protection,
durability, laundering, comfort, and cost.
According to DOD and industry representatives, individual fibers
should not be considered alone in assessing their suitability for FR
uniforms. Rather, FR fabrics are generally blends of multiple fibers,
each providing its own advantages as well as capabilities to offset
the disadvantages of others.
The services are using or are considering a number of alternatives to
FR rayon, for example:
* The Navy and Air Force use Nomex® in their flight suits and the
Airman Battle Ensemble, and the Army uses Nomex® in its Improved
Combat Vehicle Crewmen's Coverall.
* The Army and Marine Corps are considering fabric blends containing
FR-treated cotton as a potential alternative.
* The Marine Corps uses PBI fibers in its balaclava (a protective
covering for the head), and modacrylic fiber in its T-shirt and the
knitted section of its combat shirt. Currently, the Army is testing
fabric blends that include PBI fibers.
(F) Any impediments to the use of such alternatives, and the actions
the department has taken to overcome such impediments.
Service officials identified some impediments to the use of Nomex®,
including:
* Higher relative cost of Nomex®.
* Long lead time for Nomex®.
= To address concerns regarding the Nomex® supply chain, in February
2008 DLA conducted an industrial base analysis for the supply of
Nomex®. The study found that the raw material lead times, production
capacity, and other factors were constraining the supply of Nomex®.
DOD invested in the supply of Nomex® through the WarStopper Program.
[Footnote 33]
Army officials stated that fabric blends containing FR-treated cotton,
while a potential alternative, requires special finishing equipment
and expertise to cure the fabric, which most textile finishing plants
do not have.
According to Marine Corps officials, PBI is difficult to dye and may
not be cost effective compared to alternatives given its relatively
higher cost.
Findings: Industry:
(G) The extent to which any uncertainty regarding the future
availability of FR rayon fiber results in instability or inefficiency
for elements of the U.S. textile industry that use FR rayon fiber, and
the extent to which that instability or inefficiency results in less
efficient business practices, impedes investment and innovation, and
thereby results or may result in higher costs, delayed delivery, or a
lower quality of product delivered to the government.
We spoke with representatives from nine industry manufacturers as well
as representatives from industry trade associations, academia, and
testing facilities regarding their role or perspective with regard to
the production, supply, and use of FR fibers in military uniforms.
According to industry representatives:
* The uncertainty of the future availability of FR rayon inhibits
investment and innovation. For example, if a waiver ceases to exist,
industry representatives expressed a risk averseness to invest in
large capital and/or R&D to develop products that involve rayon.
However, representatives from one manufacturer indicated that the
uncertainty of FR rayon availability may not necessarily inhibit
capital investments because equipment used to process FR rayon can
also be used to process alternatives to FR rayon.
* Cutting off the supply of FR rayon would be detrimental. For
example, representatives from one manufacturer indicated a restriction
on foreign sources of FR rayon would severely impact the current
production of certain FR uniforms, and in the long run would dissuade
companies we spoke with from making investment decisions to support
further research and development of FR rayon-based fabrics. Industry
representatives were uncertain about what specific impact this might
have on cost, delivery, or quality of product delivered to the
government.
* No concerns were raised regarding the current production capacity to
supply FR rayon.
Findings: Consideration of Future Laws and Regulations:
(H) The extent to which any modifications to existing law or
regulation may be necessary to ensure the efficient acquisition of FR
fiber or alternative FR products for the production of military
uniforms.
Some industry representatives suggested that any Berry Amendment
waiver for FR rayon should be further extended or made permanent, to
provide certainty for the supply chain and promote investment by
fabric manufacturers.
* Some of those who recognized that section 829 was not the basis of
the present waiver nevertheless suggested that extension or permanence
of the section 829 waiver would provide some degree of certainty to
companies in the supply chain.[Footnote 34]
* Some expressed concern that the DOD might cease to use the DNAD.
In 2009 correspondence with members of Congress, the USD(AT&L)
suggested that the authority to procure under section 829 might
provide an exception to the Berry Amendment if a single domestic
source for FR rayon appeared, while the DNAD availability exception
would not. As such, DOD viewed the authority under section 829 as
valuable, even though it is not presently used, and therefore appeared
to favor continuing availability.
Industry representatives and DOD officials identified no necessary
modifications to environmental or workplace safety laws or regulations.
Agency and Third Party Views:
DOD did not provide written comments on this report. However, after
reviewing a draft of this report, DOD officials agreed with its
content and provided technical comments, which we incorporated where
appropriate.
Similarly, we sent relevant portions of the draft report to each of
the industry and academic organizations we included in this engagement
for their review and comment. Generally, these officials agreed with
the material presented and some provided technical comments, which we
incorporated where appropriate. However, officials from one
organization expressed concerns that their views were not fully
captured in our characterizations of industry perspectives. They
provided additional information and views, which we incorporated into
the briefing as appropriate.
List of DOD, Industry and Other Organizations Contacted:
We collected data from officials from the following DOD, industry, and
other organizations:
* Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition,
Technology, and Logistics:
* Defense Logistics Agency:
- Troop Support:
* Army, PEO Soldier, Army Natick Soldier Research, Development and
Engineering Center:
* Navy, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Naval Aviation Command,
Naval Clothing and Textile Research Facility:
* Marine Corps, Marine Corps System Command:
* Air Force, Aircrew Performance Branch:
* Special Operations Command:
- Army, Special Operations Command:
- Naval Special Warfare:
- Marine Corps, Special Operations Command:
- Air Force, Special Operations Command:
* Industry Associations:
- National Textile Association:
- American Apparel and Footwear Association:
* Industry:
- Atlantic Thread and Supply Company, Inc.
- Lenzing Group:
- Dupont:
- Inman Mills:
- Patton Boggs, LLP (Representing Teijin Aramid):
- Tencate Protective Fabrics:
- Milliken & Company:
- PBI Performance Products, Inc.
- GSL, Inc.
* Academia:
- Clemson University, Clemson Apparel Research:
- North Carolina State University, Textile Protection and Comfort
Center:
Elements: Section 821(c) of the Ike Skelton NDAA for Fiscal Year 2011:
Section 821(c): Report required:
(1) In General. Not later than March 15, 2011, the Comptroller General
of the United States shall submit to the Committees on Armed Services
of the Senate and the House of Representatives a report on the supply
chain for fire resistant fiber for the production of military uniforms.
(2) Elements. The report required by paragraph (1) shall include, at a
minimum, an analysis of the following:
(A) The current and anticipated sources of fire resistant rayon fiber
for the production of military uniforms.
(B) The extent to which fire resistant rayon fiber has unique
properties that provide advantages for the production of military
uniforms.
(C) The extent to which the efficient procurement of fire resistant
rayon fiber for the production of military uniforms is impeded by
existing statutory or regulatory requirements.
(D) The actions the Department of Defense has taken to identify
alternatives to fire resistant rayon fiber for the production of
military uniforms.
(E) The extent to which such alternatives provide an adequate
substitute for fire resistant rayon fiber for the production of
military uniforms.
(F) The impediments to the use of such alternatives, and the actions
the Department has taken to overcome such impediments.
(G) The extent to which uncertainty regarding the future availability
of fire resistant rayon fiber results in instability or inefficiency
for elements of the United States textile industry that use fire
resistant rayon fiber, and the extent to which that instability or
inefficiency results in less efficient business practices, impedes
investment and innovation, and thereby results or may result in higher
costs, delayed delivery, or a lower quality of product delivered to
the Government.
(H) The extent to which any modifications to existing law or
regulation may be necessary to ensure the efficient acquisition of
fire resistant fiber or alternative fire resistant products for the
production of military uniforms.
Pub. L. No. 111-383, § 821(c) (2011).
[End of section]
Enclosure II: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO contact:
William Solis, (202) 512-8365 or solisw@gao.gov:
Staff Acknowledgments:
In addition to the contact named above, key contributors to this
report include Cary Russell, Assistant Director; Larry Junek,
Assistant Director; Usman Ahmad; Marquita Campbell; Laura Czohara;
James Lackey; Tobin McMurdie; Elizabeth Morris; Richard Powelson; Mike
Shaughnessy; Amie Steele; and Delia Zee.
[End of section]
Footnotes:
[1] Although the act used the term "fire resistant," "flame resistant"
is more generally accepted in industry and DOD.
[2] See Pub. L. No. 111-383, § 821(a) (2011) (H.R. 6523) (extending
the authority provided by § 829 of the National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2008, Pub. L. No. 110-181 (2008)).
[3] For additional information on the eight elements of the
requirement, see enclosure I, slides 36-37.
[4] 10 U.S.C. § 2533a.
[5] See § 2533a(a).
[6] See § 2533a(c); see also 48 C.F.R. § 225.7002-2(b).
[7] See Pub. L. No. 110-181, § 829(a), as amended by Pub. L. No. 111-
383, § 821(a).
[8] See Under Secretary of Defense (AT&L), Class Determination of
Domestic Non-Availability for Rayon Yarn for Military Clothing and
Textile Items (July 20, 2001). DOD indicated that the authority
provided by section 829 is not presently used, but nevertheless viewed
it as valuable.
[9] See Pub. L. No. 111-383, § 821(a) (2011) (H.R. 6523) (extending
the authority provided by § 829 of the National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2008, Pub. L. No. 110-181 (2008)).
[10] Although section 821 used the term "fire resistant," "flame
resistant" is more generally accepted in industry and DOD.
[11] For the complete language of the statute, see slides 36-37.
[12] A sources sought notice is a synopsis posted by a government
agency that states they are seeking possible sources for a project. It
is not a solicitation of offers.
[13] ASTM D 4391, Terminology Related to the Burning Behavior of
Textiles.
[14] ASTM D 4391, Terminology Related to the Burning Behavior of
Textiles.
[15] During the finishing process, a treatment such as a flame
retardant is applied to the fabric either before or after dyeing or
printing but before the fabrics are cut and sewn into final products.
[16] 10 U.S.C. § 2533a. Implementing regulations may be found in the
Defense Federal Acquisition Regulations Supplement (DFARS). See 48
C.F.R subpart 225.70.
[17] See § 2533a(a). For the list of covered items, see § 2533a(b) and
DFARS § 225.7002-1(a).
[18] Notably, the prohibition does not apply to acquisitions at or
below the simplified acquisition threshold. See § 2533a(h); see also
DFARS § 225.7002-2(a).
[19] See § 2533a(c); see also DFARS § 225.7002-2(b). This authority
may be exercised by the USD(AT&L), the Secretaries of the Army, Navy,
and Air Force, and the Director of the Defense Logistics Agency. See
DFARS § 225.7002-2(b)(1).
[20] See DFARS § 225.7002-2(b)(1), (2). The DNAD is to include an
analysis of the alternatives that would not require a DNAD and a
written certification "with specificity" by the requiring activity as
to why these alternatives are unacceptable.
[21] See Under Secretary of Defense (AT&L), Class Determination of
Domestic Non-Availability for Rayon Yarn for Military Clothing and
Textile Items (July 20, 2001).
[22] See Letter from the Honorable Ashton Carter, USD(AT&L) to the
Honorable Lynn A. Westmoreland (July 28, 2009); Letter from the
Honorable Ashton Carter, USD(AT&L) to the Honorable Lindsey Graham
(Aug. 19, 2009); Letter from the Honorable Ashton Carter, USD(AT&L) to
the Honorable Jim Webb (Aug. 19, 2009).
[23] See Pub. L. No. 110-181, § 829(a) (2008), as amended by Pub. L.
No. 111-383, § 821(a) (2011).
[24] See § 829(a)(1), (2). Specifically, the second determination
makes reference to the objectives of 10 U.S.C. § 2304. The Secretary
of Defense must submit a copy to Congress within 30 days of making a
determination under the authority. See Pub. L. No. 110-181, § 829(b).
[25] See Pub. L. No. 111-383, § 821(a) (H.R. 6523).
[26] See Letter from the Honorable Ashton Carter, USD(AT&L) to the
Honorable Lynn A. Westmoreland (July 28, 2009).
[27] See 41 U.S.C. § 8302(a)(1). The Buy American Act, previously
codified at 41 U.S.C. § 10a, was moved to § 8302 as part of the
reorganization of Title 41 by Pub. L. No. 111-350 (2011).
[28] See 41 U.S.C. § 8302(a)(1), (a)(2)(B) (reorganized from 41 U.S.C.
§ 10a(a)).
[29] See DFARS § 225.101(a). The list of qualifying countries includes
Austria and the Netherlands. See DFARS § 225.003(10). Qualifying
countries are those with reciprocal defense procurement memoranda of
understanding or international agreements. See id.
[30] Representatives from one industry manufacturer mentioned the
Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act generally, without reference to
specific provisions.
[31] One fabric blend submitted to the Army did not include a
description of the fiber content.
[32] We use the term "non-Berry Amendment compliant" or "noncompliant"
to refer to materials that are covered by the restriction but are not
of domestic origin and do not fall under any exception or waiver.
[33] DLA established a "WarStopper" program to ensure sufficient
wartime surge capacity for critical items. It took preemptive steps,
such as establishing surge contracts and investing funds in equipment
and facilities, to ensure that these items would be available in
sufficient quantities during contingency operations.
[34] The waiver for para-aramid fibers and yarns (e.g., Twaron® and
Kevlar®) was cited as an example of a statutory waiver, used by DOD,
that contained no sunset provision. This waiver, which originally
appeared as an authority to procure articles containing para-aramids
from foreign sources under § 807 of the Strom Thurmond National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999, Pub. L. No. 105-261
(1998), has since been implemented in the DFARS as a Berry Amendment
exception. See DFARS § 225.7002-2(m)(2).
[End of section]
GAO's Mission:
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.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through GAO's Web site [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each
weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly
posted products every afternoon, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]
and select "E-mail Updates."
Order by Phone:
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 Web site,
[hyperlink, 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.
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]:
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov:
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Congressional Relations:
Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4400:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7125:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Public Affairs:
Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4800:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7149:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
