OFFSETOFFSET

DFARS Part 225 — Foreign Acquisition / Berry / Specialty Metals (explainer)

6 min read

DFARS Part 225 — Foreign Acquisition (Berry Amendment + Specialty Metals)

What this Part does

DFARS Part 225 is the DoD overlay on FAR Part 25 (Buy American and Trade Agreements). For DoD buys, three additional sourcing regimes stack on top of the civilian FAR framework, and they interact in ways that surprise people:

  1. Buy American Act (BAA) — inherited from FAR Part 25, with DoD-specific domestic-content thresholds and qualifying country list.
  2. Berry Amendment (10 USC 4862, codified in DFARS 225.70 and prescribed via DFARS 252.225-7012) — 100% domestic sourcing requirement for food, clothing, tents, cotton, wool, silk, hand or measuring tools, and related items. No de minimis. No foreign content. No trade-agreement override.
  3. Specialty Metals restriction (10 USC 4863, codified in DFARS 225.72 and prescribed via DFARS 252.225-7009) — domestic-melt requirement for titanium, stainless steels, nickel-cobalt alloys, specialty steels, and zirconium-based alloys when used in specified critical applications.

Beyond these three, Part 225 includes recent additions: printed circuit board restrictions (225.73), rare-earth magnets (225.75), Chinese semiconductor prohibition (225.78). And Part 225 continues to absorb new NDAA-driven sourcing restrictions at roughly an annual cadence.

When you’d look here

  • A DoD RFP includes DFARS 252.225-7012 (Preference for Certain Domestic Commodities — Berry) or DFARS 252.225-7009 (Restriction on Acquisition of Certain Articles Containing Specialty Metals).
  • Your client’s supply chain includes overseas specialty-metal melting (common for titanium and certain alloys) and you need to determine compliance.
  • A food, clothing, or uniform procurement is pending — 100% Berry applies.
  • A subcontractor is flowing down a 225-series clause and your client is asking whether they’re really covered.
  • The Trade Agreements Act (TAA) threshold applies — TAA can override BAA but does NOT override Berry or specialty metals.

Case study: the specialty metals violation that became a qui tam

Meridian Metal Works (hypothetical), a precision-machining subcontractor, supplied titanium housings for a Navy missile-guidance system. The prime contract incorporated DFARS 252.225-7009. The clause required that titanium “melted” (the first melt point in the alloy production chain) occur in the U.S. or a qualifying country (a specific list in DFARS 225.872-1, not the same as the TAA list).

Meridian’s supplier, a Tier-2 titanium-bar producer, sourced feedstock from two melt sources — one U.S., one in a non-qualifying country. Meridian’s internal compliance tracked the U.S. percentage but did not consistently distinguish melt origin of the non-U.S. feedstock. On several lots over 18 months, Meridian certified compliance based on “majority U.S. melt” without verifying that the remainder was from a qualifying country.

A former quality engineer, separated after a dispute, filed a qui tam False Claims Act case in federal district court alleging false certifications under the specialty metals clause. The government intervened. The theory: each certification was a material false claim under 31 USC 3729, with treble damages plus per-claim civil penalties.

The settlement (roughly 2 years after the qui tam filing) totaled $11M — trebled “damages” calculated as the contract value of the non-compliant deliveries. The relator received 20% as her statutory share. Meridian also entered a 3-year Corporate Integrity Agreement with DoD OIG, imposing enhanced compliance monitoring.

Teaching points:

  1. Specialty metals has no safe harbor for good-faith ambiguity. The domestic-melt requirement is strict; certifications have to be supported by documented supply-chain tracing. “Majority compliant” is not compliant.
  2. Qualifying country list ≠ TAA list. Don’t confuse them. A country being TAA-designated doesn’t make it qualifying for specialty metals. See DFARS 225.003.
  3. FCA exposure on sourcing certifications is enormous. Every invoice is a potential “claim” under the FCA, each subject to treble damages and per-claim penalties. Sourcing compliance is an FCA litigation surface, not just an administrative one.
  4. Subcontractors are liable. Meridian was a subcontractor, not a prime. Flow-down clauses make subs directly liable for false certifications.

Case study: Berry compliance in clothing acquisition

Pacifica Textiles (hypothetical), a DoD clothing manufacturer, won a contract to produce utility uniforms. The contract incorporated DFARS 252.225-7012, requiring 100% U.S. origin for clothing, specified fibers (cotton, wool, silk), and related items.

Pacifica’s fabric was domestically woven. Pacifica’s thread was imported from Mexico. Pacifica’s zippers were sourced from Vietnam. Pacifica’s labels were printed overseas.

Each non-U.S. component is a Berry violation. The clause contains a Kissell Amendment carve-out for certain agricultural products but NOT a general de minimis; Berry is categorical. Pacifica’s supply chain required overhaul before first delivery:

  • Thread resourced to a U.S. mill (available, small cost premium).
  • Zippers resourced to a Georgia-based manufacturer (available at ~40% cost premium).
  • Labels produced domestically (trivial change).

Net unit-cost increase: 11%. Pacifica had priced on the assumption of existing supply chain. The contract margin evaporated. Pacifica delivered at a modest loss rather than breach.

Teaching points:

  1. Berry is a 100% requirement with narrow exceptions. No de minimis, no majority-domestic threshold. Every component of the listed categories must be U.S.-origin.
  2. Cost modeling for Berry contracts must assume 100% domestic sourcing from proposal. Post-award discovery of foreign components is either a loss-eating exercise or a contract breach.
  3. Berry doesn’t waive for trade agreements. TAA-designated countries (the list that lets you use foreign products over TAA thresholds for ordinary BAA purposes) are irrelevant to Berry compliance.

Key sections

  • DFARS 225.003 — Definitions (qualifying country vs. designated country vs. partner country).
  • DFARS 225.103 — BAA exceptions in DoD (more expansive than civilian FAR 25).
  • DFARS 225.403 — Balance of Payments Program.
  • DFARS 225.70 (Subpart) — Berry Amendment. Prescribes 252.225-7012, 7015.
  • DFARS 225.72 (Subpart) — Specialty Metals. Prescribes 252.225-7008, 7009.
  • DFARS 225.73 (Subpart) — Printed circuit boards (NDAA-driven, complex domestic-content math).
  • DFARS 225.75 (Subpart) — Prohibition on acquisition of certain magnets (rare-earth; Section 871 of the FY2019 NDAA).
  • DFARS 225.77 (Subpart) — Prohibition on DoD contracting with persons that have business operations with the Maduro regime.
  • DFARS 225.78 (Subpart) — Prohibition on certain semiconductor products.
  • DFARS 225.872 (Subpart) — Qualifying country source list.

Key clauses

  • DFARS 252.225-7008 — Restriction on Acquisition of Specialty Metals (flow-down to subs, solicitation-level).
  • DFARS 252.225-7009 — Restriction on Acquisition of Certain Articles Containing Specialty Metals.
  • DFARS 252.225-7012 — Preference for Certain Domestic Commodities (Berry).
  • DFARS 252.225-7015 — Restriction on Acquisition of Hand or Measuring Tools.
  • DFARS 252.225-7052 — Restriction on the Acquisition of Certain Magnets and Tungsten.
  • FAR Part 25 — Civilian Buy American / Trade Agreements.
  • DFARS Part 212 — Commercial items in DoD (intersects with Berry and specialty metals — commercial-item determinations do NOT waive Berry or specialty-metals compliance).
  • Statutory authority:

Graph View

Backlinks