B-165293, JAN 30, 1975
Highlights
BUY AMERICAN ACT PROVISIONS DO NOT APPLY TO CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS TO BE PERFORMED IN OKINAWA SINCE OKINAWA IS NOT SUBJECT TO UNITED STATES JURISDICTION. THESE ARE CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS TO BE PERFORMED IN OKINAWA. "UNITED STATES" IS DEFINED IN THE ACT AS "INCLUDING THE UNITED STATES AND ANY PLACE SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION THEREOF." 41 U.S.C. JURISDICTION OVER OKINAWA WAS RETURNED BY THE UNITED STATES TO JAPAN ON MAY 15. SINCE OKINAWA IS NO LONGER SUBJECT TO UNITED STATES JURISDICTION. THE BUY AMERICAN ACT IS INAPPLICABLE TO CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS PERFORMED THERE. THE INCLUSION OF BUY AMERICAN ACT PROVISIONS IN THE ABOVE-REFERENCED CONTRACTS WAS NOT REQUIRED. THE PROTEST OF RALSTON-REGULUX IS DENIED.
B-165293, JAN 30, 1975
BUY AMERICAN ACT PROVISIONS DO NOT APPLY TO CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS TO BE PERFORMED IN OKINAWA SINCE OKINAWA IS NOT SUBJECT TO UNITED STATES JURISDICTION.
RALSTON-REGULUX:
BY LETTER DATED DECEMBER 16, 1974, RALSTON-REGULUX PROTESTED THE FAILURE OF THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENTS OF THE ARMY AND AIR FORCE TO INCLUDE BUY AMERICAN ACT PROVISIONS IN CONTRACTS DAJB09-74-C-0114 AND KAD633-4, RESPECTIVELY. ACCORDING TO THE DECEMBER 16 LETTER, THESE ARE CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS TO BE PERFORMED IN OKINAWA.
THE BUY AMERICAN ACT PERTAINS TO EVERY CONTRACT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION, ALTERATION, OR REPAIR OF ANY PUBLIC BUILDING OR PUBLIC WORK IN THE UNITED STATES. 41 U.S.C. SEC. 10BA) (1970). "UNITED STATES" IS DEFINED IN THE ACT AS "INCLUDING THE UNITED STATES AND ANY PLACE SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION THEREOF." 41 U.S.C. SEC. 10CA) (1970). SEE ALSO ARMED SERVICES PROCUREMENT REGULATION SECS. 18-506.6 AND 1 201.12 (1974 ED.).
JURISDICTION OVER OKINAWA WAS RETURNED BY THE UNITED STATES TO JAPAN ON MAY 15, 1972. 23 UNITED STATES TREATIES AND OTHER INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS P. 447 (1972). SINCE OKINAWA IS NO LONGER SUBJECT TO UNITED STATES JURISDICTION, THE BUY AMERICAN ACT IS INAPPLICABLE TO CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS PERFORMED THERE. CONSEQUENTLY, THE INCLUSION OF BUY AMERICAN ACT PROVISIONS IN THE ABOVE-REFERENCED CONTRACTS WAS NOT REQUIRED.
ACCORDINGLY, THE PROTEST OF RALSTON-REGULUX IS DENIED.