Text: H.R.5298 — 111th Congress (2009-2010)All Information (Except Text)

There is one version of the bill.

Text available as:

Shown Here:
Introduced in House (05/13/2010)


111th CONGRESS
2d Session
H. R. 5298


To require the Secretary of Defense to take illegal subsidization into account in evaluating proposals for contracts for major defense acquisition programs, and for other purposes.


IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

May 13, 2010

Mr. Tiahrt (for himself, Mr. Larsen of Washington, Mr. Inslee, Mr. Blunt, Mr. Smith of Texas, Mr. Moran of Kansas, Mrs. Emerson, Mr. Clay, Mr. Luetkemeyer, Mr. Carnahan, Ms. Jenkins, Mrs. Napolitano, Mr. Manzullo, Mr. Foster, Mr. McMahon, Mr. Loebsack, Mr. Wilson of South Carolina, Mr. Brown of South Carolina, Mr. Davis of Illinois, Mr. Calvert, Ms. DeLauro, Mr. Baca, Mr. Costello, Mr. Hastings of Washington, Mr. Gerlach, Mr. Rothman of New Jersey, Mr. Rush, Mr. Lipinski, and Mr. Hare) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Armed Services


A BILL

To require the Secretary of Defense to take illegal subsidization into account in evaluating proposals for contracts for major defense acquisition programs, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. Short title.

This Act may be cited as the “Fair Defense Competition Act”.

SEC. 2. Accounting for illegal subsidization in evaluation of proposals for contracts for major defense acquisition programs.

(a) Requirement.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—In awarding a contract for any major defense acquisition program, the Secretary of Defense shall, in conducting the cost or price evaluation of any proposal for that contract, take into account any final panel report described in paragraph (2) and take the action described in paragraph (3).

(2) FINAL PANEL REPORT DESCRIBED.—A final panel report described in this paragraph is the final report of a dispute settlement panel of the World Trade Organization, submitted to the parties to a dispute pursuant to article 4.6 or 7.4 of the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures, that either a prohibited or actionable subsidy has been provided with respect to any merchandise or major component thereof, or the development of any merchandise or major component thereof, if that merchandise or component is part of a proposal described in paragraph (1).

(3) ACTION DESCRIBED.—If the subsidy found to be prohibited or actionable in the final panel report has not been withdrawn pursuant to article 4.7 or 7.8 of the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures, the action described in this paragraph is, in conducting the cost or price evaluation of a proposal, the Secretary shall increase the cost or price of the proposal by the amount of the subsidy found to be prohibited or actionable in the final panel report described in paragraph (2), as calculated jointly by the Secretary of Commerce and the United States Trade Representative after notification is made by the Secretary of Defense for the need for such a calculation.

(b) Definitions.—In this section:

(1) AGREEMENT ON SUBSIDIES AND COUNTERVAILING MEASURES.—The term “Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures” means the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures described in section 101(d)(12) of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (19 U.S.C. 3511(d)(12)).

(2) COST OR PRICE EVALUATION.—The term “cost or price evaluation” means an evaluation conducted by a source selection authority pursuant to subpart 15.305(a)(1) of the Federal Acquisition Regulation.

(3) MAJOR DEFENSE ACQUISITION PROGRAM.—The term “major defense acquisition program” has the meaning given that term in section 2430 of title 10, United States Code.

(4) PROHIBITED OR ACTIONABLE SUBSIDY.—The term “prohibited or actionable subsidy” means a subsidy that is inconsistent with the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures because the subsidy is a prohibited or actionable subsidy under the Agreement.