TEXTILES.ORG
In an audit of government contracts amounting to an estimated $2.78 billion—with the majority of that in textiles—the Department of Defense Inspector General (DOD OIG) found Berry Amendment compliance in contract language and recommended other offices follow best practices established by the DLA Troop Support Clothing and Textiles–Philadelphia, Pa. location. Problems in using the correct Berry contract language were found in hand and measuring tools contracts.
The Philadelphia office, the audit notes, follows established best practices such as using internal tools to comply with the Berry Amendment contract-writing rules—including inserting required language manually when needed—and conducting market research and surveys of vendors (ahead of awarding contracts) that kept the Berry Amendment in mind. The report does list a reliance on contractor self-reporting as a potential weakness of end goods being domestically sourced, but it was clear that familiarity with Berry was the difference in whether the contracts were written correctly.
The Philadelphia office’s share of this audit included 38 textile solicitations and contracts, at an estimated $2.73 billion, of the 82 contract actions under scrutiny. The OIG analysis was conducted between July 2024 and July 2025 and included a nonstatistical sample of procurement from four DLA locations from Oct. 1, 2021, through March 31, 2024. The largest textile contracts (in no particular order) were for advanced tactical assault panels, combat helmets, fuel handler’s coats and trousers, tent and shelter systems, a rifleman’s set and associated components, and second-generation advanced combat helmets.
The report found that 35 of the 82 contract actions, representing $40.21 million, either did not have any Berry Amendment clause or had the wrong clause inserted in the contract, amounting to less than 1% of the money spent, about $6 billion, during the time period.
The audit also discovered that items delivered from 80 of 82 contract actions were not reviewed for Berry compliance upon receipt. The Defense Contracting Management Agency leadership explained that products deemed to be a lower value or lower safety risk weren’t being inspected upon receipt for Berry compliance due to a prioritization of resources. The report also noted that shipments are not required to have documentation listing that compliance, which would make that inspection easier for receiving personnel.
In addition to recommending a risk-based approach for compliance inspection, the report advised making some changes to existing contract writing software to enable people who don’t work in procurement often to better follow Berry’s requirements. The rule for training on the law every two years, and potentially the depth of information in the training, didn’t appear to be adequate.
During the last 11 years, the DOD IG has issued six Berry compliance reports. Conducting the audit periodically is in response to the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2014 and an October 2020 report and memorandum to improve Berry Amendment compliance and reinforce the training needs of those in acquisitions.