View
9
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Industry and SecurityTextile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments – Preliminary, 2017
BIS/OTE Textile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments
U.S. Department of Commerce Bureau of Industry and SecurityOffice of Technology Evaluation
U.S. Textile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessment
Preliminary Results
2017 JAPBI DLA Troop Support ConferenceNovember 15, 2017Cherry Hill, NJ
Stamen BorissonTrade and Industry Analyst
Elizabeth OakesTrade and Industry Analyst
1
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Industry and SecurityTextile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments – Preliminary, 2017
BIS/OTE Textile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments 2
• Office of Technology Evaluation (OTE)
Mission: OTE is the focal point within BIS for assessing the capabilities of the U.S. industrial base to support the national defense and the effectiveness of export controls.
• Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS)
Mission: Advance U.S. national security, foreign policy, and economic objectives by ensuring an effective export control and treaty compliance system and promoting continued U.S. strategic technology leadership.
Develops export control policies Issues export licenses Prosecutes violators to heighten national security Develops and implements programs that ensure a technologically
superior defense industrial base
Who We Are:
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Industry and SecurityTextile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments – Preliminary, 2017
BIS/OTE Textile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments 3
OTE Industry Surveys & Assessments Background:
• Under Section 705 of the Defense Production Act of 1950 and Executive Order 13603, ability to survey and assess:Economic health and competitivenessDefense capabilities and readiness
• Data is exempt from Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Requests.
• Enable industry and government agencies to:
Share data and collaborate in order to ensure a healthy and competitive industrial baseMonitor trends, benchmark industry performance, and raise awareness of
diminishing manufacturing and technological capabilities
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Industry and SecurityTextile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments – Preliminary, 2017
BIS/OTE Textile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments 4
U.S. Textile, Apparel and Footwear Industry AssessmentsBackground
• At the request of the U.S. Congress, BIS/OTE is updating a 2003 assessment of the U.S. Textile, Apparel and Footwear Industry. The updated assessment will focus on the health, competitiveness, and contribution of the industry to the U.S. economy. Other topics to be reviewed include:
Identify dependencies on foreign sources for critical materials
Evaluate potential threats to security due to foreign sourcing and dependency
Locate points of weakness within the domestic supply chain
Measure the industry’s capacity to increase production in a national emergency
Examine Berry Amendment and other Buy-American provisions
Explore concerns and issues faced by domestic producers
• Project divided into two parts:
Footwear – survey deployed in November 2016
Textiles and Apparel – survey deployed in February 2017
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Industry and SecurityTextile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments– Preliminary, 2017
BIS/OTE Textile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments
Methodology – Textiles and Apparel• Scope of survey and assessment was limited to U.S. manufacturers of textiles, textile
products, and apparel, as defined and classified by the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS). • Excluded from the scope of the survey were organizations such as distributors/importers,
service providers, suppliers, designers, etc.• BIS decided to provide exemption from the survey requirement, if requested, for
organizations with less than 10 employees.• The primary product line reported (some respondents reported more than one capability)
was used to categorize the respondent into the following:
5
Textile Mills
• Fiber, Yarn, Thread• Broadwoven Fabric• Narrow Fabric Mill / Schiffli
Machine Embroidery• Non-Woven Fabric• Knit Fabric• Textile and Fabric Finishing• Fabric Coating
Textile Product Mills• Carpet and Rug• Curtain and Linen• Textile Bag and Canvas• Rope, Cordage, Twine, Tire
Cord, or Tire Fabric• Other Textile Products
Apparel Manufacturers
• Hosiery and Socks• Other Apparel Knitting• Cut and Sew Apparel Contractor• Men's and Boys' Cut and Sew
Apparel• Women's and Girls' Cut and
Sew Apparel• Other Cut and Sew Apparel• Apparel Accessories and Other
Apparel
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Industry and SecurityTextile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments– Preliminary, 2017
BIS/OTE Textile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments
• Organization size was established based on sales from products manufactured in the U.S.• Small: Under $10M in annual sales• Medium: $10M-$50M in annual sales• Large: Over $50M in annual sales
• U.S. Government suppliers and U.S. Berry Amendment manufacturers were categorized based on survey responses.
• Today’s presentation’s data set consists of completed survey responses from 499 organizations; the final assessment data set will include additional organizations.
6
Methodology - Textiles and Apparel (continued)
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Industry and SecurityTextile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments– Preliminary, 2017
BIS/OTE Textile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments
Methodology - Footwear• Scope of survey and assessment was limited to U.S. manufacturers of footwear, as
defined and classified by the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS). • Excluded from the scope of the survey were organizations such as distributors/importers,
service providers, suppliers, designers, etc.• BIS decided to provide exemption from the survey requirement, if requested, for
organizations with less than 10 employees.
• Organization size was established based on sales from products manufactured in the U.S.• Small: Under $10M in annual sales• Medium: $10M-$50M in annual sales• Large: Over $50M in annual sales
• U.S. Government suppliers and U.S. Berry Amendment manufacturers were categorized based on survey responses.
• Assessment data set consists of completed survey responses from 44 organizations.
7
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Industry and SecurityTextile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments– Preliminary, 2017
BIS/OTE Textile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments
Respondent Profile – U.S. Textile and Apparel
• 499 companies operating 764 Textile and/or Apparel manufacturing facilities in the U.S.
• Total 2016 Sales of $39 Billion• 2016 Sales of $19 Billion from products manufactured in the U.S.
8
RP/1b/7 499 respondents
Small: Under $10M in annual sales Medium: $10M-$50M in annual sales Large: Over $50M in annual sales
198
107
194
020406080
100120140160180200
Textile Mill TextileProducts
ApparelManufacturer
# of
Com
pani
es
Number of Companies Segmented by Type
288
144
67
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
Small Medium Large
# of
Com
pani
es
Number of Companies Segmented by U.S.-made Textile and Apparel Sales
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Industry and SecurityTextile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments – Preliminary, 2017
BIS/OTE Textile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments 9
499 respondents
U.S. Textile and Apparel Manufacturing Organizations - Location
64
6
6
7
8
14
18
20
55
Others
New Jersey
Tennessee
Rhode Island
California
Georgia
Pennsylvania
South Carolina
North Carolina
# of Responses
Textile Mills
Q1a, A
93
7
7
7
8
8
9
12
41
Others
Georgia
Ohio
Tennessee
Alabama
California
Texas
New York
North Carolina
# of Responses
Apparel Manufacturers
54
5
5
6
6
6
6
7
12
Others
Pennsylvania
South Carolina
California
Georgia
New York
Ohio
Minnesota
North Carolina
# of Responses
Textile Product Mills
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Industry and SecurityTextile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments – Preliminary, 2017
BIS/OTE Textile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments 10
499 respondents
U.S. Textile and Apparel Manufacturing Facilities
764
167
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
U.S. Non-U.S
How many total textile and/or apparel manufacturing
facilities does your organization currently
operate?
Q1b, A
31
54
4
38
90
41
88
5
33
6
32
16
63
43
30
28
54
108
Apparel Accessories and Other Apparel
Other Cut and Sew Apparel
Women's and Girls' Cut and Sew Apparel
Men's and Boys' Cut and Sew Apparel
Cut and Sew apparel Contractor
Hosiery and Socks
Other Textile Products
Rope, Cordage, Twine, Tire Cord, or Tire Fabric
Textile Bag and Canvas
Curtain and Linen
Carpet and Rug
Fabric Coating
Textile and Fabric Finishing
Knit Fabric Mill
Non-Woven Fabric
Narrow Fabric / Schiffli Machine Embroidery
Broadwoven Fabric
Fiber, Yarn, Thread
U.S. Facilities by Primary Product Line
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Industry and SecurityTextile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments – Preliminary, 2017
BIS/OTE Textile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments 11
499 respondents
U.S. Textile and Apparel Manufacturing Facilities –Location
80101010111213131415151515161721222325292930
6886
169
OtherNew Hampshire
FloridaIllinois
MichiganIndiana
MarylandMinnesota
Rhode IslandNew Jersey
MassachusettsOhio
Puerto RicoWisconsinKentucky
TexasNew York
VirginiaCalifornia
PennsylvaniaTennessee
AlabamaSouth Carolina
GeorgiaNorth Carolina
Number of Facilities
Q1b, B
5,853 620 628 847 861 881 1,042 1,261 1,299 1,554 1,599 1,603 1,625 1,626 1,748 1,833 2,005 2,161 2,736 3,203 3,493
4,543 9,384
20,342 20,807
OtherUtah
MarylandWashington
KansasOhio
WisconsinRhode Island
New JerseyKentucky
New HampshireMassachusetts
New YorkIllinoisFlorida
CaliforniaTexas
VirginiaTennessee
PennsylvaniaPuerto Rico
AlabamaSouth Carolina
GeorgiaNorth Carolina
Facility Employees
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Industry and SecurityTextile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments– Preliminary, 2017
BIS/OTE Textile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments
Respondent Profile – U.S. Footwear
• 44 companies operating 65 Footwear manufacturing facilities in the U.S.
• Total 2016 Footwear Sales of $8.5 Billion
12
RP/1b/7 44 respondents
Small: Under $10M in annual sales Medium: $10M-$50M in annual sales Large: Over $50M in annual sales
24
128
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Small Medium Large
# of
Org
aniz
atio
ns
Number of Organizations Segmented by Sales of U.S.-manufactured Footwear
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Industry and SecurityTextile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments– Preliminary, 2017
BIS/OTE Textile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments
Footwear Manufacturing Facilities - Location
13
13
65
0 50 100
Non-U.S*
U.S.
Total Footwear Manufacturing Facilities
* Includes China, Dominican Republic, etc.
113333
444
56
910
0 5 10 15
OthersMissouriOregon
WashingtonNew YorkCalifornia
PennsylvaniaWisconsin
MassachusettsArkansas
TexasMaine
# of Facilities
Top 10 U.S.-based Footwear Manufacturing Facilities by State
Q1b, A 44 respondents
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Industry and SecurityTextile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments – Preliminary, 2017
BIS/OTE Textile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments 14
44 respondents
U.S. Footwear –Top 10 U.S. States- Full Time Equivalent (FTE) Employees
Q1b, B
413
516
767
887
896
995
1,064
1,188
1,320
2,234
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
North Carolina
Oregon
Massachusetts
Wisconsin
Arkansas
Puerto Rico
Missouri
Minnesota
Maine
Texas
# of Employees
12,142 Total U.S.
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Industry and SecurityTextile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments– Preliminary, 2017
BIS/OTE Textile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments
U.S. Textile and Apparel Sales (2012-2016)
$36,550 $37,387 $40,523 $40,542 $39,453
$19,348 $19,146 $20,704 $20,038 $18,716
$-
$5,000
$10,000
$15,000
$20,000
$25,000
$30,000
$35,000
$40,000
$45,000
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
$ M
illio
ns
U.S. Textile and Apparel ManufacturersTotal Textile and Apparel-Related SalesTotal Sales from Products Manufactured in the U.S.
15
Q7 499 respondents
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Industry and SecurityTextile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments– Preliminary, 2017
BIS/OTE Textile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments
U.S. Textile and Apparel Sales (2012-2016)
$13.4 $13.0 $13.5 $13.5$12.6
$10.9 $10.5 $11.0 $11.1$10.2
$-
$5
$10
$15
$20
$25
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Bill
ions
U.S. Textile MillsTotal Textile and Apparel-Related Sales
Total Sales from Products Manufactured inthe U.S. (81% five-year average)
16
Q7 499 respondents
$5.5 $5.8 $5.6 $6.0 $5.6
$5.0 $5.4 $5.2 $5.5 $5.1
$-
$5
$10
$15
$20
$25
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Bill
ions
U.S. Textile ProductsTotal Textile and Apparel-Related Sales
Total Sales from Products Manufactured inthe U.S. (92% five-year average)
$17.6$18.5
$21.4 $21.0 $21.2
$3.4 $3.2$4.5
$3.4 $3.3
$-
$5
$10
$15
$20
$25
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016B
illio
ns
U.S. Apparel ManufacturersTotal Textile and Apparel-Related Sales
Total Sales from Products Manufactured inthe U.S. (18% five-year average)
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Industry and SecurityTextile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments– Preliminary, 2017
BIS/OTE Textile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments
$19,348 $19,146 $20,704 $20,038
$18,716
$2,473 $1,994 $2,002 $2,251 $2,131 $-
$5,000
$10,000
$15,000
$20,000
$25,000
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
$ M
illio
ns
U.S. Textile and Apparel ManufacturersTotal Sales From Products Manufactured in the U.S.Total Berry Amendment-Related Sales to DoD and Armed Services
17
Q7 499 respondents
U.S. Textile and Apparel Sales (2012-2016)
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Industry and SecurityTextile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments – Preliminary, 2017
BIS/OTE Textile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments 18
U.S. Footwear Sales (2012-2016)
Q7 42 respondents
$7,216
$8,355 $8,664 $8,701 $8,523
$1,361 $1,396 $1,358 $1,443 $1,511
$168 $198 $164 $215 $292 $-
$1,000
$2,000
$3,000
$4,000
$5,000
$6,000
$7,000
$8,000
$9,000
$10,000
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
$ M
illio
ns
Total Footwear-Related Sales Total Sales from Footwear Manufactured in the U.S. Footwear-Related Government Sales
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Industry and SecurityTextile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments – Preliminary, 2017
BIS/OTE Textile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments 19
499 respondents
U.S. Textile and Apparel - Manufacturing Utilization Rate
Q6, B
48% 48% 48% 49% 49%
58% 58% 59% 59% 59%
41% 40% 39% 39% 39%43% 43% 43% 44% 44%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
55%
60%
65%
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Util
izat
ion
Rat
e %
Estimate your organization's average annual manufacturing utilization rate for 2012-2016, as a percentage of maximum production possible
under a 7-day-a-week, 24-hour-per-day operationOverall Textile Mill Textile Products Apparel Manufacturer
Average manufacturing utilization rate for each of the years 2012-2015, as a percentage of production possible under a 7 day-per-week, 24-hour-per-day operation.
• Note: a 100% utilization rate equals full operation with no downtime beyond that necessary for maintenance. Assuming little maintenance downtime, one 8-hour shift, 5 days per week is approximately 25% capacity utilization; two 8-hour shifts, 7 days per week is approximately 65% capacity utilization.
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Industry and SecurityTextile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments – Preliminary, 2017
BIS/OTE Textile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments 20
499 respondents
Limiting Factors to Ramping Production to Maximum Manufacturing Capacity:Availability of Workforce
Q6, D
61%
22%
7%
10%
Textile MillsYes No Not Sure N/A
68%
10%8%
14%
Textile ProductsYes No Not Sure N/A
72%13%
9%
6%
Apparel ManufacturersYes No Not Sure N/A
U.S. Textile and Apparel – Manufacturing Utilization Rate
1966
97118120
172200
331
OtherQuality control
Manufacturing spaceEquipment capacity
Availability of additional equipmentCost of workforce
Availability of input materialsAvailability of workforce
# of Responses
Identify which of the factors below would limit your organization's ability to raise its manufacturing utilization rate to 100% (maximum current capacity) to meet a surge in demand.
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Industry and SecurityTextile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments – Preliminary, 2017
BIS/OTE Textile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments 21
462 respondents
U.S. Textile and Apparel – Surge Production Capabilities
Q6, C.2
126
200
7957
0
50
100
150
200
250
Very Confident Somewhat Confident Not Confident Unsure
# of
Res
pond
ents
How confident are you that your organization could obtain the material necessary to rapidly ramp up production in the event
of a national emergency?
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Industry and SecurityTextile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments – Preliminary, 2017
BIS/OTE Textile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments 22
462 respondents
U.S. Textile and Apparel – Surge Production Capabilities
Q6, C.2
20
25
81
56
Unsure
Not Confident
Somewhat Confident
Very Confident
Textile Mills
How confident are you that your organization could obtain the material necessary to rapidly ramp up production in the event of a national emergency?
16
16
48
20
Unsure
Not Confident
Somewhat Confident
Very Confident
Textile Products
21
38
70
50
Unsure
Not Confident
Somewhat Confident
Very Confident
Apparel Manufacturers
23
37
126
77
Unsure
Not Confident
Somewhat Confident
Very Confident
USG Suppliers
34
42
74
49
Unsure
Not Confident
Somewhat Confident
Very Confident
Others
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Industry and SecurityTextile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments – Preliminary, 2017
BIS/OTE Textile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments 23
Average Annual U.S. Footwear Capacity Utilization Rate (2012-2016)
Q6,B 44 respondents
33% 32% 33% 34% 34%
40%
36%
39% 38%
44%
31% 30%
28%29% 28%
31% 32%
34% 34%
33%
25%
27%
29%
31%
33%
35%
37%
39%
41%
43%
45%
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Uti
lizat
ion
Rate
%
Average Utilization Rate Large >$50M Medium $10M-$50M Small <$10M
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Industry and SecurityTextile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments – Preliminary, 2017
BIS/OTE Textile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments 24
U.S. Footwear - Manufacturing Utilization Rate
Q6,D 44 respondents
0
1
1
3
3
5
3
11
2
9
9
9
14
13
16
24
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Other
Manufacturing space
Quality control
Equipment capacity
Availability of additional equipment
Availability of input materials
Cost of workforce
Availability of workforce
# of Responses
Identify which of the factors below would limit your organization's ability to raise its manufacturing utilization rate to 100% (maximum current
capacity) to meet a surge in demand.
Berry Amendment Manufacturers Other Manufacturers
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Industry and SecurityTextile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments – Preliminary, 2017
BIS/OTE Textile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments 25
U.S. Footwear – Surge Production Capabilities
Q6,D 44 respondents
4
7
10
5
11
9
7
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
Very Confident Somewhat Confident Not Confident Unsure
# of
Res
pond
ents
How confident are you that your organization could obtain the material necessary to rapidly ramp up production in the event of
a national emergency?
Berry Amendment Manufacturers Other Manufactuers
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Industry and SecurityTextile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments – Preliminary, 2017
BIS/OTE Textile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments 26
499 respondents
U.S. Textiles and Apparel - Workforce
Q11a, A
0
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
140,000
160,000
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
# of
Em
ploy
ees
Total number of full-time equivalent (FTE) textile and/or apparel-related employees for all your U.S.-based operations (2012-2016)
Other
Testing Operators, Quality Control, andSupport TechniciansProduction Line Workers - MachineTechniciansMarketing & Sales
Information Technology Professionals
Designers
Facility & Maintenance Staff
Engineers, Scientists, and R&D Staff
Administrative, Management, & LegalStaffProduction Line Workers - Operators
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Industry and SecurityTextile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments – Preliminary, 2017
BIS/OTE Textile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments 27
475 respondents
U.S. Textiles and Apparel - Workforce
Q11a, B
No, 166, 35%
Yes, 309, 65%
Does your organization have difficulty hiring and/or retaining any type of employees for your textile and/or apparel-related
operations?
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Industry and SecurityTextile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments – Preliminary, 2017
BIS/OTE Textile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments 28
499 respondents
U.S. Textiles and Apparel - Workforce
Q11a, B
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
Other
Information Technology Professionals
Design
Marketing & Sales
Administrative, Management, & Legal
Engineers, Scientists, and R&D
Testing Operator, Quality Control, and Support
Facility and Maintenance
Production Line - Machine Technicians
Production Line - Operators
#of Responses
Does your organization have difficulty hiring and/or retaining any type of employees for your textile and/or apparel-related operations?
Both Hiring Retaining Neither Not Applicable
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Industry and SecurityTextile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments – Preliminary, 2017
BIS/OTE Textile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments 29
499 respondents
U.S. Textiles and Apparel - Workforce
Q11b, B
Very Concerned23%
Somewhat Concerned
37%
Neutral18%
Not Worried22%
How concerned is your organization about your current textile and/or apparel-related workforce retiring in the near future?
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Industry and SecurityTextile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments – Preliminary, 2017
BIS/OTE Textile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments 30
499 respondents
U.S. Textiles and Apparel - Workforce
Q11b, C
154
185
188
198
271
315
337
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
Significant portion of workforce retiring
Employee turnover
Attracting workers to location
Transfer of knowledge
Quality of workforce
Finding experienced workers
Finding skilled/qualified workers
# of Responses
Select and explain the key workforce issues you anticipate between 2017-2021
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Industry and SecurityTextile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments – Preliminary, 2017
BIS/OTE Textile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments 31
U.S. Footwear - Workforce
Q11a,A 44 respondents
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
# of
Em
ploy
ees
Other
Testing Operators, Quality Control,and Support Technicians
Marketing & Sales
Information TechnologyProfessionals
Facility and Maintenance Staff
Engineers, Scientists, and R&DStaff
Designers
Admin
Production Line Workers
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Industry and SecurityTextile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments – Preliminary, 2017
BIS/OTE Textile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments 32
U.S. Footwear - Workforce
Q11a,B 44 respondents
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Testing Operator, Quality Control, andSupport
Administrative, Management, & Legal
Facility and Maintenance
Information Technology
Design
Marketing & Sales
Engineers, Scientists, and R&D
Production Line
# of Responses
Does your organization have difficulty hiring and/or retaining any type of employees for your footwear-related operations?
Both Hiring Retaining Neither N/A
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Industry and SecurityTextile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments – Preliminary, 2017
BIS/OTE Textile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments 33
U.S. Footwear - Workforce
Q11b,C 44 respondents
12
18
18
21
23
24
27
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Significant portion of workforce retiring
Employee turnover
Transfer of knowledge
Finding experienced workers
Attracting workers to location
Finding skilled/qualified workers
Quality of workforce
# of Responses
Select and explain the key workforce issues you anticipate between 2017-2021
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Industry and SecurityTextile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments – Preliminary, 2017
BIS/OTE Textile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments 34
499 respondents
U.S. Textiles and Apparel - Competitive Attributes
Q12b, A
61
31
43
45
47
186
316
492
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Other
Productivity
Quality
Innovation
Delivery time
Other
Range of capabilities
Price
# of Responses
Primary competitive attributes of leading U.S. competitors
11
18
19
20
60
80
312
0 100 200 300 400
Delivery time
Innovation
Receipt of governmentsubsidies
Quality
Other
Range of capabilities
Price
# of Responses
Primary competitive attributes of leading non-U.S. competitors
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Industry and SecurityTextile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments – Preliminary, 2017
BIS/OTE Textile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments 35
44 respondents
U.S. Footwear - Competitive Attributes
Q12b, A
1
2
2
3
4
5
21
30
41
0 10 20 30 40 50
Financing
Reliability
Productivity
Innovation
Delivery time
Quality
Range of Capabilities
*Other
Price
# of Responses
Primary competitive attributes of leading U.S. competitors
* Offshore manufacturing, economies of scale, others. 1
1
1
1
2
3
8
8
30
0 10 20 30 40
Delivery time
Financing
Government subsidies
Reliability
Innovation
Range of capabilities
Quality
Other
Price
# of Responses
Primary competitive attributes of leading non-U.S. competitors
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Industry and SecurityTextile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments – Preliminary, 2017
BIS/OTE Textile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments 36
499 respondents
U.S. Textiles and Apparel – Top Competitive Advantages
Q12b, B
33
34
70
101
102
126
168
172
200
259
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Supply of skilled workers
Reduced process variability
Productivity
Design
Overall finished products
Other
Performance
Innovation
Lead time
Quality
# of Times Listed
Identify the top five competitive advantages your organization's U.S.-based manufacturing operations possess as they relate to
foreign competition
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Industry and SecurityTextile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments – Preliminary, 2017
BIS/OTE Textile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments 37
499 respondentsQ12b, B
51
59
60
63
73
73
94
129
139
232
0 50 100 150 200 250
Trade barriers
Reduced cost
Equipment costs
Building space costs
Environmental compliance costs
Energy costs
Other
Supply of skilled workers
Material costs
Labor costs
# of Times Listed
Identify the top five competitive disadvantages your organization's U.S.-based manufacturing operations possess as
they relate to foreign competition
U.S. Textiles and Apparel – Top Competitive Disadvantages
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Industry and SecurityTextile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments – Preliminary, 2017
BIS/OTE Textile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments 38
U.S. Footwear - Top Competitive Advantages
Q12b,B 44 respondents
5
5
13
15
16
17
17
20
24
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Productivity
Supply of skilled workers
Innovation
Overall finished products
Design
Lead time
Performance
Other
Quality
# of Responses
Identify the top five competitive advantages your organization's U.S.-based footwear manufacturing operations possess as they relate to foreign
competition.
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Industry and SecurityTextile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments – Preliminary, 2017
BIS/OTE Textile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments 39
U.S. Footwear - Top Competitive Disadvantages
Q12b,B 44 respondents
6
7
7
7
9
18
20
29
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Reduced cost
Equipment costs
Lead time
Building space costs
Supply of skilled workers
Material costs
Other
Labor costs
# of Responses
Identify the top five competitive disadvantages your organization's U.S.-based footwear manufacturing operations possess as they relate to foreign
competition.
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Industry and SecurityTextile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments – Preliminary, 2017
BIS/OTE Textile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments 40
499 respondents
U.S. Textiles and Apparel: Competitive Outlook (Defense-related and Commercial)
Q13a, B2
Anticipated changes in competitive prospects for U.S. textile and/or apparel operations (both defense-related and commercial) from 2017 through 2021?
Improve, 147, 32%
Decline, 23, 5%
Remain the Same, 125,
27%
Not Applicable, 162, 36%
Defense-related: 457 respondents
Improve, 241, 53%
Decline, 25, 6%
Remain the Same, 142, 31%
Not Applicable,
47, 10%
Commercial: 455 respondents
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Industry and SecurityTextile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments – Preliminary, 2017
BIS/OTE Textile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments 41
U.S. Footwear - Competitive Outlook (2017-2021)(Defense-Related and Commercial)
Q13a,B 44 respondents
Improve, 9, 50%Remain
the Same, 6, 33%
Decline, 3, 17%
Defense-Related
* 26 of 44 respondents selected ‘Not Applicable’
Improve, 23, 56%
Remain the
Same, 15, 37%
Decline, 3, 7%
Commercial
*3 of 44 respondents selected ‘Not Applicable’
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Industry and SecurityTextile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments – Preliminary, 2017
BIS/OTE Textile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments 42
499 respondents
U.S. Textiles and Apparel – Challenges
Q15, A
144
189
190
192
215
259
266
270
336
339
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
Commercial Demand
Taxes
U.S. Trade Policy
Domestic Competition
Aging Equipment
Worker/skills Retention
Aging Workforce
Foreign Competition
Healthcare Costs
Labor Availability
# of Respondents
Top 10 Challenges
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Industry and SecurityTextile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments – Preliminary, 2017
BIS/OTE Textile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments 43
499 respondents
U.S. Textiles and Apparel – ChallengesPercentage of Respondents Selecting Adversely Affecting Issues
Q15, A
28%
31%
32%
33%
39%
43%
47%
48%
55%
56%
67%
71%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80%
Apparel Manufacturers
16%
19%
47%
25%
42%
37%
49%
66%
59%
53%
72%
67%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80%
Government AcquisitionProcess
Access to Capital
U.S. Trade Policy
Government PurchasingVolatility
Taxes
Domestic Competition
Aging Equipment
Foreign Competition
Aging Workforce
Worker/Skills Retention
Healthcare Costs
Labor Availability
Textile Mills
21%
25%
32%
24%
28%
32%
34%
42%
39%
43%
61%
64%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80%
Textile Product Mills
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Industry and SecurityTextile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments – Preliminary, 2017
BIS/OTE Textile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments 44
44 respondents
U.S. Footwear - Challenges
Q15, A
12
12
15
20
21
24
25
25
29
31
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Environmental Regs - Domestic
Reduction in USG Demand
Taxes
Aging Workforce
Aging Equipment
Worker/Skills Retention
Domestic Competition
Foreign Competition
Labor Availability
Healthcare Costs
# of Responses
Top 10 Challenges
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Industry and SecurityTextile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments – Preliminary, 2017
BIS/OTE Textile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments
282
217
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
Yes No
# of
Res
pond
ents
45
499 respondentsQ3a, A
U.S. Textile and Apparel - Participation in U.S. Government Programs (2012-2016)
122
72
10593
55 52
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
Yes No
Apparel Manufacturers Textile Mills Textile Product Mills
185 organizations reported having interest in manufacturing for the USG.
Has your organization manufactured textiles and/or apparel for the U.S. Government (defense and/or non-defense) during 2012 through 2016?
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Industry and SecurityTextile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments– Preliminary, 2017
BIS/OTE Textile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments
$2,473
$1,994 $2,002 $2,251
$2,131
$860 $756 $753 $808 $720
$207 $176 $142 $169 $166
$1,396
$1,052 $1,098 $1,259 $1,227
$-
$500
$1,000
$1,500
$2,000
$2,500
$3,000
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
$ M
illio
ns
U.S. Textile and Apparel ManufacturersTotal Berry Amendment-Related Sales to DoD and Armed Services
Textile Mills
Textile Products
Apparel Manufacturers
46
Q7 499 respondents
U.S. Textile and Apparel - USG Sales (2012-2016)
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Industry and SecurityTextile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments – Preliminary, 2017
BIS/OTE Textile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments 47
U.S. Footwear - Participation in USG Programs (2012-2016)
44 respondentsQ3a,A
13
31
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Yes No
# of
Res
pond
ents
Has your organization manufactured footwear for the
U.S. Government (defense and/or non-defense) during 2012
through 2016? )
10 organizations reported having interest in manufacturing footwear for the U.S. Government
Types of footwear products interested in supplying:• Boots• Custom shoes and boots• Direct Attach• Ice Skates & Roller Skates• injection molded PVC boots• Men's and Women's Boots, Oxfords, Athletic
Shoes• Men's and Women's boots/shoes• Men's dress shoes; non-skid work shoes• Military boots• Outsoles, Shoe Lasts, Insoles, Foot beds• Wildland Firefighting boots or derivative
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Industry and SecurityTextile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments – Preliminary, 2017
BIS/OTE Textile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments 48
U.S. Footwear - USG Sales (2012-2016)
Q7 42 respondents
$1,361 $1,396 $1,358 $1,443
$1,511
$168 $198 $164 $215 $292
$141 $159 $126 $179 $253
$7 $8 $17 $13 $21 $0
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1,000
$1,200
$1,400
$1,600
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
$ M
illio
ns
Total Sales from Finished Pairs Manufactured in the U.S. Footwear-Related Government Sales
Total Berry Amendment-Related Sales to DoD Total footwear-related Foreign Military Sales (FMS)
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Industry and SecurityTextile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments – Preliminary, 2017
BIS/OTE Textile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments 49
272 respondents
2
4
10
33
40
41
44
98
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Cost Reimbursement
Time and Materials
Indefinity Delivery
Not Applicable
Lowest Price TechnicallyAcceptable (LPTA)
Best Value
Other (explain below)
Fixed Price
# of Responses
Select the contract type your organization most frequently uses to do business with
the U.S. Government.
Q3b, A.2
U.S. Textiles and Apparel – USG Contracting
COMMENTS:
Best Value• Best Value, Fixed Price, IDIQ• While the method of
competing/evaluation/selection may be "best value" the type of contracts are fixed price contracts.
Fixed Price• Fixed price contracts are the norm in our
industry.• Fixed Price Indefinite Quantity Contracts,
specifically
Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA)• LPTA- open bidding response to DLA
Other• Mandatory source from prime• Source America set aside• Sub Contract• We don't have contracts with the U.S.
Government, we are subcontracted.
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Industry and SecurityTextile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments – Preliminary, 2017
BIS/OTE Textile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments 50
241 respondentsQ3b, A.4
32
47
1119
26
5
37
59
5
Yes No Not Applicable0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Does your organization have any recommendations to improve the overall U.S. Government acquisition process for
textiles and apparel?
Textiles
Textile Products
Apparel
U.S. Textiles and Apparel - USG Contracting
RECOMMENDATIONS (sample):• Contracting officers need to have a working knowledge and understanding of the industry they are soliciting in before soliciting.
Fixed pricing for multiple years does not work in the uniform industry. Due to volatility of raw materials and of governmentpurchasing, a guess is all that a contractor can do. This results in higher prices to the government and volatile profitability to the contractor, so that neither party truly receives the best value.
• Cost adjustments for raw materials during contract, like the apparels have• Delivery orders in 3 month increments do not give agencies volume buying power thereby increasing costs to the government.
Nor do the short term orders allow for long term business planning/staffing/equipment for the agency.• Deviations for product improvements should be allowed; obsolete specifications need to be updated.
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Industry and SecurityTextile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments – Preliminary, 2017
BIS/OTE Textile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments 51
276 respondentsQ3b, B.4
8
48
17
28
9
22
8
16
31
57
21
11
Yes No Not Sure Not Applicable0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Would your organization suggest any changes in the mandatory source regulations or contracting practices?
Textiles
Textile Products
Apparel
U.S. Textiles and Apparel - USG Mandatory Sourcing
Comments:• Change the ranking of priorities. Source America, then NIB, and then FPI.• Do not allow FPI/UNICOR to bid on small business set asides.• Eliminate FPI from offering on any type of Small Business Set-Aside• Eliminate Mandatory Sourcing. In many cases suppliers are no longer in business.• Federal Prison Industries has to go. Federal gov't is subsidizing the cost of sewn products by using prison labor. Why are we training
prisoners for the very few sewing jobs that are still around?
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Industry and SecurityTextile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments – Preliminary, 2017
BIS/OTE Textile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments 52
14 respondents
1
1
1
2
2
7
0 2 4 6 8
Lowest Price TechnicallyAcceptable (LPTA)
Other (specify below)
Time and Materials
Fixed Price
Not Applicable
Best Value
# of Responses
Select the contract type your organization most frequently uses to do
business with the U.S. Government.
Q3a, E.2
U.S. Footwear – USG Contracting
COMMENTS:
Best Value• Best value in military boots defaults
primarily to cost. Most contractors are deemed equivalent so best value tradeoffs default to cost. Small Businesses are poorly represented in solicitations.
• Best Value via TLS• We prefer best value procurements as it
includes past performance (i.e. delivery and quality record) as an evaluation factor. The majority of our contracts are firm-fixed price.
Fixed Price• IDIQ has also been a factor in all previous
contracts.
Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA)• Always been this way
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Industry and SecurityTextile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments – Preliminary, 2017
BIS/OTE Textile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments 53
12 respondentsQ3a, E.4
7
5
Yes No0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
# of
Res
pond
ents
Does your organization have any recommendations to improve the
overall U.S. Government acquisition process for footwear?
U.S. Footwear – USG Contracting
RECOMMENDATIONS:
• Expand Small Business utilization in solicitations and stop removing Small Business Lots during negotiations for price. This defeats the purpose of protecting Small Businesses.
• Quicker turn-around times from market survey to pre-solicitation to solicitation to contract award. Longer lead times are needed from award to the initial delivery of product. Need government to rely in a more faithful manner on expert footwear manufacturers as it relates to product specifications and the amount of time needed to manufacture product with the highest possible quality. We would recommend the elimination of small business set-asides and HUB Zone pricing advantages.
• Shorten the time from solicitation to award• Shorting the amount of time from bid closings
to award
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Industry and SecurityTextile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments – Preliminary, 2017
BIS/OTE Textile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments 54
280 respondentsQ3b, C1
26
169
85
Not Applicable
No
Yes
0 50 100 150 200
# of Respondents
Has your organization experienced difficulties working with textile and apparel-related
military specifications (MILSPECs)? • Fabric manufacturers have a difficult
time meeting the shade and physical spec on some product lines.
• Inconsistencies and errors noted in Purchase Description (PD's)
• It is sometimes difficult to obtain MILSPEC documents
• It is sometimes difficult to source materials, costs are high due to military procurement of textiles we need for other applications.
• Maintaining Berry compliance in relation to raw materials
• Majority of these specs are out of date!• Many specifications are extremely
outdated and non-applicable to current products
U.S. Textiles and Apparel – Military Specifications (MILSPECs)
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Industry and SecurityTextile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments – Preliminary, 2017
BIS/OTE Textile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments 55
14 respondentsQ3a, F1
3
8
3
Not Applicable
No
Yes
0 2 4 6 8 10
# of Respondents
Has your organization experienced difficulties working with footwear-related military
specifications (MILSPECs)? • Military specifications are very outdated and need to be updated to include any amendments/modifications the DoD has made prior to procurement issuance. A single, updated and finalized document needs to be issued to industry prior to the procurement to allow adequate time for response at time of procurement release. We would recommend the USG provide finalized specifications to be utilized in upcoming procurements at a minimum of 30 days in advance of the procurement.
• Only as it related to construction method. No other issues have been noticed.
U.S. Footwear – Military Specifications (MILSPECs)
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Industry and SecurityTextile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments – Preliminary, 2017
BIS/OTE Textile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments 56
295 respondents
Yes, 202, 68%
No, 37, 13%
Not Sure, 40, 14%
Not Applicable,
16, 5%
Does the Berry Amendment have a positive impact on your organization's business?
Q3c, A.2
U.S. Textile and Apparel - Berry Amendment Impact
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Industry and SecurityTextile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments – Preliminary, 2017
BIS/OTE Textile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments 57
289 respondentsQ3d, A
69
24
8
35
26
11
115
145
127
30
16
11
40
32
14
38
42
26
80
84
33
36
43
51
91
55
96
16
19
14
34
34
45
3
7
13
25
82
187
117
116
139
7
9
7
64
61
34
25
35
26
31
28
20
Decreasing the acquisition threshold (currently $150,000)
Increasing the acquisition threshold (currently $150,000)
Repealing the Berry Amendment in its entirety
Reducing the percentage of the 100% U.S.-originrequirement
Allowing for more Berry Amendment exemptions
Reducing the number of product groups subject to theBerry Amendment
Expanding the number of product groups subject to theBerry Amendment (e.g., Athletic Shoes)
Expanding the number of USG agencies subject to theBerry Amendment
Leaving the provisions of the Berry Amendment unchanged
# of Responses
For the following actions, indicate the impacts on your organization as they relate to the Berry Amendment
Positive Somewhat Positive No Impact Somewhat Negative Negative Too Difficult to Determine
U.S. Textile and Apparel - Berry Amendment
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Industry and SecurityTextile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments – Preliminary, 2017
BIS/OTE Textile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments 58
U.S. Footwear - Berry Amendment Impact
13 respondentsQ3b,A.2
Yes, 11, 85%
No, 2, 15%
Does the Berry Amendment have a positive impact on your organization's business?
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Industry and SecurityTextile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments – Preliminary, 2017
BIS/OTE Textile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments 59
U.S. Footwear - Berry Amendment
13 respondentsQ3c,A
7
9
6
2
2
4
1
1
2
1
2
2
3
1
2
3
1
1
2
2
3
2
1
1
7
1
1
8
9
8
11
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Leaving the provisions of the Berry Amendment unchanged
Expanding the number of USG agencies subject to the BerryAmendment
Expanding the number of product groups subject to the BerryAmendment (e.g., Athletic Shoes)
Reducing the number of product groups subject to the BerryAmendment
Allowing for more Berry Amendment exemptions
Reducing the percentage of the 100% U.S.-origin requirement
Repealing the Berry Amendment in its entirety
Increasing the acquisition threshold (currently $150,000)
Decreasing the acquisition threshold (currently $150,000)
# of Responses
Positive Somewhat Positive No Impact Somewhat Negative Negative Too Difficult to Determine
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Industry and SecurityTextile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments – Preliminary, 2017
BIS/OTE Textile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments 60
289 respondentsQ3d, B2
Yes, 74, 26%
No, 49, 17%Not Sure, 94,
32%
N/A, 72, 25%
Does the Kissell Amendment have a positive impact on your organization's business?
U.S. Textile and Apparel - Kissell Amendment Impact
• 44 respondents reported having used or worked under the provisions of the Kissell Amendment
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Industry and SecurityTextile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments – Preliminary, 2017
BIS/OTE Textile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments 61
U.S. Footwear - Kissell Amendment Impact
13 respondentsQ3c,B.2
Yes, 5, 39%
No, 1, 8%
Not Sure, 5, 38%
N/A, 2, 15%
Does the Kissell Amendment have a positive impact on your organization's business?
• 6 respondents reported having used or worked under the provisions of the Kissell Amendment
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Industry and SecurityTextile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments – Preliminary, 2017
BIS/OTE Textile, Apparel, and Footwear Industry Assessments
U.S. Department of CommerceBureau of Industry and Security1401 Constitution Avenue, NW
HCHB 1093Washington, DC 20230
Elizabeth OakesTrade and Industry Analyst
(202) 482-4615elizabeth.oakes@bis.doc.gov
62
Brad BotwinDirector, Industrial Studies
(202) 482-4060brad.botwin@bis.doc.gov
Stamen BorissonTrade and Industry Analyst
(202) 482-3893stamen.borisson@bis.doc.gov
BIS/OTE Contact Information
Industrial Base Reports:www.bis.doc.gov/DIB
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Industry and Security UNCLASSIFIED
Section 232 Investigations: www.bis.doc.gov/232
Erika MaynardSpecial Projects Director
(202) 482-5572erika.maynard@bis.doc.gov
Recommended