Skip to content

Menu

LexBlog, Inc. logo
NetworkSub-MenuBrowse by SubjectBrowse by PublisherJoin the NetworkGet StartedSubscribeSupport
Contact Us
Search
Close

Defense Production Act: Continuing Use of Title III Authority by DoD

By David F. Dowd & Marcia Madsen on May 1, 2020
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn
scientist in lab collect dna sample in test tube with cotton swab

On April 29, 2020, the US Department of Defense (DoD) announced that it had exercised its authority under Title III of the Defense Production Act (“DPA”), 50 U.S.C. § 4501 et seq., to fund increased production capacity for swabs in light of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Section 303 of the DPA provides authority to ensure the timely availability of essential domestic industrial resources to support national defense and homeland security requirements through the use of tailored economic incentives. Authorized incentives include direct purchases and purchase commitments, development of emerging technologies, and the authority to procure and install equipment in private industrial facilities. 50 U.S.C. § 4533.

Previously in April, DoD provided $133 million in Title III contracts to bolster production of N95 respirators.

In its April 29 announcement, DoD stated that it will “invest $75.5 million” in Title III funding “to increase swab production by 20 million per month” starting in May 2020. The contract was awarded to Puritan Medical Products, which will quickly establish a new manufacturing facility capable of doubling its current monthly output of 20 million to 40 million swabs.

According to the DoD announcement, Puritan will secure a manufacturing facility in Pittsfield, Maine. Puritan will add 150 employees to staff the new factory, which is scheduled to start production in May 2020.

DoD has standing authority to use Title III and has established a program under the auspices of the Office of Industrial Policy staffed with experts to identify and support projects. Before Section 303 authorities may be used by other agencies, the President must make a (non-delegable) finding that there is a “shortfall” in the domestic industrial base for a particular type of technology or industrial capability that poses a threat to national defense. Such a shortfall determination reflects that current US industry does not have the capability to produce the needed product(s) and that the purchases, or other actions are the most effective means of meeting the need. To date, no such determination has been made for agencies outside DoD. Further use of DoD to facilitate such actions should be expected.

***

If you wish to receive periodic updates on this or other topics related to the pandemic, you can be added to our COVID-19 “Special Interest” mailing list by subscribing here. For any other legal questions related to this pandemic, please contact the Firm’s COVID-19 Core Response Team at FW-SIG-COVID-19-Core-Response-Team@mayerbrown.com.

Photo of David F. Dowd David F. Dowd

David Dowd is an experienced litigator whose practice has a strong emphasis in government contracting issues and controversies. He advises such clients as those involved in health care, information technology, large military systems, engineering services, and other industries regarding federal procurements and related…

David Dowd is an experienced litigator whose practice has a strong emphasis in government contracting issues and controversies. He advises such clients as those involved in health care, information technology, large military systems, engineering services, and other industries regarding federal procurements and related issues. His counsel in this area includes commercial items, conflicts of interest, cost allowability issues, defective pricing, contract and subcontract negotiations, contract financing, assignments and novations, leasing, prime/sub disputes, preparation of claims, and procurement fraud.

Read David’s full bio.

Read more about David F. DowdEmail
Show more Show less
Photo of Marcia Madsen Marcia Madsen

Marcia focuses on Government Contracts and Litigation, advising clients on contract formation, teaming and strategic alliances, contract and subcontract negotiations, performance disputes, audits, terminations, cost accounting and allowability, technical data rights and trade secrets, and fraud/false claims investigations • litigates bid protests and…

Marcia focuses on Government Contracts and Litigation, advising clients on contract formation, teaming and strategic alliances, contract and subcontract negotiations, performance disputes, audits, terminations, cost accounting and allowability, technical data rights and trade secrets, and fraud/false claims investigations • litigates bid protests and claims and disputes before the GAO, the Boards of Contract Appeals, the Court of Federal Claims, and various other federal and state courts • has handled numerous ADR and mediation proceedings • areas of concentration include aerospace and defense contracts, systems integration, information systems and telecommunications contracts, health care and bio-technology, homeland security contracts, environmental remediation, and research and development contracts.

Read Marcia’s full bio.

Read more about Marcia MadsenEmail
Show more Show less
  • Posted in:
    Government and Public Policy
  • Blog:
    COVID-19 Response Blog
  • Organization:
    Mayer Brown

Call us at 1-800-913-0988 or email sales@lexblog.com.

Facebook LinkedIn Twitter RSS
  • About LexBlog
  • The Field We Built
  • Our Beliefs
  • Our Team
  • Contact LexBlog
  • Disclaimer
  • Editorial Policy
  • Terms of Service
  • Get Started
  • Publishing Solutions
  • Compass
  • Submit a Request
  • Support Center
  • System Status
Copyright © 2026, LexBlog, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Law blog design & platform by LexBlog LexBlog Logo