 
  
August 10, 2021
Security of Supply Arrangements (SOSAs): Background and 
Issues
The U.S. defense industrial base (DIB) sources goods, 
from the Second World War and the Cold War. 
services, and raw materials from the global marketplace to 
International treaties and integration policies provide 
support national security and defense requirements. To 
Canada with various benefits and export control 
facilitate the unhindered access to some key supplies, the 
exemptions, notably including some exemptions to the 
Department of Defense (DOD) has entered into bilateral 
International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR). The 
Security of Supply Arrangements (SOSAs) with selected 
U.S., meanwhile, has special access to supply chains and 
foreign governments to secure the mutual timely provision 
productive capacity based in Canada. In some respects, 
of defense-related goods and services during peacetime, 
SOSAs may be seen as intermediate DIB cooperation 
emergency, and armed conflict. SOSAs allow DOD to 
arrangements more specific and intensive than RDP MOUs 
request prioritized performance of contracts from 
or broader defense cooperation agreements, but less 
companies in SOSA-signatory nations, and for SOSA 
exclusive compared to the U.S.-Canada relationship 
signatories to request the same from U.S. firms. 
primarily, or the National Technology and Industrial Base 
(NTIB)—a statutorily established designation that includes 
This In Focus considers the background of SOSAs in the 
the U.S., Australia, Canada, and the UK. 
context of a globally integrated defense industrial base, as 
well as potential policy considerations for Congress to 
DPA Regulations and SOSAs 
advance national security and homeland defense.  
Under Title I of the Defense Production Act (DPA), the 
President has the authority to prioritize the performance of 
Background 
a contract for the promotion of the national defense, broadly 
SOSAs are non-binding international agreements that 
defined. Title I authorities are governed under Executive 
provide a framework for the U.S. to receive and provide 
Order (E.O.) 13603, which delegates DPA authorities to 
priority support for defense-related goods and services with 
certain cabinet secretaries across multiple sectors of the 
signatory nations. SOSAs are conducted under bilateral 
civilian economy. Those delegations are: 
“Declarations of Principles for Enhanced Cooperation in 
Matters of Defense Equipment and Industry,” that establish 
1.  the Secretary of Agriculture with respect 
a framework for the signatories to follow in order to assure 
to food resources, food resource facilities, 
supply. SOSAs are the practical extension of these 
livestock resources, veterinary resources, 
principles and are negotiated by DOD (in coordination with 
plant health resources, and the domestic 
other executive branch agencies, particularly the State and 
distribution of farm equipment and 
Commerce Departments) with a counterpart foreign 
commercial fertilizer; 
government agency—usually the defense ministry (MoD). 
2.  the Secretary of Energy with respect to all 
Currently, the U.S. has active SOSAs with: Australia 
forms of energy; 
(signed in 2011); Finland (2007); Italy (2003); the 
3.  the Secretary of Health and Human 
Netherlands (1978); Norway (2018); Spain (2015); Sweden 
Services (HHS) with respect to health 
(1987); and the United Kingdom (UK, 2017). Although 
resources; 
Canada does not have a SOSA, the Department of 
Commerce has a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) 
4.  the Secretary of Transportation with 
with Public Services and Procurement Canada to mutually 
respect to all forms of civil transportation; 
prioritize defense purchases (signed in 1998). This MOU 
5.  the Secretary of Defense with respect to 
operates like a SOSA. 
water resources; and 
6.  the Secretary of Commerce with all other 
SOSAs represent one of many potential mechanisms for 
materials, services, and facilities, 
multinational DIB cooperation. In addition to SOSAs, these 
including construction materials. 
mechanisms can include broad defense cooperation 
agreements (which provide the framework for SOSAs), as 
Under the same E.O., each Secretary is required to develop 
well as more targeted agreements known as Reciprocal 
regulations to prioritize and allocate resources and establish 
Defense Procurement and Acquisition Policy (RDP) 
standards and procedures to promote the national defense. 
MOUs, which allow DOD to exempt designated countries 
Although E.O. 13603 governs these standing designations, 
they may be amended or superseded at the President’s 
from procurement constraints under the Buy American 
statute (see 41 U.S.C. §§83, et seq.).  
discretion. Six such regulations exist, which in totality are 
known as the 
Federal Priorities and Allocations System 
Canada may be the United States’ closest international 
(FPAS) and encompass: (1) the Agriculture Priorities and 
defense partner, due in part to interdependencies that grew 
Allocation System, by the Department of Agriculture (7 
Formatted: IF: Footer Last
https://crsreports.congress.gov 
www.crs.gov  |  7-5700 
  
 
Security of Supply Arrangements (SOSAs): Background and Issues 
C.F.R. §789); (2) the Energy Priorities and Allocations 
SOSAs, etc.). While they represent a spectrum of graduated 
System, by the Department of Energy (10 C.F.R. §217); (3) 
DIB integration, their relationship to each other—and to 
the Health Resources Priorities and Allocations System, by 
other international agreements (such as alliances, strategic 
the Department of Health and Human Services  (45 C.F.R. 
partnerships, and various other special agreements or 
§101); (4) the Transportation Priorities and Allocations 
designations) is less clear. As such, Congress may consider 
System by the Department of Transportation (49 C.F.R. 
elaborating in statute how such agreements, including 
§33); (5) the Defense Priorities and Allocations System 
SOSAs, fit into U.S. national security and defense policy, 
(DPAS) by the Department of Commerce (15 C.F.R. §700); 
and provide statutory authorization for their development.  
and (6) the Emergency Management Priorities and 
Allocations System (EMPAS) by the Federal Emergency 
Relatedly, given interest among allies and partners to 
Management Agency under E.O. 13911 (44 C.F.R. §333).  
integrate more closely with the U.S. DIB, Congress may 
consider establishing principles to create mutual defense 
DOD has not issued a priorities and allocations system with 
industry integration pathways that support U.S. defense and 
respect to water resources. DOD, by far the most 
national security requirements and take a broader view of 
historically frequent user of DPA authorities, has received 
international and national security cooperation. This could 
sub-delegated Title I authorities from the Department of 
potentially privilege treaty allies (e.g. NATO members, 
Commerce’s Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS), which 
Japan, and Australia) primarily, and Major Non-NATO 
issues and oversees DPAS implementation. SOSAs are 
Ally designees (e.g., Argentina, Israel, New Zealand, etc.) 
implemented through the DPAS, which is the most 
and strategic partners (e.g., Bahrain, Georgia, Mexico, etc.) 
frequently used and broadest regulatory framework among 
secondarily.  
the FPAS.  
In addition, because SOSAs are non-binding, they are 
SOSAs and the DPAS 
potentially more vulnerable to contravention, including 
Although the DPAS and DPA have no legal authority 
during emergencies or other contingencies. As a result, it is 
outside of the United States, DPAS also includes guidance 
conceivable that a company within a SOSA partner country 
for exercising non-binding assistance for selected foreign 
could benefit from preferred access to the U.S. DIB, but 
partners. The DPA priorities authority applies to the 
may fail to fulfill U.S. requests later. As such, Congress 
prioritization of contracts to support an approved national 
may consider developing statutory mechanisms to better 
defense and/or energy program. Under the DPAS, the 
incentivize cooperation and discourage non-compliance—
BIS—or its designated delegate, like DOD—may place 
such as the termination of a SOSA for a designated period 
priority ratings on certain contracts. The DPAS allows for 
after a determination of improper non-compliance. 
requests for priority assistance from any foreign entity, but 
it provides special preferences for countries with which 
Related Reading 
DOD has a SOSA.  
The following CRS reports and products may provide 
additional context: 
SOSAs allow DOD to request priority delivery of goods, 
via contracts, subcontracts, or orders, from companies in 
  CRS Report R43767, 
The Defense Production Act of 
Formatted: Default Paragraph Font
the signatory country, and vice versa. The DPAS also 
1950: History, Authorities, and Considerations for 
provides guidance to signatory countries making requests 
CongressThe Defense Production Act of 1950: History, 
Formatted: Default Paragraph Font
for priority delivery from U.S. companies or a SOSA 
Authorities, and Considerations for Congress, by 
partner country, indicating that they should contact the 
Michael H. Cecire and Heidi M. Peters; 
DOD DPAS lead, which currently resides within the DOD 
Industrial Policy office. Although SOSAs provide priority 
  CRS In Focus IF10548, 
Defense Primer: U.S. Defense 
Formatted: Default Paragraph Font
assistance preferences to the U.S. and the partner country, 
Industrial BaseDefense Primer: U.S. Defense Industrial 
they are non-binding and confer no legal obligations.   
Base, by Heidi M. Peters; 
Formatted: Default Paragraph Font
Individual SOSAs provide more detailed guidance for 
  CRS In Focus IF11311, 
Defense Primer: The National 
Formatted: Default Paragraph Font
requesting priority assistance. The most recent SOSA, 
Technology and Industrial BaseDefense Primer: The 
signed in 2018 between DOD and Norway’s MoD, includes 
National Technology and Industrial Base, by Heidi M. 
Formatted: Default Paragraph Font
language to communicate intent behind the SOSA; actions 
Peters; 
for the SOSA’s implementation; designated points of 
contact and review (DOD and Norway’s MoD); and the 
  CRS Report R46814, 
The U.S. Export Control System 
Formatted: Default Paragraph Font
effective date and terms of the SOSA. Several SOSAs, 
and the Export Control Reform Act of 2018The U.S. 
including the one with Norway, provide for the issuance of 
Export Control System and the Export Control Reform 
Formatted: Default Paragraph Font
a code of conduct to govern SOSA implementation for 
Act of 2018, coordinated by Ian F. Fergusson;  
priority assistance. Four SOSA partner countries—Finland, 
Italy, Sweden, and the UK—have promulgated codes of 
  CRS Report R46628, 
COVID-19 and Domestic PPE 
Formatted: Default Paragraph Font
conduct and published lists of participating companies. 
Production and Distribution: Issues and Policy 
OptionsCOVID-19 and Domestic PPE Production and 
Policy Considerations 
Formatted: Default Paragraph Font
Distribution: Issues and Policy Options, coordinated by 
Currently, SOSAs may be considered part of a broader 
Michael H. Cecire; and 
overlapping array of international mechanisms for DIB 
cooperation and integration (e.g., U.S.-Canada; NTIB; 
Formatted: IF: Footer Last
https://crsreports.congress.govwww.crs.gov  |  7-5700
 
Security of Supply Arrangements (SOSAs): Background and Issues 
  CRS In Focus IF11767, 
The Defense Production Act 
Michael H. Cecire, , Analyst in Intergovernmental 
Formatted: Default Paragraph Font
Committee (DPAC): A PrimerThe Defense Production 
Relations and Economic Development 
Act Committee (DPAC): A Primer, by Michael H. 
Policymcecire@crs.loc.gov,  7-7109 
Formatted: Default Paragraph Font
Cecire. 
Heidi M. Peters, , Analyst in U.S. Defense Acquisition 
Formatted: Default Paragraph Font
Policyhpeters@crs.loc.gov,  7-0702 
Formatted: Default Paragraph Font
IF11894
 
Formatted: Number of columns: 1
 
Disclaimer This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan shared staff to 
congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and under the direction of Congress. 
Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other than public understanding of information that has 
been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the 
United States Government, are not subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be 
reproduced and distributed in its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include 
copyrighted images or material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder if you 
wish to copy or otherwise use copyrighted material. 
 
Formatted: IF: Footer Last
https://crsreports.congress.gov | IF11894 · VERSION 11 · NEWNEW 
www.crs.gov  |  7-5700