Buy American, Build Later? Affordable Housing Meets Another Roadblock

I have no problem with using American-made materials to build American homes. Supporting our manufacturers, keeping people employed, and strengthening domestic production are worthwhile goals. But when pursuing those goals slows the construction of housing people desperately need, I think we have earned the right to ask a few uncomfortable questions.

That is the dilemma surrounding Build America, Buy America, the domestic sourcing law Congress enacted in 2021. Its requirements apply to certain federally funded construction projects, including affordable housing. Developers have reported difficulty finding qualifying products and securing waivers, leading to delays and added costs. Associated Press reporting

For an industry already trying to make difficult projects financially possible, this adds another consideration before construction can move forward. Finding a product that meets the plans, satisfies the building code, and fits the budget may no longer finish the purchasing conversation. Someone also has to establish whether it meets the applicable domestic sourcing requirements. 

A Housing Project Is Also a Purchasing Puzzle

The requirement is sometimes described as making developers buy 95% of their materials domestically, but that shorthand oversimplifies the rules. Build America, Buy America treats iron and steel, construction materials, and manufactured products differently, with applicable waivers also affecting compliance. It is more complicated than checking an American-made label on 95 out of every 100 purchases. 

Think about the purchasing decisions involved in an apartment building. These include structural materials, windows, doors, plumbing assemblies, electrical equipment, heating and cooling systems, cabinets, and finishes. Each involves specifications, suppliers, delivery dates, and documentation. A product being sold by an American distributor does not, by itself, answer where it was manufactured.

Now consider what happens when a purchasing manager has found an acceptable product but cannot obtain the necessary sourcing documentation. The next step may involve more supplier calls, another product search, or requesting an exception. None of that moves a family into an apartment, but someone still has to do the work.

The Cost of Waiting Shows Up Somewhere

One thing I have learned watching construction businesses is that a delayed decision rarely stays confined to the desk where it started. It works its way into purchasing, scheduling, financing, and eventually the project’s bottom line. A missing answer can become a very real expense.

Picture a development ready to order equipment when a sourcing question forces the team to reconsider its selection. A substitute may require design review, a different installation approach, or a revised delivery schedule. Even when the replacement is affordable, changing course can still cost time and money.

Affordable housing deserves particular attention. When a budget has limited room for additional costs, someone must find more funding, reduce expenses elsewhere, or reconsider what can be built. The families waiting for those homes have no control over these decisions, yet they live with the consequences.

Offsite Construction Cannot Manufacture Its Way Around Every Delay

Those of us in offsite construction should pay attention to this discussion because predictable purchasing is central to factory production. A factory needs to know what it is building, which materials it will use, and when those materials will arrive. Uncertainty becomes particularly troublesome once a production schedule is committed.

Standardization offers a practical advantage here. A manufacturer that repeatedly uses the same documented, qualifying products could spread the sourcing work across multiple projects. Established supplier relationships and consistent specifications could make compliance easier to manage.

But that advantage depends on doing the work early. If a product’s eligibility remains unresolved until a project is approaching production, the factory may face substitutions and scheduling changes at precisely the wrong time. Factory efficiency cannot compensate for every unresolved decision upstream.

Make Buying American Easier to Accomplish

I believe the useful conversation starts with how to make this policy work in everyday construction. Manufacturers need clear expectations about documentation. Developers need usable information about qualifying products. Purchasing teams need answers early enough to place orders with confidence.

Where waivers are appropriate, the process should provide timely, understandable decisions. Where domestic supply is insufficient, manufacturers need a clear picture of the demand they could serve. Requiring a product and building a reliable supply of it are related responsibilities.

Suppliers also have a practical opportunity to make compliance simpler for customers. Providing organized sourcing records, along with pricing, specifications, and delivery information, could become a meaningful service. Anyone who reduces uncertainty helps the entire project move forward.

Gary’s Observation

I want American factories producing more of the materials that go into our homes. I also want the people working in those factories to have homes they can afford. Those goals belong in the same conversation, and the policy's success should be judged by how well it advances both.

We spend considerable time asking builders and offsite manufacturers to become faster, more efficient and more predictable. Government has a responsibility to examine its own processes with that same discipline. If buying American requires better supply information, clearer documentation and faster decisions, then those should be part of the housing effort.

The intention behind a law matters. So does what happens when a purchasing manager tries to follow it on a Tuesday morning with a construction schedule waiting for an answer.