Acquisition Ethics Training

Acquisition Ethics Training
2009

OVERVIEW Introduction Procurement Integrity Act (PIA)
Role of the COR/COTR Government Purchase Cards Bribery Gifts Allowing for “Time-Off” This slide lists all of the topics included in the training materials. You will be unable to cover all of these topics in a one-hour training session. Since different commands and organizations have varying needs, it is recommended that you tailor the presentation to the training needs of your command or organization. Throughout the presentation, certain words or phrases are highlighted in red, which signifies a prohibition.

Overview Continued Traveling with Contractors
Recommendation For Contractor Personnel Organizational Conflicts of Interest Seeking Employment Working for Contractors after Government Employment Ethics Decision-Making

Acquisition Ethics Training
2006

Working with Contractors in the Federal Workplace
Introduction Working with Contractors in the Federal Workplace

Why Are We Here?

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 2, 2006, Former Department of Defense Contractor Pleads Guilty to Participating in Bribery, Fraud and Money Laundering Scheme in Al-Hillah, Iraq WASHINGTON, D.C. – Robert J. Stein, a former U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) contractor, pleaded guilty today to charges of conspiracy, bribery, money laundering, unlawful possession of machine guns, and being a felon in possession of a firearm in connection with a scheme to defraud the Coalition Provisional Authority - South Central Region (CPA-SC) in Al-Hillah, Iraq. At today’s hearing, Stein admitted that, beginning in about December 2003 while serving as the comptroller and funding officer for the CPA-SC, he -- along with other public officials, including several U.S. Army officers -- conspired to rig the bids on contracts being awarded by the CPA-SC in order to steer contracts to a co-conspiring contractor. According to a document filed in U.S. District Court and agreed to by Stein, the total value of the contracts awarded to Stein’s co-conspirator in Al Hillah exceeded $8 million. Stein also admitted today that he and others received bribes exceeding $1,000,000 in money, cars, jewelry and other items of value from the co-conspirator contractor in return for using their official positions to award contracts to that contractor and his companies. Stein faces a maximum penalty of 30 years in prison, a five-year term of supervised release, and a fine of $250,000. He presently remains in custody. A sentencing date has not yet been scheduled.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE. MONDAY, JANUARY 29, 2007. WWW. USDOJ
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE MONDAY, JANUARY 29, Former DOD Contractor Sentenced in Case Involving Bribery, Fraud and Money Laundering Scheme in al-Hillah, Iraq WASHINGTON – A former Department of Defense (DOD) contractor was sentenced to nine years in prison and ordered to forfeit $3.6 million for his role in a bribery and fraud scheme involving contracts in the reconstruction of Iraq, Assistant Attorney General Alice S. Fisher of the Criminal Division announced today. Robert J. Stein, 52, of Fayetteville, N.C. was sentenced today in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia by Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly. The judge also sentenced Stein to three years of supervised release. Stein was arrested in Fayetteville on Nov. 14, 2005, and pleaded guilty on February 2, 2006, to being a felon in possession of a firearm, possession of machine guns, bribery, money laundering, and conspiracy in connection with a scheme to defraud the Coalition Provisional Authority – South Central Region (CPA-SC) in al-Hillah, Iraq. “Robert Stein will now spend nine years in jail for exploiting his public position and accepting bribes for contracts during the rebuilding of Iraq,” said Assistant Attorney General Fisher. “The Department of Justice will protect the integrity of the federal contracting process by aggressively prosecuting fraud, bribery and other crimes that taint missions as critical as the reconstruction of Iraq.” Stein admitted to participating in a complex bribery, fraud and money laundering scheme while serving as the Comptroller and Funding Officer for the CPA-SC. From December 2003 through December 2005, Philip H. Bloom, a U.S. citizen who owned and operated several companies in Iraq and Romania, Bruce D. Hopfengardner, a Lieutenant Colonel in the U.S. Army Reserves, and numerous public officials, including several high-ranking U.S. Army officers, conspired to rig the bids on contracts being awarded by the CPA-SC so that all of the contracts were awarded to Bloom. In return, Bloom provided the public officials with over $1 million in cash, SUVs, sports cars, a motorcycle, jewelry, computers, business class airline tickets, liquor, future employment with Bloom, and other items of value. In addition, Bloom laundered over $2 million in currency that Stein and his co-conspirators stole from the CPA-SC that had been designated to be used for the reconstruction of Iraq. Bloom then used his foreign bank accounts in Iraq, Romania and Switzerland to send the stolen money to Stein, Hopfengardner and other public officials in return for the awarded contracts. In total, Bloom received over $8.6 million in rigged contracts. During the course of the conspiracy, Stein and other co-conspirators stole U.S. currency and funneled those funds to Bloom in order to purchase illegal controlled weapons which they converted to their own personal use in the United States, including assault rifles, silencers, and grenade launchers. Stein has cooperated with the government’s ongoing investigation.On March 10, 2006, co-conspirator Bloom, pleaded guilty to related charges of conspiracy, bribery and money laundering in connection with the same scheme as Stein. Bloom is scheduled to be sentenced on February 16, On August 25, 2006, co-conspirator Hopfengardner pleaded guilty to related charges of conspiracy to commit wire fraud and money laundering in connection with the same scheme as Bloom andStein. Hopfengardner is scheduled for a status conference on March 23, 2007.

Ex-Air Force Official Gets Prison Time
Boeing Received Special Treatment in Procurement By Renae Merle and Jerry Markon Washington Post Staff Writer Saturday, October 2,2004; Page A01 One of the primary reasons for training Army personnel associated with the acquisition process is the criminal prosecution of Darleen Druyun, who was the number 2 procurement official in the Air Force. Druyun was sentenced in September 2004 to nine months in Federal prison after she admitted to violating ethics rules for negotiating a job with Boeing, while still overseeing the company's Pentagon contracts. Druyun said she favored Boeing in four contract negotiations and called a multibillion Air Force proposal to lease tanker refueling aircraft from Boeing a "parting gift" to her future employer. The former chief financial officer for Boeing also pleaded guilty in federal court to illegally helping Druyun land a lucrative job with the company. The next four slides are verbatim excepts taken from the Department of Justice’s documents and form the factual basis for Druyun’s guilty plea. These examples, although they seem outrageous, demonstrate what not to do in seeking employment and other conflicts of interest. This section may also be used in conjunction with “Seeking Employment” and “Working for Contractors after Government Employment.” You should also note that Ms. Druyun was considered a “model client.” She was advised on at least six occasions concerning post-employment restrictions. Each time she acquired a new asset she informed her ethics counselor. Also, she, in fact, executed disqualification statements pertaining to other contractors while seeking employment.

Facts The defendant, since July 28, 2004, now acknowledges that she did favor the Boeing Company in certain negotiations as a result of her employment negotiations and other favors provided by Boeing to the defendant. Defendant acknowledges that Boeing’s employment of her future son-in-law and her daughter in 2000, at the defendant’s request, along with the defendant’s desire to be employed by Boeing, influenced her government decisions in matters affecting Boeing. That as a result of the loss of her objectivity, she took actions which harmed the United States to include the following:

Facts In negotiations with Boeing concerning the lease agreement for 100 Boeing KC 767A tanker aircraft, the defendant agreed to a higher price for the aircraft than she believed was appropriate. The defendant did so, in her view, as a “parting gift to Boeing” and because of her desire to ingratiate herself with Boeing, her future employer. The defendant also now acknowledges providing to Boeing during the negotiations what at the time she considered to be proprietary pricing data supplied by another aircraft manufacturer.

But there’s more! During 2002 the defendant, as chairperson of the NATO Airborne Early Warning and Control Program Management Board of Directors, was involved in negotiations with Boeing concerning a restructuring of the NATO AWACS program. The defendant negotiated a payment of 100 million dollars to Boeing as part of that restructuring. The defendant now acknowledges that at the time she believed a lower amount to be an appropriate settlement and she did not act in the best interest of the United States and NATO. Her agreement to the 100 million dollar settlement was influenced by her daughter’s and son-in-law’s relationship with Boeing and the employment negotiations.

And More! During 2000 the defendant negotiated a settlement with Boeing concerning the C-17 H22 contract clause with a senior executive of Boeing. These negotiations occurred at the time the defendant was seeking employment at Boeing for her daughter’s boyfriend. The defendant’s decision to agree to a payment of approximately 412 million dollars to Boeing in connection with the C-17 H22 clause was influenced by Boeing’s assistance to the defendant.

Boeing to Pay United States Record $615 Million to Resolve Fraud Allegations
WASHINGTON – Deputy Attorney General Paul J. McNulty announced today that the United States reached final agreement with The Boeing Company on a record $615 million settlement to resolve criminal and civil allegations that the company improperly used competitors’ information to procure contracts for launch services worth billions of dollars from the Air Force and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration…Boeing has agreed to pay a total of $615 million dollars to resolve the government’s investigations and claims relating to the company’s hiring of the former Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Acquisition and Management, Darleen A. Druyun, by its then Chief Financial Officer, Michael Sears, and its handling of competitors information in connection with the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV) Program and certain NASA launch services contracts… Boeing has agreed to accept responsibility for the conduct of its employees in these matters, continue its cooperation with federal investigators, pay a monetary penalty of $50 million, and maintain an effective ethics and compliance program, with particular attention to the hiring of former government officials and the handling of competitor information… The government’s investigation focused on Boeing’s relationship with the former Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Acquisition and Management, Darleen A. Druyun. Druyun was the Air Force’s top career procurement officer before she retired from the Air Force in In that position, she wielded influence over billions of dollars in contract awards, modifications, and settlements. In 2000, Boeing, at Druyun’s request, hired Druyun’s daughter and future son-in-law. Then in 2002, Boeing’s then Chief Financial Officer, Michael M. Sears, recruited Druyun for an executive position with Boeing following her retirement. During this period ( ), Druyun was responsible for dozens of Boeing contracts, as well as for the controversial $23 billion procurement to lease a fleet of KC-767 aerial refueling tankers that has since been canceled.

New Workplace Unchanging Laws Changing Workplace
Contractors Support DoD Mission Contractors are Perceived as “Partners” Unchanging Laws Fundamental Differences Legal and Ethical Limitations The last decade has seen remarkable change, not only in the way Army competes and awards contracts, but also a fundamental change in the role contractors play in supporting the Army’s mission. A widely-held, but inaccurate, view is that contractors are no longer outsiders with whom we deal at arms length. Instead, acquisition reform has encouraged the view that contractors are partners – the one team concept. Although contractors play a key role, they have different loyalties than those of Federal employees. So, there remain fundamental differences between the Government and the contractor, and very definite legal and ethical limitations on the degree to which we may act as “partners.” The following are numbers associated with the changing workplace: 72,000 contracts worth over $215B* 5.6M contractor personnel worked on Federal contracts** DoD approximately 60% contractor personnel *GSA’s Federal Procurement Data Center **Data from Paul C. Light, The True Size of Government (1996), as of 1996

Taken From THE NEW TRUE SIZE OF GOVERNMENT August 2006 PAUL C. LIGHT
THE TRUE SIZE OF GOVERNMENT, Measure Change Change 1. Civil servants 2,238,000 2,157,000 1,820,000 1,818,000 1,872, , ,000 2. Contract jobs 5,058,000 4,884,000 4,441,000 5,168,000 7,634, , ,466,000 3. Grant jobs 2,416,000 2,400,000 2,527,000 2,860,000 2,892,000* , ,000 4. Military personnel 2,106,000 1,744,000 1,386,000 1,456,000 1,436, , ,000 5. Postal service jobs 817, , , , , , ,000 The True Size of Government 12,635,000 12,005,000 11,046,000 12,112, ,601, ,066, ,489,000 * Grant data are from 2004, the last year for which complete data were available at the time of this analysis. * Nearly 400 Billion Dollars in Government Contracts in FY05, nearly twice the amount in FY96.

Investigations Reveal
“The lines became too easy to cross, and no one was paying attention. I don't even think most people know where the lines are anymore." Government Executive, February 2004, p. 21. Government Executive, February 2004, p. 21.

Goals Re-establish the Lines
Recognize when contractors and Federal employees must be distinguished The purpose of this training is to re-establish those lines. In many cases, the ethics rules governing your relations with contractor personnel are different from the rules governing your relations with your fellow Government employees. The goal of this training is to enhance your awareness of the differences in these rules.

WHY? Generally, conflict of interest laws and the Standards of Ethical Conduct do not apply to contractor employees, even when: Performing the same/similar work Working side-by-side in the Federal workplace, contractor workplace, or in the field Different Loyalties Result? Ethical Issues and actual or apparent conflicts of interest The lines between Federal employees (to include military personnel) and contractor personnel have become blurred. The next three slides are used to emphasize the principles guiding Federal employee conduct and that guiding contractor personnel.

Officers and Army Civilians
Oath of Office Officers and Army Civilians “I do solemnly swear/affirm that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter. So help me God.” The principle guiding Federal employment is self-less service. Principle 1 of the Ethical Code provides that: Public service is a public trust requiring employees to place loyalty to the Constitution, the laws and ethical principles above private gain.

Oath of Enlistment Enlisted Members
“I do solemnly swear/affirm that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.”

The Contractor’s Oath The Bottom Line
The bottom line. Self-explanatory

Procurement Integrity Act

Resources 41 USC the current version of the PIA went into effect on 1 Jan 97 Implemented by FAR 3.104, DFAR Part 203, and AFAR Part 5102 The accompanying handout contains significant details regarding the Procurement Integrity Act.

Bans Disclosing bid proposal or source selection information (for competitive procurements) Obtaining bid proposal or source selection information (for competitive procurements) Accepting compensation from certain contractors after leaving Federal employment Discussing non-Federal employment with certain bidders or offerors

Who does it Apply To? The ban applies to:
Current Federal employees and military personnel Former Federal employees and military personnel Individuals (such as contractor employees) who are currently advising the government regarding the procurement Individuals (such as contractor employees) who have advised the government regarding the procurement but are no longer doing so

Proposal or Bid Information
Cost or price data, including indirect costs and direct labor rates Proprietary information about manufacturing process, operations, or techniques identified by the contractor Information identified by any contractor as “contractor bid or proposal information”

What is Source Selection Information (SSI)
Bid prices Proposed costs or prices Source selection plans Technical evaluation plans Technical and cost or price evaluation proposals Competitive range determinations

SSI Continued Rankings of bids, proposals, competitors
Reports and evaluations of source selection panels, boards, or advisory councils Other “source selection information” if: (A) contracting officer has determined that its disclosure would jeopardize the integrity of the procurement and (B) it is marked with “source selection information – See FAR 3.104”

Definition of Contractor Bid or Proposal Information (CBPI)
CBPI means any of five types of information: Cost or pricing data Indirect costs & direct labor rates, and overhead rates Proprietary information about manufacturing processes, operations or techniques marked by the contractor

Definition of CBPI Continued
Information marked by the contractor as “contractor bid or proposal information” Information marked by the contractor IAW FAR clause , entitled “restriction on disclosure and use of data”

What Are Not Violations of the Disclosure Ban?
Information already disclosed publicly or made available to public Information disclosed by contractors. They are not prohibited from disclosing their own CBPI SSI & CBPI information disclosed, pursuant to a proper request, to Congress, the Comptroller General, or the inspector general (provided the SSI or CBPI is highlighted and notice given that disclosure is restricted by PIA.)

Penalties for Disclosing or Obtaining SSI or CBPI

Criminal Five years in prison, or a fine, or both.
Criminal, if an individual or organization improperly discloses or obtains SSI or CBPI – In exchange for anything of value, or In order to obtain for himself, or give to anyone else, a competitive advantage in the award of a Federal contract. Five years in prison, or a fine, or both.

Civil Penalties

Civil Penalties Each knowing violation -- up to $50,000 per violation and administration actions. Up to $50,000 per violation plus twice the amount of compensation an individual received or offered for the prohibited conduct. Up to $500,000 per violation plus twice the amount of compensation an organization received or offered for the prohibited conduct.

Administrative Actions

Administrative Actions
Cancellation of the procurement. Disqualification of an offeror. Rescission of the contract. Suspension or debarment of the contractor. Initiation of an adverse personnel action. Any other action in the best interest of the Government.

Post-employment 1-year Compensation Ban
These rules pertaining to the post-employment one year compensation ban are prescribed by the Procurement Integrity Act. These rules, if applicable, are in addition to other post-government restrictions discussed later.

Generally, Federal employees who serve in one of seven positions, or who make one of seven types of decisions, on a contract over $10 million, may not accept compensation from the contractor for 1 year as an employee, consultant, officer or director Ban can apply to officers, enlisted & civilians

The 7 Positions Procuring contracting officer
Source selection authority Member of source selection evaluation board Chief of financial or technical evaluation team Program manager Deputy program manager Administrative contracting officer On 10 August 1999, the DoD Standards of Conduct Office (DoD/GC-SOCO) issued a memorandum on the subject, "Guidance on Application of Procurement Integrity Compensation Ban to Program Managers." This memo is helpful in determining whether and individual is a program manager. It may be found on OSD SOCO’s website:

$10 Million Threshold Decision to award a contract over $10 million (including options, and estimated value of all task orders under IDIQ/requirements contracts) Decision to award a subcontract over $10 million Decision to award a modification that is over $10 million of a contract or subcontract Decision to award a task order or delivery order over $10 million

$10 Million Threshold Continued
Decision to establish overhead or other rates applicable to a contract or contracts valued over $10 million Decision to approve issuance of a contract payment or payments over $10 million Decision to pay or settle claim over $10 million

Anything Else? One year begins ------
Inapplicable to divisions or affiliates of a contractor that do not produce the same or similar products For procuring contracting officers, source selection authorities, members of source selection evaluation boards (SSEB), and evaluation team chiefs, ban starts on date of contract award. Exception: if an individual was serving in the position on the date of contractor selection, but not on the date of contract award, the ban begins to run on date of contractor selection. For program managers, deputy program managers, and administrative contracting officers, ban starts to run on last day of service in the position. For decision-makers, ban starts on date of decision.

Role of COR/COTR COR is Contracting Officer Representative. The term is found in DFARS The contract clause found in the DFARS is found at: DFARS Contracting Officer's Representative. As prescribed in , use the following clause: CONTRACTING OFFICER'S REPRESENTATIVE (DEC 1991) (a) Definition. “Contracting officer's representative” means an individual designated in accordance with subsection of the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement and authorized in writing by the contracting officer to perform specific technical or administrative functions. (b) If the Contracting Officer designates a contracting officer's representative ( COR ), the Contractor will receive a copy of the written designation. It will specify the extent of the COR 's authority to act on behalf of the contracting officer. The COR is not authorized to make any commitments or changes that will affect price, quality, quantity, delivery, or any other term or condition of the contract. The term “COTR” or “COR-T” is means contracting officer technical representative. A COTR differs in that he or she has specialized technical knowledge in overseeing a contract, such as engineers.

Role of the COR/COTR Strictly speaking, the term COR refers to a person designated by the Contracting Officer to perform certain administrative tasks related to a specific contract in accordance with Subsection of the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) See As the Army increasingly relies on industry to perform services that are vital to its mission, the COR has become one of the most important players on the acquisition team. Part 37 of the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) covers the Government’s policy for service contracts. FAR Part 37 is available on-line at The Federal Acquisition Institute (FAI) issued the “Contracting Officer’s Technical Representative (COTR) Training Blueprint” to provide a foundation for all COTR, or COR, training and development activities within the Federal Government. The COTR Blueprint defines core capabilities and key competencies that are essential for performing the most essential duties of the COTR. The document is available for download at Another valuable source of information is the “Guidebook for Performance-Based Services Acquisition (PBSA) in the Department of Defense,” which explains the key elements of performance-based acquisitions. It provides sample documents and links to other websites and is available for download at

Who is a COR/COTR Designated by contracting officer (KO) to assist in the technical monitoring or administration of a contract. Designation must be in writing See AFARS Sample COR designation. COR Responsibilities: (1) Responsibilities of the COR vary with the type of contract and complexity of the acquisition. Each contract must be treated on an individual basis, because it may place responsibilities on the COR unique to that contract. Normally, a COR has the responsibility/authority to monitor all aspects of the day-to-day administration of a contract except issues that deal with “time and money”. Formally said, a COR does not have the authority to make any commitments or changes that affect price, quality, quantity, delivery, or other terms and conditions of the contract. Specifically, they can not do any of the following: make any agreement with the contractor requiring the obligation of public funds (they can not sign any contract, including delivery orders, purchase orders, or modify a contract, or in any way obligate payment of funds by the Government); encourage the contractor by words, actions, or a failure to act to undertake new work or an extension of existing work beyond the contract period; interfere with the contractor's management prerogative by "supervising" contractor employees or otherwise directing their work efforts; authorize a contractor to obtain property for use under a contract; allow government property accountable under one contract to be used in the performance of another contract; issue instructions to the contractor to start or stop work; order or accept goods or services not expressly required by the contract; and discuss acquisition plans or provide any advance information that might give one contractor an advantage over another contractor in forthcoming procurements. (2) For a contract of any complexity, the COR has many duties, including the following: (a) Monitoring the contractor’s progress and performance, including the submission of required reports or other documentation. This includes verifying that the contractor has performed the technical and management requirements of the contract in accordance with the contract terms, conditions, and specifications. The COR shall provide written notification to the KO when the contractual requirements have been fulfilled and are technically acceptable. The COR shall also notify the KO in writing of unsatisfactory performance and/or deficiencies. Included in the notification should be the recommend remedial action. (b) Perform, or cause to be performed, all necessary inspections, including documenting the inspection and submitting to the KO, as required, a report concerning performances of services rendered under the contract.. (c ) Verify that the contractor has corrected all correctable deficiencies. (d) Perform acceptance for the government of supplies and services received, including certifying receipt of supplies/services Page 4(e) Maintain liaison and direct communications with both the contractor and the contracting officer. (f) Recommend to the KO contract modifications and termination actions. (g) Assist in meeting the Government's contractual obligations to the contractor. This includes, but is not limited to, arranging to supply Government_furnished equipment, facilities, and services called for in the contract and providing timely Government comment on, or inspection/acceptance of, draft/final contract deliverables if required by the contracting officer or contract. (h) Provide technical interpretation of the requirements. As previously discussed, the COR must have a thorough understanding of the requirements of the contract. It may become necessary to provide technical interpretation to the contractor for some portion of the work. Any technical assistance given to the contractor by the COR should be documented in the contract file. For significant matters, the information should be provided to the contractor in writing. The COR shall notify the KO immediately whenever the contractor disagrees with or refuses to comply with any technical aspects of the contract as interpreted by the COR. (i) Perform, or cause to be performed, property surveillance. The property administrator sometimes does this function (j) Request deobligation of excess funds. The COR who is certifying receipt of supplies/services can compare expenditures with funds obligated on the contract. The procedure for requesting the deobligation of funds is to notify the KO by letter that there are excess funds on the contract. (k) Report any instance of suspected conflict of interest or fraud, waste, and abuse to the local Office of General Counsel that supports the contracting officer. (3) While the COR limitations can be simply stated in a letter, in the real world assuring that the COR does not exceed the authority granted is much more complex. In the course of performing COR responsibilities, situations may result in an implied change to the contract which, in turn, may impact the delivery schedule, funds, or other areas outside the authority of the COR. The example below illustrates that the COR may exceed the scope of their authority by inaction or improper action. Example: An individual is designated as COR on a contract for the installation of equipment. The equipment is scheduled for delivery the next month. The COR sets up a COR file and places the file in the filing cabinet after noting the scheduled installation date on the calendar. The installation day arrives, and the contractor, as promised, arrives with the equipment. However, it cannot be installed because the COR did not insure that the Government had done its part by installing an electrical outlet and raised floors. By inaction, the COR has allowed a potential claim to be made for Government_caused delay. Page 54. Documentation. a. A COR must maintain a file for each contract assigned. This file documents ALL actions taken in regard to the contract. It includes, as a minimum -- -A copy of the appointment letter from the contracting officer any correspondence from the contracting officer which amends the letter of appointment; -A copy of the contract or appropriate part of the contract and all modifications; -All correspondence initiated concerning performance of the contract; -All correspondence to and from the contracting officer and the contractor; -Record of all inspections performed and the results; and -All memorandum for records (MFRs) or minutes of any pre_performance conferences, meetings, or discussions with the contractor, or others, pertaining to the contract or contract performance. b. The importance of maintaining complete and orderly files cannot be overemphasized, and it is critical to transfer of responsibility if the COR is changed during the term of the contract. As a matter of practice, the COR holding discussions or conducting business with contractors shall prepare Memoranda for Record (MFRs) of meetings, trips, and telephone conversations relating to the contract. Each MFR, other similar records, and correspondence relating to the contract shall cite the contract number. A copy of all actions or correspondence shall be furnished to the contracting officer and all other interested parties having a need to know. Documents that may contain contractor proprietary data or other business_sensitive information should not be released outside the Government without approval of the contracting officer. c. Duplicate copies of file documents shall be destroyed as soon as they have served their purpose, but in no event shall such documents be retained for longer than 1 year after acceptance of the final deliverable under the contract. d. Records pertinent to unsettled claims for or against the United States, open investigations, cases under litigation, or similar matters shall be preserved until final clearance or settlement of the matters even though retention of these records may exceed a period longer than 6 years and 3 months after final payment. e. CORs shall forward any correspondence received from the contractor to the KO. Since the COR is an authorized representative of the contracting officer, the COR's records are a part of the official postaward contract files and shall be forwarded to the KO for retirement with the official contract file upon completion of the contract. Documents that pertain to the contract shall be clearly identified when forwarded to the contracting officer. Page 65. Sample Appointment and Termination Letters. As indicated above, the KO formally appoints a COR in writing. Ensure you use official letterhead and follow standard procedures for correspondence. Address the designation to the individual by name, including rank or grade, and full mailing address. a. Sample of Appointment letter. Letterhead Date MEMORANDUM FOR: (name, including rank or grade, and full mailing address) Subject: Designation of Contracting Officer's Representative (COR) for Contract (Enter number). 1. Pursuant to DFARS and AFARS , you are designated as the contracting officer's representative (COR) in administration of the following contract: Contract Number: For: (Enter item/system/services) Contractor: Contract Period: 2. You are authorized by this designation to take action with respect to the following: a. Verify that the contractor performs the technical requirements of the contract IAW the contract terms, conditions and specifications. Specific emphasis should be placed on the quality provisions, for both adherence to the contract provisions and to the contractor's own quality control program. b. Perform, or cause to be performed, inspections necessary in connection with paragraph 2a and verify that the contractor has corrected all deficiencies. Perform acceptance for the Government of services performed under this contract. c. Maintain liaison and direct communications with the contractor. Written communications with the contractor and other documents pertaining to the contract shall be signed as "Contracting Officer's Representative" and a copy shall be furnished to the contracting officer. d. Monitor the contractor's performance, notify the contractor of deficiencies observed during surveillance and direct appropriate action to effect correction. Record and report to the contracting officer incidents of faulty or nonconforming work, delays or problems. In addition, you are required to submit a monthly report concerning performance of services rendered under this contract. Page 7e. Coordinate site entry for contractor personnel, and insure that any Government-furnished property is available when required. 3. You are not empowered to award, agree to or sign any contract (including delivery orders) or contract modification or in any way to obligate the payment of money by the Government. You may not take any action which may affect contract or delivery order schedules, funds or scope. The contacting officer shall make all contractual agreements, commitments or modifications that involve price, quantity, quality, delivery schedules or other terms and conditions of the contract. You may be personally liable for unauthorized acts. You may not re-delegate your COR authority. 4. This designation as a COR shall remain in effect through the life of the contract, unless sooner revoked in writing by the contracting officer or unless you are separated from Government service. If you are to be reassigned or to be separated from Government service, you shall notify the contracting officer sufficiently in advance of reassignment or separation to permit timely selection and designation of a successor COR. If your designation is revoked for any reason before completion of this contract, turn your records over to the successor COR or obtain disposition instructions from the contracting officer. 5. You are required to maintain adequate records to sufficiently describe the performance of your duties as a COR during the life of this contract and to dispose of such records as directed by the contracting officer. As a minimum, the COR file shall contain the following: a. A copy of your letter of appointment from the contracting officer, a copy of any changes to that letter and a copy of any termination letter. b. A copy of the contract or the appropriate part of the contract and all contract modifications. c. A copy of the applicable quality assurance (QA) surveillance plan. d. All correspondence initiated by authorized representatives concerning performance of the contract. e. The names and position titles of individuals who serve on the contract administration team. The contracting officer must approve all those who serve on this team. f. A record of inspections performed and the results. g. Memoranda for record or minutes of any pre-performance conferences. h. Memoranda for record of minutes of any meetings and discussions with the contractor or others pertaining to the contract or contract performance. i. Applicable laboratory test reports. Page 8j. Records relating to the contractor's quality control system and plan and the results of the quality control effort. k. A copy of the surveillance schedule. l. Documentation pertaining to your acceptance of performance of services, including reports and other data. 6. All personnel engaged in contracting and related activities shall conduct business dealings with industry in a manner above reproach in every aspect and shall protect the U.S. Government's interest, as well as maintain its reputation for fair and equal dealings with all contractors. DoD R sets forth standards of conduct for all personnel directly and indirectly involved in contracting. 7. A COR who may have direct or indirect financial interests which would place the COR in a position where there is a conflict between the COR's private interests and the public interests of the United States shall advise the supervisor and the contracting officer of the conflict so that appropriate actions may be taken. CORs shall avoid the appearance of a conflict of interests to maintain public confidence in the U.S. Government's conduct of business with the private sector. 8. You are required to acknowledge receipt of this designation on the duplicate copy and return it to the contracting officer. Your signature also serves as certification that you have read and understand the contents of DoD R. The original copy of this designation should be retained for your file. Signature Block Of Contracting Officer Receipt of this designation is acknowledged. Name: (Print or type) Signature: Title: Date: Rank/Grade: Telephone b. Sample of Termination letter. Subject: Termination of Appointment as Contracting Officer's Representative (COR) for Contract (Enter number). Page 91. Your appointment as Contracting Officer's Representative contained in letter of appointment dated ____________ is hereby terminated effective ____________. ___________ ____________________ /S/Contracting Officer Responsibilities. Contracting officers may designate qualified personnel as their authorized representatives to assist in the technical monitoring or administration of a contract. A contracting officer's representative (COR)— (1) Must be a Government employee, unless otherwise authorized in agency regulations. (2) Must be qualified by training and experience commensurate with the responsibilities to be delegated in accordance with department/agency guidelines. (3) May not be delegated responsibility to perform functions at a contractor's location that have been delegated under FAR (a) to a contract administration office. (4) May not be delegated authority to make any commitments or changes that affect price, quality, quantity, delivery, or other terms and conditions of the contract. (5) Must be designated in writing, and a copy furnished the contractor and the contract administration office— (i) Specifying the extent of the COR's authority to act on behalf of the contracting officer; (ii) Identifying the limitations on the COR's authority; (iii) Specifying the period covered by the designation; (iv) Stating the authority is not redelegable; and (v) Stating that the COR may be personally liable for unauthorized acts. (6) Must maintain a file for each contract assigned. This file must include, as a minimum— (i) A copy of the contracting officer's letter of designation and other documentation describing the COR's duties and responsibilities; and (ii) Documentation of actions taken in accordance with the delegation of authority.

COR/COTR Must be a Government employee, unless otherwise authorized by a government agency. Must be qualified by training and experience. May not be delegated authority to make any commitments or changes that affect price, quality, quantity, delivery, or other terms and conditions of the contract. Must maintain a file for each contract assigned.

Overall Duties of COR/COTR
Generally, responsibilities vary with the type of contract and complexity of the acquisition. Normally, has the responsibility/authority to monitor all aspects of the day-to-day administration of a contract except issues that deal with “time and money.”

Specific Duties of COR/COTR
Monitoring the contractor’s progress and performance, including the submission of required reports or other documentation. Perform, or cause to be performed, all necessary inspections. Verify that the contractor has corrected all correctable deficiencies. Perform acceptance for the government of supplies and services received.

Specific Duties Continued
Maintain liaison and direct communications with both the contractor and the contracting officer. Recommend to the KO contract modifications and termination actions. Provide technical interpretation of the requirements. Report any instance of suspected conflict of interest or fraud, waste, and abuse to the local contracting attorney who supports the contracting officer.

COR/COTR May Not Award, agree to, or sign any contract, delivery order or task order. All contractual agreements, commitments, or modifications shall be made only by the KO. Make any commitments or otherwise obligate the Government to make any changes to the contract. Grant deviations from or waive any terms and conditions of the contract. Impose or place a demand upon the Contractor to perform any task or permit any substitution not specifically provided for in the contract.

May Not Continued Increase the dollar limit of the contract, or authorize work beyond the dollar limit of the contract, or authorize the expenditure of funds. Give direction to the Contractor or to the employees of the Contractor except as provided for in the contract. Change the period of performance. Authorize the purchase of equipment, except as authorized under the contract. Only the contracting officer has the authority to enter into, modify, and administer a contract. The authority of the COR is limited to the responsibilities explicitly stated in the nomination letter. A COR must not in any situation direct the contractor to take any action that would change the contract, such as the following: Total price or estimated cost Product deliverables SOW/PWS Delivery dates Total period of performance The administrative provisions of the contract When a COR exceeds his or her delegated authority, an unauthorized commitment (UAC) may result in a claim against the Government.

May Not Continued Authorize the furnishing of Government property, except as required under the contract. Authorize subcontracting or the use of consultants. Approve shifts of funding between line items of the budget. Approve travel and relocation expenses over and above that provided for in the contract. Authorize the use of overtime.

YOU MAKE THE CALL! COR tells ABC contractor that the body armor would be better if the contractor used a different material – (i.e., titanium). Is the government liable for costs associated with the product substitution?

ANSWER If ABC contractor takes the COR’s statement to be direction and substitutes the new material for the old, an unauthorized commitment results. An unauthorized commitment may result in a claim against the Government. To avoid an unauthorized commitment, the COR should first make it clear to the contractor that he or she does not have authority to give such direction and then submit a recommendation to the contracting officer to modify the contract.

Going Beyond the Procurement Integrity Act

Concerns Bribery Gifts Allowing for “Time-Off”
Misuse of Contractor Personnel Traveling with Contractors Recommendation and Awards for Contractor Personnel Organizational Conflicts of Interest Seeking Employment Working for Contractors after Government Filing Financial Disclosure Reports Ethics Decision Matrix

Applicable Law And Regulations
All federal employees should also be familiar with other statutory and regulatory prohibitions: Code of Ethics – 14 Principles, Executive Order 12674, April 12, 1989, “Principles of Ethical Conduct for Government Officers and Employees.” Standards of Ethical Conduct for Executive Branch Employees 5 C.F.R. Part 2635 The Joint Ethics Regulation (JER), DoD R. 18 United States Code Sections 203, 207, 208. The Code of Ethics outlining the 14 principles is found in Executive Order 12674, April 12, 1989, “Principles of Ethical Conduct for Government Officers and Employees.”

Bribery Accepting a gift, even if nominal in value, in return for being influenced in the performance of an official act is a bribe. 18 USC Section 201

Gifts Prohibited from accepting a gift:
Because of your position (remember bribe!) From a prohibited source – Contractor employees are prohibited sources No solicitation for retirement or other gift for Government employee

Gift Is it a gift? If not a gift, no prohibition
Non-gifts: Modest items of food and refreshments (like coffee and donuts) when not served as a meal. Prizes in contests open to the public. Greeting cards and items with little intrinsic value, such as plaques, certificates, and trophies, intended only for presentation. Commercial discounts available to the public or to all Government civilian or military personnel. Anything you pay market value (i.e., face value).

Exceptions Gifts of $20 or Less. Unsolicited gifts with a market value of $20 or less per source, per occasion, so long as the total value of all gifts received from a single source during a calendar year does not exceed $50. Does not apply to gifts of cash or investment interests (e.g., stocks or bonds). Employee may decline gifts to keep aggregate value at $20 or less, but may not pay differential over $20 to retain gift(s); Not all of the gift exceptions will be discussed. Those exceptions that acquisition personnel will normally encounter are discussed: Gifts of $20.00 or less. Gifts based on personal relationships. Discounts. Gifts from prospective employers Remember: If pay fair market value, it is not a gift.

Exceptions Gifts Based on a Personal Relationship. Gifts based on a personal relationship, such as a family relationship or personal friendship rather than the position of the employee. Relevant factors to consider in making the determination include history of the relationship and whether family member or friend personally pays for the gift.

Exceptions Commercial discounts available to the general public or to all Government or military personnel. Would not apply to discounts to subgroups based on rank, position or organization. (See OGE Memorandum DO , Jan. 5, 1999, “Employee Acceptance of Commercial Discounts and Benefits”).

Exceptions Gifts From Prospective Employers Meals, lodging, transportation, etc, IF, customarily offered 5 C.F.R. § (e)(3)

Remember: Regardless of any exceptions, it is always impermissible to:
Accept a gift, in return for being influenced in the performance of an official act (bribe). Accept gifts from the same or different sources so frequently that a reasonable person would think you’re using your office for private gain (appearance of impropriety).

YOU MAKE THE CALL! The support contractor for your organization wants to offer ALL of the Soldiers and government employees of the organization free tickets to the home opener for the Washington Nationals! The contractor hopes that this will further promote the partnership b/w the Army and the contractor personnel. The tickets have a face value of $25 but the contractor paid $15/piece for the tickets. May the Soldiers and employees accept the tickets?

ANSWER Contractor is a prohibited source - no gifts are permissible unless exception applies $20/$50 rule No – look to face value not what contractor paid Discount or benefit? No – offered only to those within the organization Personal Relationship? No – offered because of status

ALLOWING “TIME OFF”

ALLOWING “TIME OFF” Remember:
Federal Personnel System rules/regulations are inapplicable to contractor personnel Contractor personnel time is “billed” to the government Procurement and Fiscal laws & regulations apply

YOU MAKE THE CALL! The holiday weekend is fast approaching and the officer-in-charge of the organization invokes the “59-minute rule” for all members of the office – including the contract support team who work with the Soldiers and government employees. Is it permissible to allow the contractor personnel to leave 59-minutes before their scheduled departure time?

ANSWER Decisions concerning “time off” are to be made by the contractor NOT the government Contractor personnel are paid pursuant to the terms of the contract with the Army – not according to federal personnel system rules/regulations The contractor employee has no authority to modify the terms of the contract Only certain government personnel have the authority to modify the terms of the contract

FOLLOW-UP Exercise caution: Coordinate with contracting officer
Organization Day Holiday Party Off-Site Conference Training Coordinate with contracting officer Ensure that contractor personnel are informed Also, note that contractor personnel are not to be solicited for money for any party or other event. See “Holiday Guidance on Partying with Contractors and Supervisors,” (September 28, 2004), which may found at:

Traveling with Contractors
The following presentation will deal with a number of different situations concerning travel with contractor personnel. See “Travel Alternatives When Visiting Contractor Facilities,” issued as an information paper by OSD SOCO (November 2003), at the following website address:

Can Army and contractor employees share transportation?
It depends. There are three scenarios. Scenario Army employee will perform official travel and contractor employee offers to let him or her ride along in a vehicle. Scenario Army employee will perform personal travel and contractor employee offers to let him or her ride along in a vehicle. Scenario 3 - Army employee will perform official travel and offers to let contractor employee ride along in a vehicle paid for by the Army.

Scenario 2 -- Army employee in contractor vehicle on personal travel
An Army employee will perform personal travel and a contractor employee offers him a ride in a vehicle. May the Army employee accept the ride? Army employees are generally prohibited from accepting gifts from “prohibited sources,” which includes both contractors & their employees. Personal travel or transportation service provided by a contractor is considered a gift to the employee from a prohibited source. It may only be accepted if one of the exceptions allowing the acceptance of a gift from prohibited sources (such as the exception that allows gifts of $20 or less per occasion and $50 per calendar year) applies or if the Government employee pays fair market value. Remember the gift exceptions to the rule: Gifts of $20 or Less. Unsolicited gifts with a market value of $20 or less per source, per occasion, so long as the total value of all gifts received from a single source during a calendar year does not exceed $50.

Scenario 3 -- Contractor employee in Army vehicle
An Army employee will perform official travel and would like to offer a ride to a contractor employee in a vehicle that will be paid for by the Army (e.g., either a GOV or a rental car paid for by the Army). Is this permissible? General rule: is that an Army employee who is engaged in official travel in a vehicle that is paid for by the Army (including a GOV) may not permit a contractor employee to ride in the vehicle.

You Make the Call A contractor employee offers to drive an Army employee to lunch at a restaurant ten miles off-post in his personal vehicle. May the employee accept the ride?

Answer The Army employee may accept the ride if it fits within the exception of 5 C.F.R (a) (e.g., the $20 exception). Caution: There may be an appearance problem that requires discussion with an ethics counselor if, for example, this arrangement occurs frequently or the Army employee is making official decisions affecting the contractor.

RECOMMENDATIONS AND AWARDS FOR CONTRACTOR PERSONNEL

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CONTRACTOR PERSONNEL
Remember: Impartiality Employees shall act IMPARTIALLY and not give preferential treatment to any private organization or individual General Principle #8 Evaluation of performance of contractor Evaluation of performance is a matter handled within contracting channels

YOU MAKE THE CALL! You are the administrative staff supervisor for an organization. The receptionist for your organization is a contractor employee. He has worked in support of the organization for 2 years and has done a terrific job. He has decided to pursue a college education and has asked you for a letter of recommendation discussing his job performance & work ethic. He intends to include the letter of recommendation with his college application. Can you provide the letter of recommendation to the contractor employee?

ANSWER Impermissible to give preferential treatment to any non-federal entity Would need to do the same for all other contractor employees The terms of the contract control contract provides for the proper method to provide information on performance discuss with contracting officer

Awards And yes, this includes coins
Awards programs are statutorily based Military – 10 U.S.C. Sections 1124 and 1125 Civilian U.S.C. Section Statutory Authority for individual contractor employees? NONE

Awards DoD 1400.25-M, Subchapter 451 But, wait!!!!
Honorary awards may be granted to private citizens, groups, or organizations that significantly assist or support DoD functions, services, or operations But, wait!!!! Persons or organizations having a commercial or profit-making relationship with DoD shall not be granted recognition.

COINS Query: May commander’s coins be given to contractor employees?

ANSWER “Coins purchased with appropriated funds shall not be presented to contractor personnel.” DA Memo , para. 5d(2) May give coins purchased with personal funds only!

Organizational Conflicts of Interest

What is an Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI)?
An "organizational conflict of interest" exists when a contractor is or may be unable or unwilling to provide the government with impartial or objective assistance or advice. An organizational conflict of interest may result when factors create an actual or potential conflict of interest on a current contract or a potential future procurement. The Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 9.5 provides guidance on OCI and defines OCI as: “Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI) may result when factors create an actual or potential conflict of interest on a contract, or when the nature of the work to be performed on the contract creates an actual or potential conflict of interest on a future acquisition. In the latter case, some restrictions on future activities of the contractor may be required.” The following are the actual FAR provisions, which you may use to discuss the slides in this section: The general rules in through prescribe limitations on contracting as the means of avoiding, neutralizing, or mitigating organizational conflicts of interest that might otherwise exist in the stated situations. Some illustrative examples are provided in Conflicts may arise in situations not expressly covered in this section or in the examples in Each individual contracting situation should be examined on the basis of its particular facts and the nature of the proposed contract. The exercise of common sense, good judgment, and sound discretion is required in both the decision on whether a significant potential conflict exists and, if it does, the development of an appropriate means for resolving it. The two underlying principles are -- (a) Preventing the existence of conflicting roles that might bias a contractor’s judgment; and (b) Preventing unfair competitive advantage. In addition to the other situations described in this subpart, an unfair competitive advantage exists where a contractor competing for award of any Federal contract possesses -- (1) Proprietary information that was obtained from a Government official without proper authorization; or (2) Source selection information (as defined in 2.101) that is relevant to the contract but is not available to all competitors, and such information would assist that contractor in obtaining the contract.

The two underlying principles are –
Preventing the existence of conflicting roles that might bias a contractor’s judgment AND Preventing unfair competitive advantage An unfair competitive advantage exists where a contractor competing for award of any Federal contract possesses Proprietary information that was obtained from a Government official without proper authorization; or Source selection information that is relevant to the contract but is not available to all competitors, and such information would assist that contractor in obtaining the contract

How Does OCI Arise? Biased ground rules cases government contractor has opportunity to skew a competition in its favor Unequal access to information access to non public information that would give it an unfair competitive advantage Impaired objectivity government contractor would be in a position to evaluate itself or a related entity

FAR Part 9.5 Applicability
Not limited to any particular kind of acquisition. OCI most likely to occur in contracts involving -- Management support services; Consultant or other professional services; Contractor performance of or assistance in technical evaluations; or Systems engineering and technical direction work performed by a contractor that does not have overall contractual responsibility for development or production.

Contracting Officer’s Responsibility
See FAR Section 9.504 Must analyze planned acquisitions to: Identify and evaluate potential organizational conflicts of interest as early in the acquisition process as possible; and Avoid, neutralize, or mitigate significant potential conflicts before contract award. Should obtain the advice of counsel and the assistance of appropriate technical specialists in evaluating potential conflicts and in developing any necessary solicitation provisions and contract clauses The applicable FAR provisions is: Contracting Officer Responsibilities. (a) Using the general rules, procedures, and examples in this subpart, contracting officers shall analyze planned acquisitions in order to -- (1) Identify and evaluate potential organizational conflicts of interest as early in the acquisition process as possible; and (2) Avoid, neutralize, or mitigate significant potential conflicts before contract award. (b) Contracting officers should obtain the advice of counsel and the assistance of appropriate technical specialists in evaluating potential conflicts and in developing any necessary solicitation provisions and contract clauses (see 9.506). (c) Before issuing a solicitation for a contract that may involve a significant potential conflict, the contracting officer shall recommend to the head of the contracting activity a course of action for resolving the conflict (see 9.506). (d) In fulfilling their responsibilities for identifying and resolving potential conflicts, contracting officers should avoid creating unnecessary delays, burdensome information requirements, and excessive documentation. The contracting officer’s judgment need be formally documented only when a substantive issue concerning potential organizational conflict of interest exists. (e) The contracting officer shall award the contract to the apparent successful offeror unless a conflict of interest is determined to exist that cannot be avoided or mitigated. Before determining to withhold award based on conflict of interest considerations, the contracting officer shall notify the contractor, provide the reasons therefore, and allow the contractor a reasonable opportunity to respond. If the contracting officer finds that it is in the best interest of the United States to award the contract notwithstanding a conflict of interest, a request for waiver shall be submitted in accordance with The waiver request and decision shall be included in the contract file.

Areas Providing systems engineering and technical direction
Preparing specification of work statements Access to proprietary information Solicitation provisions, waivers and mitigation plans

Systems Engineering and Technical Direction
What does this cover: Contractor provides systems engineering and technical direction for a system But, does not provide overall responsibility for development, integration, assembly and checkout, or its production. The next two slides defines both systems engineering and technical direction. Systems engineering includes a combination of substantially all of the following activities: determining specifications, identifying and resolving interface problems, developing test requirements, evaluating test data, and supervising design. Technical direction includes a combination of substantially all of the following activities: developing work statements, determining parameters, directing other contractors’ operations, and resolving technical controversies. In performing these activities, a contractor occupies a highly influential and responsible position in determining a system’s basic concepts and supervising their execution by other contractors. Therefore this contractor should not be in a position to make decisions favoring its own products or capabilities.

What is Systems Engineering?
Includes a combination of substantially all of the following activities: determining specifications, identifying and resolving interface problems, developing test requirements, evaluating test data, and supervising design.

What is Technical Direction?
Technical direction includes a combination of substantially all of the following activities: developing work statements, determining parameters, directing other contractors’ operations, and resolving technical controversies.

Prohibition Cannot Be awarded a contract to supply the system or any of its major components, or Be a subcontractor or consultant to a supplier of the system or any of its major components

Preparing Specification of Work Statements
Contractor cannot provide both an item and services and the corresponding – Non-developmental item specifications OR System or service work statement, unless it is the sole source or did not solely prepare SOW See FAR

YOU MAKE THE CALL! The Navy awarded SSR (Smith Seckman Reid, Inc.) an architect-engineering (A&E) contract to develop a master plan for replacing overhead electrical and cable lines with underground lines at Keesler Air Force Base, Mississippi. In its master plan, SSR had calculated the cost estimates the Navy used for the Keesler procurement. The Navy used SSR's master plan from the A&E contract as the statement of work for a follow-on procurement to implement changes to Keesler's electrical distribution system. The contracting officer informed SSR that it could not participate in the Keesler procurement because its work on the master plan created an organizational conflict of interest. Was the contracting officer correct?

ANSWER Know the Cost, Know the Work, No Contract
The GAO found that SSR's master plan formed the basis for the current statement of work and for the Navy's cost estimates on the procurement. Thus, the contracting officer had sufficient grounds to exclude SSR from the Keesler procurement because it had gained an unfair competitive advantage.

Providing Evaluation Services
A contractor cannot evaluate its own offers for products or services, or those of its competitors, without proper safeguards to ensure objectivity to protect the Government’s interests. See FAR

Obtaining Access to Proprietary Information
Contractors performing advisory and assistance services for the Government must agree with other companies to protect their information for unauthorized use or disclosure so long as it remains proprietary and refrain from using the information for any purpose other than that for which it was furnished. See FAR

Public Financial Disclosure Filers
Employees who complete a financial disclosure report (SF 278 or OGE form 450) still must receive ethics training once a year. SF 278 Filers must file termination SF 278 not more than 30 days after retirement date. Penalty of $200 imposed for failing to file.

SUMMARY We may operate as a team with our contractors, but we are in different lanes Most ethics laws & regulations are inapplicable to contractors Be careful of appearance problems Ask your ethics counselor!

QUESTIONS? CPT Jason B. Smith ALMC

Acquisition Ethics Training

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Acquisition Ethics Training"— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback

Log in

Auth with social network:

Acquisition Ethics Training

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Acquisition Ethics Training"— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback