Federal government rules for dating employees

25-Oct-2018 05:49

I have no contract as a driver, no hours logged and am on no corporate payroll as such.” “what about what I said was unclear?

Federal jurisdiction trumps your statutory jurisdiction as well. Do you collect a revenue using federal reserve Notes in this court?

Contracting officers are required to identify and evaluate potential OCIs as early in the acquisition process as possible, and avoid, neutralize, or mitigate significant potential conflicts of interest before contract award. The responsibility for determining whether an actual or apparent conflict of interest will arise, and to what extent the firm should be excluded from the competition, rests with the contracting officer. BAE argues that the COs acknowledgement of the appearance of a conflict of interest should have been the end of the inquiry, and that the award to Leidos should have been found tainted as a result the advisors ownership of Leidos stock. See FAR 3.101-1; FAR 3.1103(a)(3)(iii); Celeris Sys., Inc., B-404651, Mar. Our Office has recognized that the appearance of a conflict of interest is sufficient to warrant action to address that conflict, such as exclusion of an offeror from a competition, even where no actual impropriety can be shown, provided that the agencys determination is based on fact, and not mere innuendo and suspicion. Rather, as discussed herein, the CO further examined the record and concluded that the advisors role did not give rise to a disqualifying conflict. As an initial matter, we address the agencys contention that the protesters OCI challenge is untimely. The agency contends that the protesters OCI argument is untimely, as it was not raised within 10 days of DRSs receipt of the OCI report, which the agency alleges provided the operative facts underlying the protesters OCI contention. The agency further argues that the protesters OCI argument, contained in a footnote in its July 30 protest, did not provide a sufficient legal and factual basis for protest, and that DRSs subsequent, more detailed OCI argument represents an untimely, piecemeal presentation of its argument. Based on our review of the record, we find that the protesters OCI argument was timely raised. Since these documents were first provided to the protester as part of the agency report, we find DRSs OCI argument timely. Thus, we have no basis to question the agencys conclusion that the testing work contained in section 3.1.2 of the PWS would not create a significant OCI for LMIS.

Innovative Test Asset Solutions, LLC, B-411687, B-411687.2, October 2, 2015, 2016 CPD 68 at 17. In this regard, the identification of conflicts of interest is a fact-specific inquiry that requires the exercise of considerable discretion. A protester must identify hard facts that indicate the existence or potential existence of a conflict; mere inference or suspicion of an actual or potential conflict is not enough. Here, the agency reasonably assessed the potential for OCIs, and the protesters arguments largely fail due to a lack of hard facts. In this regard, our Office has reviewed protests concerning conflicts of interest to determine whether an agencys efforts or other factors mitigated the appearance of a conflict of interest under the provisions of FAR subpart 3.1. As discussed above, on July 30, DRS filed a protest with this Office, following DRSs receipt of the Armys OCI report. Following DRSs receipt of the agency report, which included the PWS for task order 57 and the declarations of several agency personnel prepared as part of the Armys OCI investigation, the protester withdrew its argument that the RTEP did not reflect the agencys requirements, and further expanded upon its OCI argument. In this regard, the record reflects that DRSs OCI argument, filed as comments within 10 days of its receipt of the agency report, is premised on information contained in the PWS for task order 57 and the declarations of agency personnel supporting the OCI report. As to the other engineering work required under sections 3.1.1 and 3.1.3 of the PWS, however, we conclude that the Army did not adequately consider whether these tasks would result in an impaired objectivity OCI for LMIS. Indeed, consistent with the PWS, both DRS and LMIS proposed to review and audit software documentation deliverables provided by other contractors.

We review the reasonableness of a contracting officers OCI investigation and, where an agency has given meaningful consideration to whether a significant conflict of interest exists, we will not substitute our judgment for the agencys, absent clear evidence that the agencys conclusion is unreasonable. Biased Ground Rules A biased ground rules OCI exists where a firm, as part of its performance of a government contract, has in some sense set the ground rules for another government contract by, for example, writing the statement of work or the specifications: the primary concern is that the firm could skew the competition, whether intentionally or not, in favor of itself. E.g., The Jones/Hill Joint Venture, B-286194.4 et al., Dec. In that protest, DRS alleged that based on the findings of the OCI report, the PWS for the FOFH task order overstated the agencys actual requirements and thus prevented a fair competition. In the alternative, to the extent the Army argued that the solicitation accurately reflected the agencys requirements, DRS contended that LMIS would have an impaired objectivity OCI as it would be responsible under the FOFH task order for evaluating the deliverables it produces under task order 57. For example, the agencys OCI report makes no mention of the PWS requirement that the awardee review and report issues with system developer deliverables, which DRS alleges would require LMIS to review the documentation deliverables it provides under task order 57. AR, Tab 27, DRS Technical Proposal, at 10; AR, Tab 31, LMIS Technical Proposal, at 12, 16.

In May 2008, New York Governor David Paterson had ordered state agencies to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other jurisdictions.In the end, the changes made because of compliance issues are a government requirement and a government decision. As noted above, we review the reasonableness of a contracting officers OCI investigation and, where an agency has given meaningful consideration to whether a significant conflict of interest exists, we will not substitute our judgment for the agencys, absent clear evidence that the agencys conclusion is unreasonable. Although the protester disagrees with the conclusions, and although different conclusions might reasonably have been drawn from the facts reviewed by the CO, these concerns do not provide a basis to sustain the protest.[5] Biased Ground Rules OCI Next, BAE argues that the work performed by Old SAIC assisting the Army with preparation of the initial solicitation resulted in a biased ground rules OCI that should have disqualified Leidos from the competition. While many Federal laws and regulations place restrictions on the actions of Government personnel, their official conduct must, in addition, be such that they would have no reluctance to make a full public disclosure of their actions. Our Office has had occasion to review cases that involve questions concerning former government officials that go to work for a contractor. This case presents the first occasion where we are called upon to consider circumstances where an agency knowingly failed to investigate and resolve a question concerning whether an employee who actively and extensively engaged in procurement-related activities should have been recused from those activities.Here, the agency considered the protesters vague allegation, and determined that no OCI existed due to a number of factors, including the limitations on the types of changes IBM could identify as part of a compliance review, and the fact that it would ultimately be up to the government to decide what changes should be made to GFEBS such that IBM would not be in a position to determine the GFEBS requirements. In effect, the protester argues that Leidos should be viewed as the same entity as Old SAIC, because Old SAIC was able to skew the competition in a way that later benefitted Leidos. E.g., Health Net Federal Servs., LLC, B‑401652.3, B-401652.5, Nov. Our Office also has had occasion to review cases in which private industry representatives performing evaluation activities on behalf of an agency have had an interest in the results of that evaluation, where the agency improperly failed adequately to investigate whether or not a conflict existed. As an initial matter, there is no explanation in the record concerning why the agency failed to obtain an [non-disclosure/conflict of interest] ND/CI statement from its program manager prior to beginning any acquisition-related activities.Later in 2008, New York recognized their marriage following a court decision.Spyer died at the age of 77 in 2009, leaving her entire estate to Windsor.

In May 2008, New York Governor David Paterson had ordered state agencies to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other jurisdictions.In the end, the changes made because of compliance issues are a government requirement and a government decision. As noted above, we review the reasonableness of a contracting officers OCI investigation and, where an agency has given meaningful consideration to whether a significant conflict of interest exists, we will not substitute our judgment for the agencys, absent clear evidence that the agencys conclusion is unreasonable. Although the protester disagrees with the conclusions, and although different conclusions might reasonably have been drawn from the facts reviewed by the CO, these concerns do not provide a basis to sustain the protest.[5] Biased Ground Rules OCI Next, BAE argues that the work performed by Old SAIC assisting the Army with preparation of the initial solicitation resulted in a biased ground rules OCI that should have disqualified Leidos from the competition. While many Federal laws and regulations place restrictions on the actions of Government personnel, their official conduct must, in addition, be such that they would have no reluctance to make a full public disclosure of their actions. Our Office has had occasion to review cases that involve questions concerning former government officials that go to work for a contractor. This case presents the first occasion where we are called upon to consider circumstances where an agency knowingly failed to investigate and resolve a question concerning whether an employee who actively and extensively engaged in procurement-related activities should have been recused from those activities.Here, the agency considered the protesters vague allegation, and determined that no OCI existed due to a number of factors, including the limitations on the types of changes IBM could identify as part of a compliance review, and the fact that it would ultimately be up to the government to decide what changes should be made to GFEBS such that IBM would not be in a position to determine the GFEBS requirements. In effect, the protester argues that Leidos should be viewed as the same entity as Old SAIC, because Old SAIC was able to skew the competition in a way that later benefitted Leidos. E.g., Health Net Federal Servs., LLC, B‑401652.3, B-401652.5, Nov. Our Office also has had occasion to review cases in which private industry representatives performing evaluation activities on behalf of an agency have had an interest in the results of that evaluation, where the agency improperly failed adequately to investigate whether or not a conflict existed. As an initial matter, there is no explanation in the record concerning why the agency failed to obtain an [non-disclosure/conflict of interest] ND/CI statement from its program manager prior to beginning any acquisition-related activities.Later in 2008, New York recognized their marriage following a court decision.Spyer died at the age of 77 in 2009, leaving her entire estate to Windsor.The protesters allegations pertaining to a biased ground rules OCI focus on a requirement in IBMs FSPS contract for the contractor to identify changes that may be needed to bring source systems, including GFEBS, into compliance with guidance provided by the Treasury and Office of the Secretary of Defense. BAE also argues that the COs conclusions regarding the advisors understanding of his stock holdings, the size of the stock holdings and their significance, and the effect of his disposition of the stock were unreasonable, and did not address the appearance that the award to Leidos was tainted. As discussed above, however, where an agency has given meaningful consideration to whether a conflict exists, we will not substitute our judgment for the agencys, absent clear evidence that the agencys conclusion is unreasonable. Here, we find that the CO considered the relevant available record and concluded that there was no basis to find that the advisors role required exclusion of Leidos. AR, Tab 11, PWS, at 6; AR, Tab 27, DRS Technical Proposal, at 10-11; AR, Tab 31, LMIS Technical Proposal, at 13; Supp. As such, we find that with agencys OCI investigation was not reasonable, as it did not meaningfully consider whether the relevant tasks contained in sections 3.1.1 and 3.1.3 would create an impaired objectivity OCI for LMIS. B-411573.2, B-411573.3: Nov 9, 2015) (pdf)The Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) sets forth clear and unambiguous guidelines concerning the conduct of government personnel that engage in contracting activities.