D.C. Mun. Regs. tit. 27, r. 50-5015

Current through Register Vol. 71, No. 49, December 6, 2024

Rule 50-5015 - ORGANIZATIONAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST;DISQUALIFICATION OF A CONTRACTOR

5015.1

OAG intends to avoid even the appearance of conflict of interest or impropriety in connection with its procurement activities. Thus, even if a prospective contractor is determined to be responsible, the CCO has the discretion to disqualify the contractor (or to take other appropriate measures) based on a conflict of interest, the appearance thereof, or other ethical considerations as further described in this section.

5015.2

If the Contracting Officer determines that there is a conflict of interest or the appearance of a conflict of interest that cannot be mitigated, or another ethical consideration, the Contracting Officer may:

(a) Determine the contractor to be non-responsible; provided that the Contracting Officer notify the contractor of the conflict of interest and provide the contractor the opportunity to respond.

(b) Rescind (void) or terminate a contract subsequent to contract award; or

(c) Pursuant to §5015.4, take other appropriate corrective measures, such as canceling a pending solicitation and initiating a new procurement; provided, however, that prior to taking any such action, the Contracting Officer shall first obtain the approval of the CCO.

(d) If the Contracting Officer determines that it is in the best interest of the District to award the contract notwithstanding a potential conflict of interest, the Contracting Officer shall submit a request for waiver to the CCO. The waiver request and decision shall be included in the contract file.

5015.3

A determination by the Contracting Officer, approved by the CCO, to take a corrective measure described in §5015.4 below shall be made in writing and included in the contract file.

5015.4

The Contracting Officer or CCO may properly take corrective measures whenever necessary or prudent to avoid the appearance of impropriety or otherwise eliminate doubts about the integrity and fairness of procurement. For example, situations in which corrective measures might be warranted include (but are not limited to):

(a) Cases where an employee of OAG or the CCO have any interest, direct or indirect, as principal, surety, or otherwise in a contract, where the expense or consideration of the contract is payable from OAG funds.

(b) Cases where the Attorney General or an employee of OAG involved in a procurement had a relationship with a contractor that fell outside the District of Columbia government ethics rules, but nonetheless raised questions about the procurement's integrity;

(c) Cases where a prospective contractor received preferential treatment in relation to its competitors;

(d) Cases where a prospective contractor hired a former employee of OAG who was privy to non-public information about the procurement, and involved that individual in its proposal preparation efforts; or

(e) Cases where there is clear evidence suggesting collusive bidding or similar anti-competitive practices by prospective contractors.

5015.5 Organizational conflicts of interest also may warrant disqualification or other corrective measures. Organizational conflict of interest means a situation in which a contractor:

(a) May be unable to render impartial and objective assistance or advice to OAG; or

(b) May have an unfair advantage over potential competitors.

5015.6

Organizational conflicts of interests can arise in a variety of circumstances. For example, a contractor that develops the technical specifications for an item that will be the subject of a future procurement may have an incentive to develop specifications favoring its own products unless it is barred from participating in the future procurement. Another example is a case where a contractor performs services for OAG that require access to non-public information (for example, proprietary data of other companies) and could therefore gain an unfair advantage over competitors in future procurements.

5015.7

A number of measures may be appropriate for eliminating or mitigating organizational conflicts of interest, and the Contracting Officer has broad discretion to select the approach that is most suitable in any particular case. For example, a contract to assist OAG in developing requirements for a future procurement ordinarily should include a clause prohibiting the contractor from participating in the future procurement. A contract in which the contractor gains access to proprietary information of other companies (or non-public information on OAG's procurement plans) should include an appropriate clause that prevents the contractor from using such information in any manner that might give it an unfair advantage and prohibits the contractor from disclosing this proprietary information.

5015.8

In each case, the mechanism adopted to address an organizational conflict of interest should be designed to prevent:

(a) The existence of conflicting roles that might bias a contractor's judgment; and

(b) An unfair competitive advantage.

D.C. Mun. Regs. tit. 27, r. 50-5015

Final Rulemaking published at 65 DCR 4406 (4/20/2018); amended by Final Rulemaking published at 68 DCR 11740 (11/5/2021)