Federal Acquisition Regulation; FAR Case 2006-007, Contractor Code of Business Ethics and Conduct, 65873-65882 [07-5800]

Agencies

• General Services Administration
• National Aeronautics and Space Administration
• DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 225 (Friday, November 23, 2007)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 65873-65882]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-5800]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION

48 CFR Parts 2, 3, and 52

[FAC 2005-22; FAR Case 2006-007; Item II; Docket 2007-0001; Sequence 1]
RIN 9000-AK67


Federal Acquisition Regulation; FAR Case 2006-007, Contractor 
Code of Business Ethics and Conduct

AGENCIES: Department of Defense (DoD), General Services Administration 
(GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Civilian Agency Acquisition Council and the Defense 
Acquisition Regulations Council (Councils) have agreed on a final rule 
amending the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) to address the 
requirements for a contractor code of business ethics and conduct and 
the display of Federal agency Office of the Inspector General (OIG) 
Fraud Hotline Posters.

DATES: Effective Date: December 24, 2007

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Ernest Woodson, Procurement 
Analyst, at (202) 501-3775 for clarification of content. For 
information pertaining to status or publication schedules, contact the 
FAR Secretariat at (202) 501-4755. Please cite FAC 2005-22, FAR case 
2006-007.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

A. Background

    DoD, GSA, and NASA published a proposed rule in the Federal 
Register at 72 FR 7588, February 16, 2007, to address the requirements 
for a contractor code of business ethics and conduct and the display of 
Federal agency Office of the Inspector General (OIG) Fraud Hotline 
Posters. The original comment period closed on April 17, 2007, but on 
April 23, 2007, the comment period was reopened and extended to May 23, 
2007. We received comments from 42 respondents plus an additional late 
comment from one of the initial respondents. However, 15 of the 
respondents were only requesting extension of the comment period. The 
remaining 27 public comments are addressed in the following analysis.
    The most significant changes, which will be addressed, are--
     The clause requirement for a formal training program and 
internal control system has been made inapplicable to small businesses 
(see paragraph 5.c.v. and 11. of this section);
     The contracting officer has been given authority to 
increase the 30 day time period for preparation of a code of business 
ethics and conduct and the 90 day time period for establishment of an 
ethics awareness and compliance program and internal control system, 
upon request of the contractor (see paragraph 6.c. of this section);
     The requirements in the internal control system relating 
to ``disclosure'' and ``full cooperation'' have been deleted, and moved 
to FAR Case 2007-006 for further consideration (see paragraphs 2.e. and 
6.d. of this section);
     The clause 52.203-XX with 3 alternates has been separated 
into 2 clauses, one to address the contractor code of business ethics 
and conduct, and one to address the requirements for hotline posters 
(see paragraphs 3.h. and 10.b. of this section); and
     A contractor does not need to display Government fraud 
hotline posters if it has established a mechanism by which employees 
may

[[Page 65874]]

report suspected instances of improper conduct, and instructions that 
encourage employees to make such reports (see paragraph 7.a. of this 
section).
    1. General support for the rule.
    Comments: The majority of respondents expressed general support for 
the rule. These included consultants, industry associations, a non-
profit contractor, a construction contractor, inspectors general and 
interagency IG working groups, other Government agencies, and 
individuals. Many respondents were laudatory of the rule in general. 
For example, one respondent considered the proposed rule to be a ``good 
attempt'' and another considered it to be ``an outstanding, well 
thought-out and needed policy change.'' Others identified particular 
benefits of the proposed rule, such as--
     Reduce contract fraud;
     Reduce waste, fraud, abuse and mismanagement of taxpayers' 
resources;
     Enhance integrity in the procurement system by 
strengthening the requirements for corporate compliance systems; and
     Promote clarity and Government-wide consistency in agency 
requirements.
    Response: None required.
    2. General disagreement with the rule as a whole.
    Although all respondents agree that contractors should conduct 
themselves with the highest degree of integrity and honesty, not all 
agree that the proposed rule is taking the right approach to achieve 
that goal.
    a. Ineffective.
    Comment: One respondent considers that this rule will not 
effectively correct the ethics and business conduct improprieties. 
Other respondents note that a written code of ethics does not ensure a 
commitment to compliance with its provisions.
    Response: There is no law, regulation, or ethics code that ensures 
compliance. Laws, regulations, and ethics codes provide a standard 
against which to measure actions, and identify consequences upon 
violation of the law, regulation, or ethics code.
    b. Unnecessary or duplicative, potentially conflicting.
    Comment: One respondent views the rule as unnecessary, because it 
adds ``a further level of compliance and enforcement obligations where 
contractors already are or may be contractually or statutorily obliged 
to comply.'' Another respondent comments that the rule is duplicative 
of other similar requirements. Furthermore, meeting multiple 
requirements for the same purpose can cause conflicts.
    Response: This rule is not duplicative of existing requirements 
known to the Councils. The rule requires basic codes of ethics and 
training for companies doing business with the Government. Although 
many companies have voluntarily adopted codes of business ethics, there 
is no current Government-wide regulatory requirement for such a code. 
For DoD contracts, the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation 
Supplement (DFARS) recommends such a code, but does not make it 
mandatory.
    Legislation such as the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Pub. L. 107-
204), cited by some of the respondents, applies only to accounting 
firms and publicly traded companies. Sarbanes-Oxley focuses on auditor 
independence, corporate governance, internal control assessment, and 
enhanced financial disclosure. Sarbanes-Oxley provides broad definition 
of a ``code of ethics'' but does not specify every detail that should 
be addressed. It only requires publicly-traded companies to either 
adopt a code of ethics or disclose why they have not done so.
    The respondents did not identify any specific points of conflict 
between this rule and other existing requirements. Since this 
requirement is broad and flexible, capturing the common essence of good 
ethics and standards of conduct, the Councils consider that it should 
reinforce or enhance any existing requirements rather than conflict 
with them.
    c. Negative effect on current compliance efforts.
    Comment: According to one respondent, the rule may have a 
``chilling effect'' on current compliance efforts and may create a 
fragmented approach to standards of conduct.
    Response: As stated in the prior response, this rule should enhance 
current compliance efforts.
    d. Vague and too broad.
    Comment: Several respondents consider the rule too vague and broad, 
so that it is open to different interpretations.
    Response: The rule is intended to allow broad discretion. The 
specific requirements of the rule will be further addressed under 
paragraph 6. of this section.
    e. Change in role of Government.
    Comment: One respondent fears that the rule will ``fundamentally 
change the Government's role in the design and implementation of 
contractor codes and programs'' because it moves from ``the well-
established principles of self-governance and voluntary disclosure'' to 
``contractual prescriptions and potentially mandatory disclosure.'' 
This respondent states that the proposed rule is not just a minor 
modification of existing policy. Rather, it ``would change far more 
than the FAR Councils have acknowledged.''
    Response: This rule does constitute a change. The Councils are 
requiring that contractors establish minimum standards of conduct for 
themselves. However, the rule still allows for flexibility and, where 
appropriate, contractor discretion. The Councils have deleted any 
clause requirement relating to mandatory disclosure but it will be 
considered as part of the new FAR Case 2007-006 (72 FR 64019, November 
14, 2007).
    f. Unduly burdensome and expensive for contractors.
    Comment: One respondent thinks that this rule imposes significant 
new requirements on contractors. Other respondents consider the 
requirement unduly burdensome for the contractors. They think the rule 
will be a disincentive to doing business with the Government.
    Response: Most companies already have some type of ethics code. The 
mandatory aspects of this rule do not apply to commercial items, either 
at the prime or subcontract level. The rule has been changed to lessen 
the impact on small businesses (see paragraph 11. of this section).
    g. Impact on small business.
    Comment: Several respondents note the impact on small businesses.
    Response: See detailed discussion of impact on small business at 
paragraph 11. of this section and changes to the rule to lessen that 
impact.
    h.  Difficult to administer for Government.
    Comment: Several respondents consider the rule expensive and 
impractical to administer for the Government. One respondent comments 
on the further paperwork burdens on contracting officials, and that it 
cannot be effectively administered.
    Response: There are no particularly burdensome requirements imposed 
on the Government by this rule. Review of contractors' compliance would 
be incorporated into normal contract administration. The Government 
will not be reviewing plans unless a problem arises.
    i. Rule should be withdrawn or issue 2nd proposed rule.
    Comment: One respondent requests that the rule be withdrawn. 
Several respondents recommend significant redrafting of the proposed 
rule and an opportunity to comment on a second proposed rule that makes 
important revisions.

[[Page 65875]]

    Response: Although the Councils have made significant revisions to 
the proposed rule to address the concerns of the public, the revisions 
do not go beyond what could be anticipated from the text of the 
proposed rule and the preamble to the proposed rule. The changes are in 
response to the public comments. They do not rise to the level of 
needing republication under 41 U.S.C. 418b. However, the Councils 
published a new proposed rule on mandatory disclosure under FAR case 
2007-006.
    3. Broad recommendations.
    a. Should not cover ethics.
    Comment: One respondent recommends not using the term ``ethics'' 
throughout the rule. Contractors can and should develop and train 
employees on appropriate standards of business conduct and compliance 
for its officers, employees and others doing (or seeking to do) 
business with the Federal Government. However, contractors typically do 
not teach ``ethics'' to their employees.
    Response: The term ``ethics'' is a term currently used throughout 
the FAR (reference FAR 3.104 and 9.104-1(d)) and is not considered to 
be an unfamiliar term to the professional business world. However, the 
Councils have modified the term to ``business ethics,'' consistent with 
usage in other FAR parts.
    b. 2005 Federal Sentencing Guidelines.
    Comments: Several respondents comment that the requirements of an 
internal control system should be like the United States Sentencing 
Commission 2005 Federal Sentencing Guidelines (Ch. 8 section 8B2.1), 
either by direct incorporation into the FAR or by reference. The 
proposed rule already included 8B2.1(b)(2) and (b)(3). One respondent 
is concerned that if they are not identical, businesses (especially 
small businesses) will believe they have met the compliance 
requirements of the U.S. Government by following the FAR; this will 
create a false sense of security. This respondent believes that the FAR 
requirements fall short when compared to the corporate sentencing 
guidelines. The respondent also points out that there are no clauses 
applying to smaller contracts, or to commercial item contracts, 
although companies with these contracts are still subject to the 
sentencing guidelines. Key requirements of the guidelines are omitted 
from the rule, such as knowledgeable leadership, exclusion of risky 
personnel, and individuals with day-to-day responsibility for 
implementing compliance systems.
    Several respondents ask for a specific reference to be made in the 
rule to the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines.
     First, in this area of corporate compliance, it could be 
confusing if it appeared that the FAR was setting a different standard 
than the Sentencing Commission and the Federal courts, which implement 
the Guidelines.
     Second, the Sentencing Guidelines are subject to routine 
reexamination and revision by both the Sentencing Commission after 
substantial study and public comment, and the Federal courts in 
specific cases, allowing for adjustments to this proposed rule without 
having to open a new FAR case.
    Therefore, the respondent believes that the Guidelines should serve 
as the baseline standard for a contractor's code of ethics and business 
conduct. By referencing the Guidelines, we would be able to ensure that 
the Federal Government speaks with one voice on corporate compliance.
    Response: The initiators of the case asked that the FAR mirror the 
DFARS. The DFARS provisions are very similar to the Sentencing 
Guidelines and are adequate for this final rule. It would require 
public comment to include additional requirements from the Sentencing 
Guidelines as requirements in the FAR. The request to more closely 
mirror the Sentencing Guidelines is being considered as part of a 
separate case, FAR 2007-006.
    c. Make pre-award requirement.
    Comments: One respondent suggests making the rule a pre-award 
requirement, to ensure that only contracts are awarded to firms 
electing to conduct business in an ethical manner, consistent with FAR 
Part 9. The respondent believes that once contractors choose to 
implement the program with employees acknowledging the consequences of 
violations, it becomes a self-perpetuating program, requiring no 
additional actions by the contractor other than certification for new 
awards.
    Response: FAR Part 9 (9.104-1(d)) already provides that a 
prospective contractor must have a satisfactory record in integrity and 
business ethics as a standard for determining a prospective contractor 
responsible as a pre-award requirement. The Councils believe that the 
respondent's suggestion would encumber or circumvent new contract 
awards which the Government wishes to encourage. Therefore, no change 
to the rule has been made.
    d. Hire certified management consultants (CMCs).
    Comments: One respondent recommends that the rule be amended to 
encourage Government agencies that are hiring consultants to hire 
Certified Management Consultants or those who ascribe or commit to a 
code of ethics from an acceptable professional organization such as the 
Institute of Management Consultants for all Government contracts, 
including consulting and/or advisory services.
    Response: It is the contractors' responsibility to comply with the 
rule and establish a code of business ethics. The Government cannot 
endorse any particular business or organization as an appropriate 
contractor. Therefore, the Councils have not changed the rule in 
response to this comment.
    e. Use quality assurance systems.
    Comments: One respondent states that the rule does not lead to 
future improvements in compliance methods. The respondent recommends 
that, where possible, corporate compliance systems might be bolstered 
by drawing on and meshing compliance with existing quality assurance 
systems. Traditional quality assurance systems, used to capture errors, 
may be applied to corporate compliance systems to catch and root out 
ethical and legal failures.
    Response: The cost of additional controls may or may not balance 
with the benefit received and should be carefully considered prior to 
implementation. While a contractor may elect to draw on existing 
systems as an additional internal control, the Councils have left the 
rule unchanged in this regard and do not specifically require use of 
existing quality assurance systems.
    f. Establish rewards rather than punishments.
    Comments: One respondent states that the regulation offers an 
opportunity to establish a regulation that rewards contractors who 
behave appropriately, contradicting the Federal Government's ``. . . 
mindset to penalize the wrong doer rather than rewarding the desired 
behavior.''
    Response: The Councils do not agree that this regulation should 
include a special ``reward'' for contractors who behave ethically. The 
Government ``rewards'' contractors who perform satisfactorily through 
payment of profit on the contract, favorable past performance 
evaluations, and the potential award of additional contracts.
    g. Should not be mandatory - be more like the DFARS.
    Comments: Several respondents expressed the view that the FAR rule 
should be modeled on the DFARS rule at Subpart 203.70, which is 
discretionary rather than mandatory. It states that contractors should 
have standards of conduct and internal

[[Page 65876]]

control systems. One of these respondents believes that the proposal to 
impose contractual mandates is misguided.
    Response: The discretionary rule in the DFARS is no longer strong 
enough in view of the trend (U.S. Sentencing Guidelines and the 
Sarbanes-Oxley Act) to increase contractor compliance with ethical 
rules of conduct. According to the Army Suspension and Debarment 
Official, the majority of small businesses that he encounters in review 
of Army contractor misconduct, have not implemented contractor 
compliance programs, despite the discretionary DFARS rule.
    However, with regard to the requirement for posters when the 
contractor has established an adequate internal reporting mechanism, 
see paragraph 7. of this section.
    h. More logical sequence for procedures and clause, and delete 
opening paragraph of procedures.
    Comment: One respondent recommends that the proposed changes at 
3.1003 be rewritten in a logical sequence. This respondent also 
recommended that the clause paragraphs should be rewritten in logical 
sequence with the alternate versions sequentially deleting the last 
paragraphs instead of creating the delete and renumber provisions.
    Another respondent recommends deletion of the opening paragraph at 
3.1003 because following the procedures does not ensure that the 
policies are implemented.
    Response: The procedures section has been completely rewritten to 
reduce redundancy and inconsistencies. The Councils have separated the 
clause into two clauses, which makes the second point about logical 
order in the clause moot. The opening paragraph at 3.1003 has been 
deleted.
    4. Policy.
    a. ``Should'' vs. ``shall.''
    Comment: At least four respondents comment on an inconsistency 
between ``should'' in the policy and ``shall'' elsewhere. Section 
3.1002, Policy, states that contractors ``should'' have a written code 
of ethics, etc, while the Section 3.1003, Procedures, and the contract 
clause at 52.203-13 makes the programs mandatory unless the contract 
meets one of several exceptions.
    Response: The inconsistency was deliberate. The policy applies to 
all contractors but the specific mandatory requirements of the clause 
apply only if the contract exceeds $5 million and meets certain other 
criteria. Section 3.1003 has been rewritten as ``Mandatory 
requirements'' to clearly distinguish it from the policy, which applies 
to all Government contractors.
    b. ``Suitable to'' vs. ``commensurate with.''
    Comment: One respondent comments that the policy uses the phrase 
``suitable to'' the size of the business whereas the clause uses the 
term ``Commensurate with.''
    Response: The phrase ``commensurate with'' has been deleted from 
the clause.
    5. Exceptions--general.
    Comments: Two respondents commented on the exceptions to the rule 
in general.
     The rule be revised to list exceptions separately.
     The key exceptions to the rule in subpart 3.1003(a) and 
3.1004(a)(1) are not consistent. 3.1003(a) exempts contracts awarded 
under FAR Part 12 from the required employee ethics and compliance-
training program and internal control system, or displaying the fraud 
poster, but it does not list the exemption from having a written code 
of business ethics. 3.1004(a)(1) clearly exempts contracts awarded 
under FAR Part 12 from all of the clause requirements.
    Response: The Councils partially concur with the respondents' 
recommendations. The Councils have revised the final rule to--
     Move the exceptions into the clause prescription; and
     Delete the conflicting wording in the proposed rule at 
3.1003(a).
    a. Commercial items.
    i. Concur with exception for commercial items.
    Comment: Two respondents agree that the rule should exclude 
contracts awarded under FAR Part 12. One respondent agrees with the 
intent of the rule concerning consistent standards of ethics and 
business conduct for Federal contracts, and the exclusion FAR 12. 
Another respondent agrees that all contractors should have written 
codes of conduct as a good business practice code of, but believes the 
FAR Part 12 exemption should be from the full coverage of the rule, 
including the written code of conduct requirement.
    Response: The Councils note that the FAR Part 12 exemption does 
include exemption from the requirement for a written code of conduct 
(see introductory paragraph at beginning of this Section 5.)
    ii. Disagree with exception for commercial items.
    Comments: Three respondents comment that the rule should apply to 
commercial contracts. They note that although other Federal agencies 
currently maintain polices similar to the rule, none of the agencies 
exclude contracts for commercial services. One respondent recommends 
that the rule apply to commercial item contracts or require that such 
contractors should have compliance systems in place, especially since 
such firms fall under the Sentencing Commission's general expectation 
that corporations will put appropriate compliance systems in place. 
Another respondent is concerned that the ``errant behavior of 
contractors'' will not stop at contracts awarded under FAR Part 12 and 
by carving out a major segment of acquisitions to which the rule will 
not apply, the rule sub-optimizes its intended effect of reducing 
unethical behavior.
    Response: The Councils do not agree the clause should be included 
in contracts awarded under Part 12. Requiring commercial item 
contractors to comply with the mandatory aspects of the rule would not 
be consistent with Public Law 103-355 that requires the acquisition of 
commercial items to resemble customarily commercial marketplace 
practices to the maximum extent practicable. Commercial practice 
encourages, but does not require, contractor codes of business ethics 
and conduct. In particular, the intent of FAR Part 12 is to minimize 
the number of Government-unique provisions and clauses. The policy at 
3.1002 of the rule does apply to commercial contracts. All Government 
contractors must conduct themselves with the highest degree of 
integrity and honesty. However, consistent with the intent of Pub. L. 
103-355 and FAR Part 12, the clause mandating specific requirements is 
not required to be included in commercial contracts.
    iii. Disagree with exception for commercial items if contract is 
for advisory and assistance services.
    Comment: One respondent believes that the rule should apply to all 
advisory and assistance services, some of which are commercial items.
    Response: The Councils have not agreed to make further distinctions 
between the types of contracts to which the rule should apply. For the 
same reasons stated in answer to the prior comment, the Councils do not 
agree to application of this rule to advisory and assistance services 
that are commercial items.
    b. Outside U.S.
    Comment: Two respondents comment on the exception for contracts to 
be performed outside the United States, mostly from a definitional 
perspective.
    i. Supporting office in the U.S.
    Comment: One respondent suggests that the meaning of ``work 
currently performed outside the United States'' needs to be better 
defined. The

[[Page 65877]]

proposed rule is unclear whether offices in the United States 
supporting the foreign project would be required to comply.
    Response: The term ``performed outside the United States'' is used 
throughout the FAR several dozen times. There is never any explanation 
regarding possible application to offices in the United States 
supporting the foreign project. If part of a contract is performed in 
the United States and part of it is performed outside the United 
States, then the part performed in the United States is subject to 
whatever conditions apply to work performed in the United States.
    ii. Outlying areas.
    Comments: One respondent specifically endorses the exception for 
contracts performed outside the United States. However, the respondent 
requests clarification of the term ``outlying areas.''
    Response: This term is defined in FAR 2.101.
    c. Dollar threshold.
    Eight respondents commented on the rule's $5 million threshold.
    i. Should not allow agencies to require posters below $5 million.
    Comments: One respondent does not support the requirement at the 
3.1003(c) that authorizes agencies to establish policies and procedures 
for the display of the agency fraud hotline poster for contracts below 
$5 million.
    Response: Federal agency budgets and missions vary and are 
distinct. Some agencies already require display of the hotline posters 
below the $5 million threshold. For this reason, agencies that desire 
to have contractors display the hotline poster should be allowed to 
implement the program in a way that meets their needs. Therefore, the 
Councils have not made any change to the rule in response to this 
comment.
    ii. There should be no threshold.
    Comment: Three respondents suggest removing the $5 million 
threshold and requiring all contractors to comply with the rule.
    In addition, the late supplemental comment received from the U.S. 
Government Office of Ethics expressed concern that a specific instance 
of conflict of interest problems occurred with two contracts that would 
not meet the $5 million threshold.
    Response: The Councils do not agree with removal of the threshold. 
Removing the $5 million dollar threshold and requiring all contractors 
to comply with the rule is not practical. At lower dollar thresholds, 
the costs may outweigh the benefits of enforcing a mandatory program. 
Nevertheless, the policy at 3.1002 applies to all contractors.
    The Councils note with regard to the OIG audit report ED-OIG/
A03F0022 of March 2007, that the contractor in question did not include 
the required conflict of interest clauses in its subcontracts and 
consulting agreements. This is the essence of the problem rather than 
the lack of a contractor code of ethics and compliance and internal 
control systems in contracts less than $5 million.
    iii. How is application of the threshold determined?
    Comment: One respondent is concerned that the rule fails to state 
how the $5 million threshold for the application of the clause is to be 
determined and questions if the threshold should apply to contracts 
with multi-years as the option years for such contracts may not be 
awarded, thereby impacting the total value of the contract award. The 
respondent recommends that the threshold apply to contracts with one 
term and only to the base year in contracts with options.
    Response: FAR 1.108(c) provides uniform guidance for application of 
thresholds throughout the FAR.
    iv. $5 million threshold is too low.
    Comments: One respondent is concerned that many companies have not 
implemented programs that would adequately meet the rule and that the 
$5 million threshold is too low. It will therefore serve as a 
disincentive for many small and medium--sized companies who may not be 
willing or able to comply with the requirement to implement training 
and control systems.
    Response: The $5 million threshold is consistent with the threshold 
established by the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) for contractor 
ethics. DoD contracts with the largest number of Federal contractors. 
Therefore, the Councils have not made any change to the threshold for 
application of the clause. For revisions made to lessen the impact on 
small business see paragraph 11. of this section.
    v. Alternate standards.
    Comment: One respondent recommends that the rule focus on the size 
of the firm and its volume of Federal work over a more significant 
period of time, and that SBA size standards and some proportion of the 
work the contractor performs be used as determining factors.
    Response: The Councils have revised the final rule to limit the 
requirement for formal awareness programs and internal control systems 
to large businesses, while retaining the $5 million threshold for 
application of the clause. The clause needs to be included, because it 
might flow down from a small business to a large business, from whom 
full compliance would be required. Although the proposed rule allowed 
contractors to determine the simplicity or complexity and cost of their 
programs ``suitable to the size of the company and extent of its 
involvement in Government contracting,'' this left many respondents 
unsure as to what would be acceptable (see also paragraph 11. of this 
section).
    Comment: One respondent is concerned that the rule does not 
adequately identify which contractors should be covered by the 
requirements and suggests that the kind of work and responsibilities of 
the contractor is a better indicator of the need for ethics rules than 
the size of the contract award.
    Response: As a practical matter, all contractors doing business 
with the Government should have a satisfactory of integrity and 
business ethics, irrespective of the work the contractor is performing 
or the dollar amount of the contract. However, given the volume and 
complexities of work contractors perform for the Government, it is not 
practical to apply the rule on the basis of a contractor's work or 
responsibilities. It is more realistic for the Government to establish 
monetary thresholds and/or size standards to ensure its widest impact 
and viability.
    d. Performance period.
    Comments: Five respondents commented on the 120-day performance 
period, considering that 120 days is too short, because it takes longer 
than that to implement a compliance program, including an internal 
control system. Even if the compliance programs can be implemented in 
the required timeframe, that leaves as little as 30 days between 
implementation of the program and completion of the contract. The 120-
day performance period operates as a disincentive to small and medium 
size companies. Some respondents recommend using a minimum of one year 
for the period of performance.
    Response: The Councils do not concur that 120 days is too short. 
Although on an initial contract it may take some time to get the 
program established, on follow-on contracts the program will already be 
in operation. Many contracts responding to emergency situations are of 
short duration, and are the very type of contract that needs to be 
covered. The contracting officer is given leeway in the final rule to 
expand the 90-day period (See paragraph 6.c. of this section).
    e. Other exceptions.
    Comment: Two respondents submitted comments suggesting an expansion 
to the list of exceptions.

[[Page 65878]]

    One respondent recommends two additional exceptions to the language 
at 3.1003, to make it clear that the new subpart is only applicable for 
new, open market, contract awards or agreements. Additional exceptions 
would include ``delivery or task orders placed against GSA Federal 
Supply Contracts, using Part 8 procedures,'' and ``orders placed 
against task order and delivery order contracts entered into pursuant 
to Subpart 16.5, Indefinite Delivery Contracts.''
    Another respondent recommends that research and development 
contracts issued to universities and other nonprofit organizations be 
exempt from the rule. Research institutions uniformly have business 
codes of conduct and internal controls to enable the reporting of 
improper conduct as well as disciplinary mechanisms (reference OMB 
Circular A-110). In addition, the National Science and Technology 
Council's Committee on Science is currently developing voluntary 
compliance guidelines for recipients of Federal research funding from 
all agencies across the Federal Government, to help recipients address 
the prudent management and stewardship of research funds and promote 
common policies and procedures among the agencies.
    Response: The rule is not applicable to existing contracts. 
Therefore, an exception for delivery or task orders placed against GSA 
Federal Supply Contracts or issued under existing Indefinite Delivery 
Contracts is not necessary.
    While universities and other nonprofit organizations may have 
existing guidelines, policies and procedures for business codes of 
conduct, there are many benefits of including a clause in new 
solicitations and contracts. The rule will strengthen the requirements 
for corporate compliance systems and will promote a policy that is 
consistent throughout the Government. Therefore, the Councils have not 
made any changes to the rule in this regard, although the burden on 
small businesses has been reduced (see 52.203-13(c)).
    6. Contractor program requirement.
    a.  Lack of specific guidelines.
    Comments: Various respondents express the view that the rule should 
be more specific about the required programs.
     Some provided examples of what should be included.
     One was concerned that contractors have increased risk of 
False Claims Act because when seeking payments under fixed-price 
construction contracts, they would have to certify that they sought 
compensation ``only for performance in accordance with the 
specifications, terms, and conditions of the contract'', including the 
new and highly subjective requirements in the proposed rule.
     One recommended that the FAR rule should be held until GAO 
finishes its study of contractor ethics at DoD.
     Another recommended that the Councils should establish a 
Government-industry panel to develop a minimum suggested code of ethics 
and business conduct based upon the best practices many contractors 
already employ.
    Response: This rule gives businesses flexibility to design 
programs. Many sample codes of business ethics are available on-line. 
The specific issues that should be addressed may vary depending on the 
type of business. To provide more specific requirements would require 
public comment. The new FAR Case 2007-006 will propose the imposition 
of a set of mandatory standards for an internal control system. The 
Councils will welcome suggestions for further FAR revisions when the 
GAO finishes its study.
    b. Compliance.
    Comment: Several respondents questions how the contracting officer 
would verify compliance with the requirements. There is no requirement 
for submission to the Government. The internal control system states 
what should be included. Are these mandatory requirements or is it the 
judgment of the contracting officer?
    Response: The contracting officer is not required to verify 
compliance, but may inquire at his or her discretion as part of 
contract administrative duties. Review of contractors' compliance would 
be incorporated into normal contract administration. The Government 
will not be routinely reviewing plans unless a problem arises. The 
Government does not need the code of ethics as a deliverable. What is 
important is that the Contractor develops the code and promotes 
compliance of its employees.
    ``Should'' provides guidance and examples, rather than a mandatory 
requirement. The contracting officer does not judge the internal 
control system, but only verifies its existence.
    c. Time limits.
    Various suggestions were made about the time allotted to develop a 
code of ethics.
     One respondent recommends 180 days for the code.
     Another recommended an extension to 60 days after contract 
award.
     One respondent states that it takes significantly longer 
than 30 days to put a written code of conduct in place. In order to be 
successful, the process should include an analysis of what should be in 
the code, drafting the code, stakeholder input, publication, and 
communication of the resulting code. This is difficult to accomplish in 
less than 6 months and usually requires at least a year to do well.
    The same respondents also commented about whether 90 days is 
sufficient to develop a training program and internal control systems. 
For example, one respondent comments that compliance training programs 
must be well designed and relevant to be effective. Establishing an 
internal-control system also takes significantly more than 90 days. 
According to the respondent, the rule would yield ``cookie-cutter'' 
compliance, devoid of any real commitment to ethics and compliance.
    Response: Although the Councils consider that the specified time 
periods are generally adequate, the Councils have revised the clause so 
that companies needing more time can request an extension from the 
contracting officer. The Councils also note that an initial code and 
program can be subject to further development over time, as experience 
with it suggests areas for improvement.
    d. Internal Control Systems--mandatory disclosure and full 
cooperation.
    Comments: Six respondents consider the requirements for the 
internal control system regarding disclosure to the Government and full 
cooperation with the Government to be problematic. Reporting suspected 
violations of law is troubling and requested more information on the 
trigger to the requirement. One respondent expresses concern with 
possible violations of constitutional rights associated with the 
disclosures.
    Other respondents are concerned that ``full cooperation'' can force 
companies to relinquish or waive the attorney-client privilege. One 
respondent requests that the preamble state that full cooperation does 
not waive attorney-client privilege or attorney work product immunity.
    Another respondent recommends expansion of the full cooperation 
requirement to cover audits. Information received by the OIG may 
precipitate an audit, rather than a criminal investigation.
    Response: The Councils note that the most controversial paragraphs 
(paragraphs (c)(2)(v) and (vi) in the proposed rule) were not 
mandatory, but were listed as examples of what a contractor internal 
control system should include. The mandatory

[[Page 65879]]

disclosure requirement in paragraph (c)(1)(i) of the proposed rule was 
not clear about disclosure to whom. The Councils have removed the 
disclosure requirement at paragraph (c)(1)(i) of the proposed clause 
and the examples at (c)(2)(v) and (vi) from this final rule. These 
issues were included for further consideration in the proposed rule 
issued for public comment under FAR Case 2007-006.
    7. Display of posters.
    a. Agency posters.
    i. Government posters are unnecessary, if the contractor has 
internal reporting mechanisms.
    Comments: Several respondents do not agree that Government hotline 
posters should need to be displayed if the contractor has its own code 
of ethics and business conduct policy and processes already in place to 
conform to the DFARS rule.
    One respondent cites DFARS 203.7001(b), which recognizes and 
permits companies to post their own internal hotline poster, in lieu of 
an agency Inspector General (IG) hotline poster, for employees to have 
an outlet to raise any issues of concern. The respondent believes this 
coverage is adequate and there is no need to impose an additional 
requirement to display agency IG hotline posters.
    Another respondent states that the rule that requires all Federal 
contractors to post agency hotlines would deny such contractors the 
opportunity to funnel problems through their internal control systems 
and frustrate at least much of the purpose of establishing such 
systems. One respondent states that companies want an opportunity to 
learn about internal matters first and to be in the best position to 
take corrective action.
    Another states that while the agencies currently all mandate that 
their contractors display a fraud hotline, none mandate that their 
contractors display a Government hotline. DoD, Veterans Administration, 
and Environmental Protection Agency currently require their contractors 
to post their agency hotlines unless they have ``established a 
mechanism, such as a hotline, by which employees may report suspected 
instances of improper conduct, and instruction that encourage employees 
to make such reports.'' Several other respondents recommend that the 
FAR Councils take the same approach.
    Response: Although the proposed rule did not prevent contractors 
from posting their own hotline posters, the Councils have determined 
that it will fulfill the objective of the case to mirror DFARS 252.203-
7002, Display of DoD Hotline Poster, i.e., display of the Government 
posters is not required if the contractor has established an internal 
reporting mechanism by which employees may report suspected instances 
of improper conduct along with instructions that encourage employees to 
make such reports.
    ii. Too many posters are unnecessary and potentially confusing.
    Comments: Several respondents believe that requiring all 
contractors to display the hotlines for all Federal agencies for which 
they are working--without regard to the number of such agencies, or the 
contractors' own efforts to encourage their employees to report any 
evidence of improper conduct--would have several negative and 
unintended consequences. Rather than facilitate reporting, multiple 
postings could confuse employees. To which agency should they report a 
particular problem? Adding agency-specific requirements to existing 
compliance programs dilutes the impact and message of the existing 
program and will likely lead to confusion among professionals. A 
bulletin board with myriad compliance references will be confusing at 
best.
    Response: Each agency's IG may require specific requirements and 
information for posters. There is no central telephone number or 
website that serves as the hotline for all agency IGs. However, under 
the final rule, if the company has its own internal reporting mechanism 
by which employees may report suspected instances of improper conduct 
along with instructions that encourage employees to make such reports, 
there is no need to hang multiple agency posters.
    iii. Responsibility for determining the need for displaying an 
agency IG Fraud Hotline Poster?
    Comment: Several respondents note that the Inspector General Act of 
1978 gives the agency's IG (not the agency) the responsibility for 
determining the need for, and the contents of, the fraud hotline 
poster.
    Response: The Councils agree that it is not the agency that decides 
the need for the poster, but the agency IG. The Councils have made the 
requested change at FAR 3.1003(b).
    b. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Posters.
    i. Only when requested by DHS?
    Comment: One respondent states that in the Federal Register 
background and in the proposed language at 3.1003(d)(2) the guidance 
seems to imply that the display of the DHS poster is required for 
contracts funded with disaster assistance funds, when and only when so 
requested by DHS.
    Response: This interpretation is correct. The final rule clarifies 
that it is the DHS Inspector General that requests use of the posters.
    ii. Different poster for each event is not best approach.
    Comment: One respondent believes that the contractor's own hotline, 
if one exists, is better suited to providing a mechanism for employees 
to report concerns than a different poster for each event.
    Response: DHS Inspector General must determine whether to use 
event-specific or broad posters to cover multiple events. However, the 
Councils have revised the final rule to permit use of the Contractor's 
own hotline poster if the contractor has an adequate internal control 
system.
    8. Remedies.
    Comments: Four comments concerning proposed remedies were received. 
In general, two of the respondents questioned consistency in 
application, consistency, and due process, and two were generally 
opposed to the remedies.
     One respondent asks whether there ``should be remedies for 
non-compliance when the contractor is not required to affirm or 
otherwise prove compliance, and when there is no adequate guidance for 
the CO regarding a determination of compliance?'' Without guidance, 
contracting officers in different agencies may make different 
assessments of the same contractor.
     One respondent ``cannot find any rational relationship 
between the proposed ``remedies'' and any damages or other losses that 
the Government might suffer from any breach of the new contractual 
requirements ethics codes and compliance programs.'' This respondent 
strongly recommends that the contractual remedies be limited to such 
equitable measures as may be necessary to bring the contractor into 
compliance with its contract obligations to implement certain 
procedures, and omit any monetary penalties.
     One respondent expressed a similar concern that the 
remedies ``are improper, excessive and unwarranted.''
     One respondent requests provision of due process with a 
proposal to include the following text; ``Prior to taking action as 
described in this clause, the Contracting Officer will notify the 
Contractor and offer an opportunity to respond.''
    Response: The Councils have decided that remedies should not be 
specified in the clause. The FAR already provides sufficient remedies 
for breach of contract requirements.
    9. Flowdown.

[[Page 65880]]

    a. Objections to rule also apply to flowdown.
    Naturally, those respondents that oppose the rule in general or in 
particular, will also oppose its flowdown in general or in particular. 
For example,
     Comment: One respondent recommends exempting this 
requirement for subcontracts less than one year in length, rather than 
120 days.
    Response: See discussion in paragraph 5.d. of this section.
     Comment: Another respondent states that this requirement 
will negatively impact universities, especially given the flow-down 
requirements for prime contracts. This respondent recommends that 
research and development contracts issued to universities and other 
nonprofit organizations should be exempt from this proposed rule.
    Response: See discussion at paragraph 5.e. of this section.
     Comment: Another respondent states that the rule has not 
estimated the number of small business subcontractors that will be 
adversely impacted by this requirement.
    Response: See discussion at paragraph 11. of this section.
    b. Rationale for the flowdown.
    Comment: One respondent states that there is no rationale provided 
for this troubling and perplexing flowdown requirement and would like 
it to be deleted from the rule. None of the agencies currently require 
any flowdown to subcontractors.
    Response: The same rationale that supports application of the rule 
to prime contractors, supports application to subcontractors. Meeting 
minimum ethical standards is a requirement of doing business with the 
Government, whether dealing directly or indirectly with the Government. 
The rule does not apply to contracts/subcontracts less than $5 million, 
exempts all commercial contracts/subcontracts, and the final rule 
reduces the burden on small business, whether prime or subcontractor.
    c. Implementation.
    Comment: One respondent has questions about the implementation of 
the flowdown. What is a subcontract--does it include purchase orders? 
The Government and the construction industry have a different concept 
of ``subcontract.'' They are concerned that the meaning of 
``subcontract'' is therefore far from clear to general construction 
contractors and their subcontractors. Are prime contractors expected to 
distinguish subcontracts for commercial items from subcontracts for 
other goods and services?
    Response: This issue is not specific to this case. Sometimes 
construction firms think that ``subcontract'' does not include purchase 
orders. The FAR does not make this distinction. The intent is that the 
flowdown applies to all subcontracts, including purchase orders. Prime 
contractors are expected to distinguish subcontracts for commercial 
items from subcontractors for other goods and services, not only for 
this rule but for many other FAR requirements (see FAR clause 52.244-6, 
Subcontracts for Commercial Items, which is included in all 
solicitation and contracts other than those for commercial items).
    d. Enforcement.
    Comment: Several respondents are concerned with how the flowdown 
requirement will be enforced. One respondent is concerned that prime 
contractors should not be responsible for subcontractors' compliance 
with this requirement. Monitoring of subcontracts would impose a 
significant new cost on prime contractors. Another respondent requests 
that the rule be revised to clarify that primes are not responsible for 
monitoring subcontractor compliance. This respondent is particularly 
concerned about the impracticality of a small or medium-sized business 
supervising the compliance of major subcontractors.
    Response: The contractor is not required to judge or monitor the 
ethics awareness program and internal control systems of the 
subcontractors--just check for existence. The difficulty of a small 
business concern monitoring a large business subcontractor is true with 
regard to many contract requirements, not just this one. The Councils 
plan to further address the issue of disclosure by the subcontractor 
under the new FAR Case 2007-006.
    10. Clause prescriptions.
    a. Extraneous phrase.
    Comment: Several respondents note that something is wrong with the 
following phrase in 3.1004(a)(1)(i): `` ...or to address Contractor 
Code of Ethics and Business Conduct and the display of Federal agency 
Office of the Inspector General (OIG) Fraud Hotline Poster''.
    Response: The extraneous phrase has been removed from the final 
rule.
    b. Alternates.
    Comment: One respondent says that what ``triggers the insertion of 
Alternate I or II clause language is ambiguous in the text of the 
Policy and Procedures sections of the rule and the confusion is 
compounded when read with the language used in the clause.''
    One respondent comments that if the contract period of performance 
is less than 120 days and the agency has not established a requirement 
for posting at a lower dollar level, there is no requirement to include 
the clause; in this case Alternate II is never invoked. Another 
respondent recommends at 3.1004(c)(2) changing ``at a lesser amount'' 
to ``for contracts valued at $5 million or less''.
    Response: The Councils have decided to use two separate clauses, 
rather than one clause with alternates. The conditions for use of the 
alternates were so diverse, that it was impossible to comply with the 
FAR drafting conventions that the prescription for the clause should 
include both the requirements for the basic clause and any alternates. 
Although the Councils do not agree with the respondent (because the 
conditions are connected by ``or'' rather than ``and''), any ambiguity 
in the prescription for Alternate II has been eliminated by the use of 
two clauses. The language at 3.1004(c)(2)(now 3.1004(b)(3)(ii)) has 
been clarified.
    11. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis.
    a. Impact on small business requires regulatory flexibility 
analysis.
    Comment: Several respondents note that the rule will have a 
substantial impact on small business. The SBA Chief Counsel for 
Advocacy commented that the Councils should therefore publish an 
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis. The SBA Chief Counsel for 
Advocacy points out that the minimal set-up cost for the ethics program 
and internal control system would be $10,000, according to one 
established professional organization; there would be further costs for 
maintaining the system, periodic training, and other compliance costs.
    Another respondent asks how the finding that ``ethics programs and 
hotline posters are not standard commercial practice'' squares with the 
claim that the proposed rule ``will not have a significant impact on a 
substantial number of small entities''. The respondent notes the 
absence of any cost estimate, or impact on competition for contracts 
and subcontracts. Mid-sized and small construction contractors would 
find the cost and complexity of restructuring their internal systems, 
and continuously providing the necessary training to employees 
scattered across multiple sites, to be very substantial, and might well 
exceed benefits of pursuing Federal work. (Another respondent echoes 
this.) The respondent recommends the Councils undertake a fresh data-
driven analysis of how severely such mandates are likely to impact 
small businesses, including the level of small business participation 
in Federal work.

[[Page 65881]]

    Another respondent comments that the rule may have an unduly 
burdensome impact on Government contractors, particularly smaller 
contractors. It may deter small and minority owned businesses from 
entering the Federal marketplace and from competing for certain 
contracts.
    b. Alternatives. Several alternatives were presented for small 
business compliance with the regulation.
     Since small business size standards for the construction 
industry are well over $5 million in annual revenue, the exclusion of 
contracts under $5 million is not likely to insulate small business 
from the cost of compliance. Federal construction contracts typically 
exceed $5 million, and small construction contractors regularly perform 
them. Instead of $5 million, the requirements should be linked to the 
size standards the SBA established, and some proportion of the work 
that the contractor performs for the Federal Government. The 
construction industry size standard for general contractors is $31 
million in average annual revenue. The requirements should be imposed 
on only the firms that both exceed the standard and derive a large 
proportion of their revenue from Federal contracts.
     Delay the flow down requirement to small business 
subcontractors, pending review of data on impact on small business 
subcontractors (SBA Chief Counsel for Advocacy).
     Provide additional guidance for small businesses on a code 
of ethics commensurate with their size.
    Response:
    Exclusion of commercial items. The original Regulatory Flexibility 
Act statement as published did not identify the rule's exclusion for 
commercial items. The burdens of the clauses will not be imposed on 
Part 12 acquisitions of commercial items. This is of great benefit to 
small businesses.
    Reduced burden for small businesses. The Councils acknowledge the 
difficulty and great expense for a small business to have a formal 
training program, and formal internal controls. The Councils also 
acknowledge that the public was confused about the proposed rule's 
flexible language for small business: ``Such program shall be suitable 
to the size of the company.''
    The Councils have maintained the clause requirement for small 
businesses to have a business code of ethics and provide copies of this 
code to each employee. There are many available sources to obtain 
sample codes of ethics.
    However, the Councils have made the clause requirements for a 
formal training program and internal control system inapplicable to 
small businesses (see also paragraph 5.c.v. of this section).
    Because the clause 52.203-13 is still included in the contract with 
small businesses, the requirements for formal training program and 
internal control systems will flow down to large business 
subcontractors, but not apply to small businesses.
    The Councils note that if a small business subsequently finds 
itself in trouble ethically, the need for a training program and 
internal controls will likely be addressed by the Federal Government at 
that time, during a criminal or civil lawsuit or debarment or 
suspension.
    This is not a significant regulatory action and, therefore, was not 
subject to review under Section 6(b) of Executive Order 12866, 
Regulatory Planning and Review, dated September 30, 1993. This rule is 
not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Department of Defense, the General Services Administration, and 
the National Aeronautics and Space Administration certify that this 
final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities within the meaning of the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq., because the rule does not 
require use of the clause requiring contractors to have a written code 
of business ethics and conduct if the contract is--
     Valued at $5 million or less;
     Has a performance period less than 120 days;
     Was awarded under Part 12; or
     Will be performed outside the United States.
    Furthermore, after discussions with the Small Business 
Administration (SBA) Office of Advocacy, the Councils have made 
inapplicable to small businesses the clause requirement for a formal 
compliance awareness program and internal control system.

C. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The Paperwork Reduction Act does not apply because the changes to 
the FAR do not impose information collection requirements that require 
the approval of the Office of Management and Budget under 44 U.S.C. 
3501, et seq.

List of Subjects in 48 CFR Parts 2, 3, and 52

    Government procurement.

    Dated: November 16, 2007.
Al Matera,
Director, Office of Acquisition Policy.

0
Therefore, DoD, GSA, and NASA amend 48 CFR parts 2, 3, and 52 as set 
forth below:
0
1. The authority citation for 48 CFR parts 2, 3, and 52 continues to 
read as follows:

    Authority:  40 U.S.C. 121(c); 10 U.S.C. chapter 137; and 42 
U.S.C. 2473(c).

PART 2--DEFINITIONS OF WORDS AND TERMS

0
2. Amend section 2.101 in paragraph (b), in the definition ``United 
States'' by redesignating paragraphs (1) through (7) as paragraphs (2) 
through (8), respectively, and adding a new paragraph (1) to read as 
follows:


2.101  Definitions.

    (b) * * *
    United States * * *
    (1) For use in Subpart 3.10, see the definition at 3.1001.
* * * * *

PART 3--IMPROPER BUSINESS PRACTICES AND PERSONAL CONFLICTS OF 
INTEREST

0
3. Add Subpart 3.10 to read as follows:
Subpart 3.10--Contractor Code of Business Ethics and Conduct
Sec.
3.1000 Scope of subpart.
3.1001 Definitions.
3.1002 Policy.
3.1003 Mandatory requirements.
3.1004 Contract clauses.

Subpart 3.10--Contractor Code of Business Ethics and Conduct


3.1000  Scope of subpart.

    This subpart prescribes policies and procedures for the 
establishment of contractor codes of business ethics and conduct, and 
display of agency Office of Inspector General (OIG) fraud hotline 
posters.


3.1001  Definitions.

    United States, as used in this subpart, means the 50 States, the 
District of Columbia, and outlying areas.


3.1002  Policy.

    (a) Government contractors must conduct themselves with the highest 
degree of integrity and honesty.
    (b) Contractors should have a written code of business ethics and 
conduct. To promote compliance with such code of business ethics and 
conduct, contractors should have an employee business

[[Page 65882]]

ethics and compliance training program and an internal control system 
that--
    (1) Are suitable to the size of the company and extent of its 
involvement in Government contracting;
    (2) Facilitate timely discovery and disclosure of improper conduct 
in connection with Government contracts; and
    (3) Ensure corrective measures are promptly instituted and carried 
out.


3.1003  Mandatory requirements.

    (a) Requirements. Although the policy in section 3.1002 applies as 
guidance to all Government contractors, the contractual requirements 
set forth in the clauses at 52.203-13, Code of Business Ethics and 
Conduct, and 52.203-14, Display of Hotline Poster(s), are mandatory if 
the contracts meet the conditions specified in the clause prescriptions 
at 3.1004.
    (b) Fraud Hotline Poster. (1) Agency OIGs are responsible for 
determining the need for, and content of, their respective agency OIG 
fraud hotline poster(s).
    (2) When requested by the Department of Homeland Security, agencies 
shall ensure that contracts funded with disaster assistance funds 
require display of any fraud hotline poster applicable to the specific 
contract. As established by the agency OIG, such posters may be 
displayed in lieu of, or in addition to, the agency's standard poster.


3.1004  Contract clauses.

    Unless the contract is for the acquisition of a commercial item 
under part 12 or will be performed entirely outside the United States--
    (a) Insert the clause at FAR 52.203-13, Contractor Code of Business 
Ethics and Conduct, in solicitations and contracts if the value of the 
contract is expected to exceed $5,000,000 and the performance period is 
120 days or more.
    (b)(1) Insert the clause at FAR 52.203-14, Display of Hotline 
Poster(s), if--
    (i) The contract exceeds $5,000,000 or a lesser amount established 
by the agency; and
    (ii)(A) The agency has a fraud hotline poster; or
    (B) The contract is funded with disaster assistance funds.
    (2) In paragraph (b)(3) of the clause, the contracting officer 
shall--
    (i) Identify the applicable posters; and
    (ii) Insert the website link(s) or other contact information for 
obtaining the agency and/or Department of Homeland Security poster.
    (3) In paragraph (d) of the clause, if the agency has established 
policies and procedures for display of the OIG fraud hotline poster at 
a lesser amount, the contracting officer shall replace ``$5,000,000'' 
with the lesser amount that the agency has established.

PART 52--SOLICITATION PROVISIONS AND CONTRACT CLAUSES

0
4. Add sections 52.203-13 and 52.203-14 to read as follows:


52.203-13  Contractor Code of Business Ethics and Conduct.

    As prescribed in 3.1004(a), insert the following clause:
    CONTRACTOR CODE OF BUSINESS ETHICS AND CONDUCT (DEC 2007)
    (a) Definition.
    United States, as used in this clause, means the 50 States, the 
District of Columbia, and outlying areas.
    (b) Code of business ethics and conduct. (1) Within 30 days 
after contract award, unless the Contracting Officer establishes a 
longer time period, the Contractor shall--
    (i) Have a written code of business ethics and conduct; and
    (ii) Provide a copy of the code to each employee engaged in 
performance of the contract.
    (2) The Contractor shall promote compliance with its code of 
business ethics and conduct.
    (c) Awareness program and internal control system for other than 
small businesses. This paragraph (c) does not apply if the 
Contractor has represented itself as a small business concern 
pursuant to the award of this contract. The Contractor shall 
establish within 90 days after contract award, unless the 
Contracting Officer establishes a longer time period--
    (1) An ongoing business ethics and business conduct awareness 
program; and
    (2) An internal control system.
    (i) The Contractor's internal control system shall--
    (A) Facilitate timely discovery of imp