40830 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 127 / Friday, June 30, 2000 / Proposed Rules

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

GENERAL SERVICES

ADMINISTRATION

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND

SPACE ADMINISTRATION

48 CFR Parts 9, 14, 15, 31, and 52

[FAR Case 1999–010]

RIN 9000–AI40

Federal Acquisition Regulation;

Contractor Responsibility, Labor

Relations Costs, and Costs Relating to

Legal and Other Proceedings

AGENCIES: Department of Defense (DoD),

General Services Administration (GSA),

and National Aeronautics and Space

Administration (NASA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: The Civilian Agency

Acquisition Council (CAAC) and the

Defense Acquisition Regulations

Council (DARC) published in the

Federal Register at 64 FR 37360, July 9,

1999, a proposed rule for public

comment related to contractor

responsibility and costs incurred in

legal and other proceedings. The

comment period lasted 120 days. In

response to the proposed rule, more

than 1500 letters were received. As a

result of the review of those responses,

the Federal Acquisition Regulatory

Council (FAR Council) has decided to

publish a revised proposed rule.

DATES: Interested parties should submit

comments in writing on or before

August 29, 2000 to be considered in the

formulation of a final rule.

ADDRESSES: Submit written comments

to: General Services Administration,

FAR Secretariat (MVR), 1800 F Street,

NW, Room 4035, ATTN: Laurie Duarte,

Washington, DC 20405.

Submit electronic comments via the

Internet to: farcase.1999–010@gsa.gov.

Please submit comments only and cite

FAR case 1999–010 in all

correspondence related to this case.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The

FAR Secretariat, Room 4035, GS

Building, Washington, DC, 20405, at

(202) 501–4755 for information

pertaining to status or publication

schedules. For clarification of content,

contact Mr. Ralph De Stefano,

Procurement Analyst, at (202) 501–

1758. Please cite FAR case 1999–010.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

A. Background

The CAAC and DARC published a

proposed rule amending FAR Parts 9

and 31 in the Federal Register at 64 FR

37360, July 9, 1999, requesting

comments from the public. The

proposed rule attempted to clarify what

constitutes a ‘‘satisfactory record of

integrity and business ethics’’ for a

federal contractor.

The comment period for the proposed

rule closed on November 8, 1999. In

response to the proposed rule, the

CAAC and DARC received more than

1500 letters. After reviewing the

comments, the FAR Council decided to

republish the proposed rule with certain

changes (as listed below). The FAR

Council intends this revised proposal to

clarify the existing requirement that

federal contractors must have a

satisfactory record of integrity and

business ethics. They considered all of

the public comments in preparing this

revised proposal.

1. FAR Part 9, Contractor Responsibility.

a. Integrity and business ethics. The

initial rule sought to clarify contractor

responsibility considerations by adding

examples of what may be considered

‘‘an unsatisfactory record of integrity

and business ethics.’’ Specifically, it

emphasized that contracting officers

could regard a prospective contractor’s

lack of compliance with tax laws, or

substantial noncompliance with labor

laws, employment laws, environmental

laws, antitrust laws, or consumer

protection laws as indicating an

unsatisfactory record of integrity and

business ethics.

Many members of the public

expressed concerns about the proposed

rule. They suggested—

(1) The language in the rule was vague

and subjective, raising a risk of abuse,

and perhaps leading to inconsistent

application of law;

(2) The proposed rule could have the

effect of shifting responsibility for

reviewing and giving effect to violations

of law from agency debarring officials to

contracting officers, placing an undue

burden on contracting officers;

(3) The proposal seemed more of a

punitive measure than one designed to

protect the Government’s interest;

(4) The proposal appeared to permit

contracting officers to give undue

weight to unsubstantiated allegations;

(5) The proposed rule appeared to

modify the causes for debarment; and

(6) An Initial Regulatory Flexibility

Analysis should be performed, because

the final rule could have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities.

After considering all of these

comments, the FAR Council is replacing

the initial proposal with two separate

proposed rules. The present FAR case

represents a revised proposed rule

pertaining to contractor responsibility

and certain cost principles. It includes

an Initial Regulatory Flexibility

Analysis (see Paragraph B., Regulatory

Flexibility Act), which supports a

conclusion that the rule is not likely to

have a significant economic impact on

a substantial number of small entities.

The FAR Council plans to open a new

FAR case addressing the issue of

debarment responding to the public’s

comments on that subject.

In the present FAR case, the FAR

Council has revised the proposed rule in

a number of ways:

(1) New language would clarify FAR

9.103 to reflect that contracting officers

should coordinate with agency legal

counsel on all non-responsibility

determinations based upon integrity and

business ethics.

(2) Additional language would modify

FAR 9.104–1(d) to confirm that

satisfactory compliance with federal

laws including tax laws, labor and

employment laws, environmental laws,

antitrust laws, and consumer protection

laws would be part of a satisfactory

record of integrity and business ethics.

(3) A revised section clarifies that in

assessing contractor responsibility,

contracting officers may consider all

relevant credible information, but

should give greatest weight to decisions

within the past three years preceding

the offer as follows:

Convictions of or civil judgments

rendered against the prospective

contractor for—

(a) Commission of fraud or a criminal

offense in connection with obtaining,

attempting to obtain or performing a

public (Federal, State, or local) contract

or subcontract;

(b) Violation of Federal or State

antitrust statutes relating to the

submission of offers;

(c) Commission of embezzlement,

theft, forgery, bribery, falsification or

destruction of records, making false

statements, tax evasion, or receiving

stolen property;

(d) Any other Federal or State felony

convictions or pending Federal or State

felony indictments; and

(e) Federal court judgments in civil

cases brought by the United States

against the contractor.

Federal decisions by Federal

Administrative Law Judges or Federal

Administrative Judges and adjudicatory

decisions, orders, or complaints issued

by any federal agency, board, or

commission, indicating the contractor

has been found to have violated Federal

tax, labor and employment, antitrust, or

consumer protection law.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 127 / Friday, June 30, 2000 / Proposed Rules 40831

(4) All offerors must certify to

contracting officers whether within the

past three years, they have been

convicted of any felonies (or have any

felony indictment currently pending

against them) arising from any Federal

tax, labor and employment,

environmental, antitrust, or consumer

protection laws, had any adverse court

judgments in civil cases against them

arising from any Federal tax, labor and

employment, environmental, antitrust,

or consumer protection laws in which

the United States brought the action, or

been found by a Federal Administrative

Law Judge, Federal Administrative

Judge, agency, board or commission to

have violated any Federal tax, labor and

employment, environmental, antitrust,

or consumer protection law. Before

publication of a final rule, the FAR

Council would need to obtain approval

of this new certification requirement

from the Administrator for Federal

Procurement Policy in accordance with

41 U.S.C. 425(c)(1)(B).

(5) New language would modify FAR

14.404–2(i) and 15.503(a)(1), which

provide for notification to unsuccessful

bidders and offerors promptly after a

non-responsibility determination is

made. The modification would ensure

that if non-responsibility is the basis for

rejection of the bid or elimination of an

offer from the competition, then the

contracting officer must provide the

reasons for the non-responsibility

determination in the notification.

The FAR Council intends these

changes to the initial proposed rule to

clarify the longstanding requirement

that federal contractors have a

‘‘satisfactory record of integrity and

business ethics.’’ It solicits comments

on whether or not this proposal is

successful in this regard. Comments on

whether the revised language in 9.104–

1(d) and 9.104–3(c) sufficiently clarifies

for contracting officers and for federal

contractors what constitutes a

‘‘satisfactory record of integrity and

business ethics,’’ and what additional or

alternative language would be helpful in

this regard would be particularly useful.

b. Workplace practices. The initial

proposal included changes requiring

federal contractors to maintain such

workplace practices as, training, worker

retention and legal compliance to assure

a skilled, stable and productive

workforce. After reflecting further on

this subject, the FAR Council has

decided not to proceed with such

language. The general responsibility

standards in FAR 9.104–1(e), which

require the prospective contractors to

have the necessary organization,

experience, accounting and operational

controls, and technical skills, or the

ability to obtain them, already cover this

requirement adequately.

2. Cost Principle Changes

The initial proposed rule would have

revised FAR Part 31 to make

unallowable those costs that a

contractor incurs related to—

1. Influencing an employee’s decision

regarding unionization (FAR 31.205–21,

Labor relations costs); and

2. Any judicial or administrative

proceeding brought by ‘‘the

Government,’’ if there is a finding that

the contractor violated a law or

regulation (FAR 31.205–47, Costs

related to legal and other proceedings).

The CAAC and DARC received

comments from 135 respondents on this

portion of the proposed rule. After

careful consideration, the FAR Council

has decided to make the following

changes:

a. FAR 31.205–21, Labor relations

costs. A number of respondents

indicated that the term ‘‘influencing’’

may be too vague, leading to difficulty

in identifying these types of costs. The

FAR Council has decided to revise

paragraph (b) by substituting the phrase

‘‘assist, promote, or deter’’ for the term

‘‘influencing’’ since this phrase has been

used in neutrality provisions of costbased Federal programs for years (e.g.,

29 U.S.C. 1553(c)(1), 29 U.S.C.

2931(b)(7), 42 U.S.C. 12634(b)(1) and 42

U.S.C. 9839(e)).

b. FAR 31.205–47, Costs related to

legal and other proceedings. A number

of respondents suggested that the

proposed rule had a number of

inconsistencies—

(1) The proposed language at FAR

31.205–47(b)(3) was inconsistent with

the introductory language at FAR

31.205-47(b). Paragraph (b)(3) appeared

to apply only to proceedings brought by

the Federal Government, but the

introductory language seemed to refer to

proceedings brought by State, local, or

foreign governments as well. The FAR

Council has resolved the ambiguity by

proposing that the costs should be

unallowable if incurred in connection

with any such Federal, State, local or

foreign government proceeding.

Therefore, there is no change to the

existing regulations.

(2) The proposed language in

paragraph (b)(3) appeared inconsistent

with the language in paragraph (b)(2).

Paragraph (b)(2), currently in the FAR

and unchanged in the initial proposed

rule, disallows costs incurred in

connection with a civil or

administrative proceeding for violation

of, or failure to comply with, a law or

regulation where there is a finding of

contractor liability involving fraud or

the imposition of a monetary penalty.

Paragraph (b)(3) made costs unallowable

if there was a finding of a violation of

a law or regulation regardless of

whether the violation involved fraud or

the contractor was assessed a monetary

penalty. Although the paragraphs are

intended to be consistent, paragraph

(b)(3) appeared to disallow some costs

allowed under paragraph (b)(2). To

remedy this inconsistency, the FAR

Council proposes to eliminate the

language at paragraph (b)(3) and expand

the scope of paragraph (b)(2) to include

findings in any civil or administrative

proceeding that the contractor violated,

or failed to comply with, any law or

regulation. Since paragraph (b)(2) no

longer refers to allegations of fraud, the

FAR Council has eliminated the

definition of ‘‘fraud’’ in paragraph (a).

Executive Order 12866

The FAR Council intends to clarify

existing regulations concerning the

assessment of contractor responsibility.

It does not regard this rule as a

significant rule subject to Office of

Management and Budget review under

Section 6(b) of Executive Order 12866,

Regulatory Planning and Review, dated

September 30, 1993. It also does not

regard this rule as a major rule under 5

U.S.C. 804.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The FAR Council has examined

whether this revised proposal would

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. In

commenting on the initial proposal,

some small businesses suggested that

the clarification regarding integrity and

business ethics might result in more

adverse responsibility determinations,

and the denial of contracts to small

businesses.

The FAR Council has prepared an

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

(IRFA) and will provide it to the Chief

Counsel for Advocacy at the Small

Business Administration. The analysis

supports a conclusion that this rule

would not likely have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities. The analysis is

summarized below. There was also a

concern that the proposed rule would

change the Certificate of Competency

program which is the process through

which small businesses can challenge

contracting officers’ decisions about

contractor responsibility. Nothing in the

initial proposal nor this revised

proposal changes the Certificate of

Competency program.

40832 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 127 / Friday, June 30, 2000 / Proposed Rules

1Average hours per response is calculated by

dividing total burden hours by total annual

responses.

The objective of the proposed rule is to

make it clear that the contracting officer

should consider violations of federal law in

determining whether a prospective contractor

has an unsatisfactory record of integrity and

business ethics. The legal basis for the

proposed rule is 41 U.S.C. 253b and 10

U.S.C. 2305(b), which require the

Government to award contracts to

‘‘responsible sources’’; 41 U.S.C. 403 defines

‘‘responsible source’’ to be in part, a

prospective contractor who has a record of

integrity and business ethics. The rule will

affect both large and small businesses

interested in participating in Federal

Government procurement. It is estimated that

approximately 171,000 small entities will be

affected by this rule. The proposed rule will

add a new certification requiring prospective

contractors to certify whether they have been

convicted of any felonies (or have any felony

indictment currently pending against them)

arising from any Federal tax, labor and

employment, environmental, antitrust, or

consumer protection laws, had any adverse

court judgments in civil cases against them

arising from any Federal tax, labor and

employment, environmental, antitrust, or

consumer protection laws in which the

United States brought the action, or been

found by a Federal Administrative Law

Judge, Federal Administrative Judge, agency,

board or commission to have violated any

Federal tax, labor and employment,

environmental, antitrust, or consumer

protection law. The certification will be

required of all businesses, including small

businesses, interested in submitting offers in

response to solicitations that exceed the

simplified acquisition threshold (see Section

C).

The contracting officer will still be

required to forward non-responsibility

determinations for small entities to the Small

Business Administration in accordance with

the certificate of competency program.

Nothing in that requirement has been

changed by this rule.

The proposed change to the FAR

pertaining to Part 31 cost principles is not

expected to 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

most contracts awarded to small entities use

simplified acquisition procedures or are

awarded on a competitive, fixed-price basis,

and do not require application of the cost

principles contained in this rule. In fiscal

years 1998 and 1999 approximately 1⁄2 of 1

percent of contracts awarded to small entities

were subject to the cost principles. Therefore,

the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

that has been performed does not address the

cost principles.

A copy of the IRFA may be obtained

from the FAR Secretariat. The CAAC

and DARC will consider comments from

small entities concerning the affected

FAR parts 9, 14, 15, 31, and 52 in

accordance with 5 U.S.C. 610. The FAR

Council will also consider comments on

its conclusion that this regulation is not

likely to have a significant impact on a

substantial number of small entities.

Comments must be submitted separately

and should cite 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq.

(FAR case 1999–010), in

correspondence.

C. Paperwork Reduction Act

The Paperwork Reduction Act (Pub.

L. 104–13) applies because the FAR

changes to Parts 9 and 52 increase the

information collection requirements that

have been approved by the Office of

Management and Budget (OMB) under

OMB Control Number 9000–0094. OMB

has currently approved an annual

reporting burden of 91,667 hours based

on 1,100,000 respondents and 1,100,000

annual responses. In preparing the

revised proposal, the FAR Council has

reviewed the number of likely

respondents. It notes that the average

respondent submits numerous

responses throughout the year. It now

estimates that the annual reporting

burden for OMB Control Number 9000–

0094 applies to only 89,995

respondents, of which approximately

50,000 are affected by the new

certification requirement. The other

39,995 respondents are subcontractors,

responding to the prime contractor

regarding suspension and debarment

only. It further estimates that the

addition of this new certification

requirement will increase the total

burden hours by 515,000 hours, for a

new total of 606,667 hours. This

assumes an estimate that the additional

certification will take an average of 3

hours each for 50,000 initial responses

and .5 hours each for 450,000

subsequent responses that year, for a

composite average of .75 hours per

response. In addition, the FAR Council

estimates that in 50,000 cases the

contracting officer will request

additional information from the

respondent in accordance with FAR

9.408(a), requiring an additional 4 hours

each for 30,000 initial responses, and 1

hour each for each of 20,000 subsequent

responses for a composite average of 2.8

hours per response.

The revised annual reporting burden

is estimated as follows:

Respondents: 89,995.

Responses per respondent: 12.8.

Total annual responses: 1,150,000.

Average hours per response: 1 0.528

hours.

Total burden hours: 606,667 hours.

The Paperwork Reduction Act does

not apply to the proposed changes to

FAR Part 31, Contract Cost Principles

and Procedures, because these changes

do not impose information collection

requirements that require Office of

Management and Budget approval

under 44. U.S.C. 3501, et seq.

D. Request for Comments Regarding

Paperwork Burden

Please submit comments, including

suggestions for reducing this burden,

not later than August 29, 2000 to: FAR

Desk Officer, OMB, Room 10102, NEOB,

Washington, DC 20503.

The FAR Council particularly invites

public comments on—

• Whether this collection of

information is necessary for the proper

performance of functions of the FAR,

and whether it will have practical

utility;

• Whether our estimate of the public

burden of this collection of information

is accurate, and based on valid

assumptions and methodology;

• Ways to enhance the quality, utility,

and clarity of the information to be

collected; and

• Ways in which we can minimize

the burden of the collection of

information on those who are to

respond, through the use of appropriate

technological collection techniques or

other forms of information technology.

The commenter may obtain a copy of

the justification from the General

Services Administration, FAR

Secretariat (MVR), Room 4035,

Washington, DC 20405, telephone (202)

208–7312. Please cite OMB Control

Number 9000–0094, FAR Case 1999–

010, Contractor Responsibility, Labor

Relations Costs, and Costs Relating to

Legal and Other Proceedings, in all

correspondence.

List of Subjects in 48 CFR Parts 9, 14,

15, 31, and 52

Government procurement.

Dated: June 22, 2000.

Edward C. Loeb,

Director, Federal Acquisition Policy Division.

Therefore, DoD, GSA, and NASA

propose that 48 CFR parts 9, 14, 15, 31,

and 52 be amended as set forth below:

1. The authority citation for 48 CFR

parts 9, 14, 15, 31, and 52 continues to

read as follows:

Authority: 40 U.S.C. 486(c); 10 U.S.C.

chapter 137; and 42 U.S.C. 2473(c).

PART 9—CONTRACTOR

QUALIFICATIONS

2. Amend section 9.103 to add a new

sentence after the second sentence in

paragraph (b) to read as follows:

9.103 Policy.

* * * * *

(b) * * * Contracting officers should

coordinate non-responsibility

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 127 / Friday, June 30, 2000 / Proposed Rules 40833

determinations based upon integrity and

business ethics with legal counsel (see

9.104–1(d)). * * *

* * * * *

3. Revise paragraph (d) of section

9.104–1 to read as follows:

9.104–1 General standards.

* * * * *

(d) Have a satisfactory record of

integrity and business ethics including

satisfactory compliance with federal

laws including tax laws, labor and

employment laws, environmental laws,

antitrust laws, and consumer protection

laws. (See 9.104–3(c).)

* * * * *

4. In section 9.104–3, redesignate

paragraphs (c) and (d) as (d) and (e)

respectively; and add a new paragraph

(c) to read as follows:

9.104–3 Application of standards.

* * * * *

(c) Integrity and business ethics. In

making a determination of

responsibility based upon integrity and

business ethics (see 9.104–1(d)),

contracting officers may consider all

relevant credible information.

Contracting officers should give greatest

weight to decisions within the past

three years preceding the offer as

follows—

(1) Convictions of or civil judgments

rendered against the prospective

contractor for:

(i) Commission of Fraud or a criminal

offense in connection with obtaining,

attempting to obtain or performing a

public (Federal, State or local) contract

or subcontract;

(ii) Violation of Federal or State

antitrust statutes relating to the

submission of offers;

(iii) Commission of embezzlement,

theft, forgery, bribery, falsification or

destruction of records, making false

statements, tax evasion, or receiving

stolen property;

(iv) Any other Federal or State felony

convictions or pending Federal or State

felony indictments; and

(v) Federal court judgments in civil

cases brought by the United States

against the contractor.

(2) Federal decisions by Federal

Administrative Law Judges or Federal

Administrative Judges and adjudicatory

decisions, orders, or complaints issued

by any Federal agency, board, or

commission, indicating the contractor

has been found to have violated Federal

tax, labor and employment, antitrust, or

consumer protection law.

* * * * *

PART 14—SEALED BIDDING

5. Revise paragraph (i) of section

14.404–2 to read as follows:

14.404–2 Rejection of individual bids.

* * * * *

(i) The contracting officer must reject

low bids received from concerns

determined to be not responsible

pursuant to Subpart 9.1 (but if a bidder

is a small business concern, see Subpart

19.6 with respect to certificates of

competency). The contracting officer

must promptly notify the bidder of the

non-responsibility determination and

the basis for it.

* * * * *

PART 15—CONTRACTING BY

NEGOTIATION

6. Revise paragraph (a)(1) of section

15.503 to read as follows:

15.503 Notifications to unsuccessful

offerors.

(a) Preaward notices—(1) Preaward

notices of exclusion from competitive

range. The contracting officer must

notify offerors promptly in writing

when their proposals are excluded from

the competitive range or otherwise

eliminated from the competition. The

notice must state the basis for the

determination and that a proposal

revision will not be considered. When

the exclusion or elimination of a

proposal is based on a nonresponsibility determination, the

contracting officer must state the basis

for the determination.

* * * * *

PART 31—CONTRACT COST

PRINCIPLES AND PROCEDURES

7. Revise section 31.205–21 by

designating the existing paragraph as

paragraph (a) and adding paragraph (b)

to read as follows:

31.205–21 Labor relations costs.

* * * * *

(b) Costs incurred for activities that

assist, promote, or deter unionization

are unallowable.

8. Amend section 31.205–47 in

paragraph (a) by removing the definition

‘‘Fraud’’; and revising paragraph (b)(2)

to read as follows:

31.205–47 Costs related to legal and other

proceedings.

* * * * *

(b) * * *

(2) In a civil or administrative

proceeding, a finding that the contractor

violated, or failed to comply with, a law

or regulation;

* * * * *

PART 52—SOLICITATION PROVISIONS

AND CONTRACT CLAUSES

9. In section 52.209–5—

a. Revise the date of the clause;

b. In paragraph (a)(1)(i)(B), remove ‘‘a

3-year’’ and add ‘‘the three-year’’ in its

place; and remove ‘‘and’’ at the end of

the paragraph;

c. In paragraph (a)(1)(i)(C), at the end

of the paragraph remove the period and

add ‘‘; and’’ in its place; and

d. Add a new paragraph (a)(1)(i)(D) to

read as follows:

52.209–5 Certification Regarding

Debarment, Suspension, Proposed

Debarment, and Other Responsibility

Matters.

* * * * *

Certification Regarding Debarment,

Suspension, Proposed Debarment, and Other

Responsibility Matters (Date)

(a) * * *

(1) * * *

(i) * * *

(D) The offeror, aside from the offenses

enumerated in subdivision (a)(1)(i)(A), (B),

and (C) of this provision has b; has not b;

within the past three years, been convicted

of any felonies (or has any felony indictment

currently pending against them) arising from

any Federal tax, labor and employment,

environmental, antitrust, or consumer

protection laws, had any adverse court

judgments in civil cases against them arising

from any Federal tax, labor and employment,

environmental, antitrust, or consumer

protection laws in which the United States

brought the action, or been found by a

Federal Administrative Law Judge, Federal

Administrative Judge, agency, board or

commission to have violated any Federal tax,

labor and employment, environmental,

antitrust, or consumer protection law. If the

respondent has answered ‘‘has’’ to the above

question, please explain the nature of the

violation and whether any fines, penalties, or

damages were assessed.

* * * * *

10. In section 52.212–3—

a. Revise the date of the clause;

b. Revise the introductory text of paragraph

(h);

c. In paragraph (h)(1), remove ‘‘, and’’ and

add ‘‘;’’ in its place; and

d. In paragraph (h)(2), remove ‘‘within a’’

and add ‘‘within the’’ in its place; and at the

end of the paragraph, remove the period and

insert ‘‘; and’’; e. Add a new paragraph (h)(3)

to read as follows:

52.212–3 Offeror Representations and

Certifications—Commercial Items.

* * * * *

Offeror Representations and

Certifications—Commercial Items

(Date)

* * * * *

(h) Certification Regarding

Debarment, Suspension or Ineligibility

for Award (Executive Order 12549).

40834 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 127 / Friday, June 30, 2000 / Proposed Rules

(Applies only if the contract value is

expected to exceed the simplified

acquisition threshold.) The offeror

certifies, to the best of its knowledge

and belief, that—

* * * * *

(3) The offeror has b; has not b;

within the past three years, been

convicted of any felonies (or has any

felony indictment currently pending

against them) arising from any Federal

tax, labor and employment,

environmental, antitrust, or consumer

protection laws, had any adverse court

judgments in civil cases against them

arising from any Federal tax, labor and

employment, environmental, antitrust,

or consumer protection laws in which

the United States brought the action, or

been found by a Federal Administrative

Law Judge, Federal Administrative

Judge, agency, board or commission to

have violated any Federal tax, labor and

employment, environmental, antitrust,

or consumer protection law. If the

respondent has answered ‘‘has’’ to the

above question, please explain the

nature of the violation and whether any

fines, penalties, or damages were

assessed.

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 00–16266 Filed 6–29–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6820–EP–P