ATTACHMENT A

DoD Myth-Busters - Communications with Industry

1 Myth: DoD officials should never hold individual meetings with a defense contractor.

Fact: DoD officials may hold individual meetings with a defense contractor. However, 

officials should take into account several factors, including the topic(s) to be discussed, 

whether the official is willing and able to hold such meetings with all similarly situated 

entities, any pending matters involving the contractor (procurements, claims, audits, etc.), 

and any other factors that might give rise to an appearance of impropriety. In fact, there 

may be situations where an individual meeting with a contractor is to DoD's advantage or 

necessary to further DoD's mission, such as where a discussion of a company's proprietary 

information is necessary to an overall understanding of industry status and capabilities. Of 

course, group meetings, such as "industry days" are always a safe bet if you don't need to 

have an individual meeting.

2 Myth: Outside of communications required as part of the procurement process or contract 

administration matters, only senior leaders should meet with members of industry.

Fact: While there certainly may be occasions where a senior leader needs to meet with 

industry representatives, it is always best to ensure that meetings are held at the lowest 

appropriate level relative to the topic and purpose of the meeting. This helps to avoid any 

appearance of "special access" or "favoritism," as well as negating any perception that the 

boss favors a particular entity. Additionally, when senior leaders meet with industry, they 

should consider having appropriate members of their staff present, particularly if there is an 

ongoing procurement or other sensitive matter. Staff can provide valuable input and 

backup to assist in mitigating procurement integrity, litigation or other risks. 

3 Myth: Industry does not have ethics rules of their own.

Fact: Many companies not only have their own ethics policies, but may actually have more 

stringent restrictions with significant penalties. While Government ethics rules are 

applicable only to Government personnel, contractors may have their own set of ethics 

rules that govern their interactions with customers, to include their Government clients. 

Additionally, since many industry personnel are "at will" employees, they may be subject 

to immediate termination for violations.

4 Myth: Industry's interests are diametrically opposed to the Government's interests.

Fact: While this may be true at times (for example, where the Government is engaged in 

litigation with a contractor), it is not universally true. Generally, both parties have an 

interest in successful contract execution. Appropriate communications that are frequent 

and meaningful are key to reaching that mutual goal and can significantly reduce the 

misunderstandings and miscommunications that lead to adversarial relationships and 

proceedings. 
5 Myth: Industry is more risk tolerant than the Government.

Fact: Companies do not want negative media or Congressional attention any more than 

Government agencies do. Publicly traded companies are particularly sensitive to the 

potential for negative coverage to impact stock prices and must answer to shareholders and 

boards of directors when mishaps occur. Of course, for both industry and the Government, 

there may be individual personnel who intentionally or inadvertently cause issues. 

However, the impact that these individuals have can be mitigated, or even eliminated, with 

proper training and clear communication of expectations (both internally from leadership 

and externally between Government and industry personnel/leaders). By keeping

appropriate lines of communication open, we can facilitate our mutual interests in avoiding 

potential issues and maintaining public trust.

6 Myth: I'm just meeting with my old buddy “MG (ret.) Smith” who happens to work for a 

major defense contractor so I don't need to worry about ethics or procurement integrity 

issues.

Fact: This one can cut both ways, and it's all about the details. Of course, you may meet 

with your old friends, even if they work for defense contractors. But, depending on your 

position/participation in relation to the work performed by the contractor, there may be 

appearance or impartiality issues. Obtaining information about the intent of the meeting 

beforehand is important. The first step is to consider whether the meeting really is purely 

social: 

 * What will you be discussing? If, for example, it's the kids and grandkids - no 

problem. If it's his company's contract or capabilities, then it's probably not a personal

meeting.

 *Where are you meeting? If it's at the office on official time, probably not a personal 

meeting. If it's at a home or social establishment on personal time, then more likely a 

personal meeting.

 *If you are going out, who is paying? If his company is paying or reimbursing, then it's 

not personal.

Conversely, what about the retired GO/FO who used to be your boss, not your buddy? 

What if he calls and wants to meet now that he works for a major defense contractor? 

Depending on his post-employment restrictions, this may be a problem. You should 

contact your ethics office to determine what restrictions may be in effect. 

7 Myth: The Secretary’s message to “play the ethical midfield” restricts my ability to engage 

in frequent communication with industry.

Fact: DoD policy is that personnel can and should engage in communication with industry. 

However, the policy also clearly states that such communications should be fair, even, and 

transparent and conducted in an appropriate manner, taking into consideration applicable 

ethics and procurement laws and regulations. This requires that personnel maintain 

awareness of what is and is not appropriate to ensure that lack of knowledge is not causing 

them to unnecessarily restrict communications, on the one hand, or to engage in 

inappropriate communications, on the other hand. In other words, personnel should find 

that midfield between not communicating due to fear of a misstep and inappropriately 

communicating due to lack of knowledge.
ATTACHMENT B

Applicable Laws

The following are statutory and regulatory limitations on communicating with any nonfederal entity, to include members of the defense industrial base:

 Conflicts of Interest (18 U.S.C. § 208)

 Law - Government officials may not participate personally and substantially in a particular 

matter that will have a direct and predictable effect on their financial interests or those of 

their spouses, minor children, general business partners, or prospective employers.

 Communications Impact – Personnel should not participate in meetings or other exchanges 

where the topics include matters that will impact the finances of a company in which they 

have an actual or imputed financial interest. 

 Allowed – participation in general discussions about policies, programs, and capabilities, 

particularly where multiple vendors are present. 

 Prohibited – participation in discussions about a specific contract involving the entity whose 

interests are imputed to the employee or matters having a financial impact on a narrow class 

of entities, of which the conflicting entity is one.

 Procurement Integrity (41U.S.C. §2102 and 48 C.F.R. § 3.104-4)

 Law - Government officials shall not knowingly disclose contractor bid or proposal 

information or source selection information.

 Communications Impact – Personnel should not discuss matters relating to ongoing 

procurements without proper authority and should never discuss offeror bid/proposal data or 

source selection information with anyone outside of the procurement team. 

 Allowed – Any communications permitted or required by the FAR, such as clarifications, 

discussions, negotiations, and debriefing information, when conducted under the oversight of 

a contracting officer. Discussion of public information, such as information contained in any 

solicitation or other posted documents, information provided to the media, or information 

announced in relation to prior contract awards.

 Prohibited – Sharing a bidder/offeror’s proposed approach, proprietary data or other nonpublic information about methodology or business. 

 Trade Secrets Act (18 U.S.C. §1905)

 Government officials may not disclose trade secrets or other proprietary information 

(which includes processes, operations, style of work, or apparatus, as well as the identity, 

confidential statistical data, amount or source of any income, profits, losses, or 

expenditures) unless authorized to do so by law. Such legal authority is rare. 

I
 Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.2) “FACA”

 Law – Government officials must comply with the Federal Advisory Committee Act when 

seeking collective advice or recommendations from a group that includes persons who are 

not on active military duty, full-time or permanent part-time Federal officers or employees.

 Communications Impact - This does not apply to any group that meets with a Federal 

official(s), including a public meeting, where advice is sought from the attendees on an 

individual basis and not from the group as a whole. It also does not apply to any group that 

meets with a Federal official(s) for the purpose of exchanging facts or information.

 Allowed – FACA does not apply to meetings or discussions held for purposes of obtaining 

individual recommendations from the attendees (e.g., the group is not providing collective 

advice or recommendations). It also would not apply where the Government is seeking to 

exchange or obtain factual information (e.g., an industry day discussing capabilities or new 

initiatives).

 Prohibited – FACA would apply to a meeting or discussion where the assembled non-federal 

participants are requested to develop and provide advice or recommendations as a group. 

 Impartiality (5 C.F.R. § 2635.101 and § 2635.501-503)

 Law - Employees shall act impartially and not give preferential treatment to any private 

organization or individual. Employees should not participate in particular matters where the 

circumstances would cause a reasonable person with knowledge of the relevant facts to 

question the employee’s impartiality.

 Communications Impact – In deciding whether to meet with industry, officials should 

consider whether they are able and willing to meet with all similarly situated parties in the 

same manner. Officials should also consider whether the circumstances and their own 

personal and business relationships would cause the public to question their impartiality.

 Allowed – Meeting with suppliers of a particular product type to determine whether industry 

has the production capability to meet anticipated requirements, but limiting the invitees to 

those with existing high volume production lines. 

 Not Recommended – Meeting with only a single supplier in an industry where there are 3 or 

4 suppliers of equivalent capability and experience to discuss that same production 

capability.

 Prohibited –Meeting only with the incumbent contractor, to discuss requirements for the 

follow-on contract.

 Use of Nonpublic Information (5 C.F.R. § 2635.501-703)

 Employees shall not use or allow the use of nonpublic information to further any private 

interest, whether through advice or recommendation, or by knowing unauthorized disclosure.