CO Code § 24-18-201 (2021)
2021 Colorado Code|Title 24 - Government - State|Article 18 - Standards of Conduct|Part 2 - Proscribed Acts Related to Contracts and Claims|§ 24-18-201. Interests in Contracts

  Members of the general assembly, public officers, local government officials, or employees shall not be interested in any contract made by them in their official capacity or by any body, agency, or board of which they are members or employees. A former employee may not, within six months following the termination of his employment, contract or be employed by an employer who contracts with a state agency or any local government involving matters with which he was directly involved during his employment. For purposes of this section, the term:   "Be interested in" does not include holding a minority interest in a corporation.    "Contract" does not include:   Contracts awarded to the lowest responsible bidder based on competitive bidding procedures;    Merchandise sold to the highest bidder at public auctions;    Investments or deposits in financial institutions which are in the business of loaning or receiving moneys;    A contract with an interested party if, because of geographic restrictions, a local government could not otherwise reasonably afford itself of the subject of the contract. It shall be presumed that a local government could not otherwise reasonably afford itself of the subject of a contract if the additional cost to the local government is greater than ten percent of a contract with an interested party or if the contract is for services that must be performed within a limited time period and no other contractor can provide those services within that time period.    A contract with respect to which any member of the general assembly, public officer, local government official, or employee has disclosed a personal interest and has not voted thereon or with respect to which any member of the governing body of a local government has voted thereon in accordance with section 24-18-109 (3)(b) or 31-4-404 (3), C.R.S. Any such disclosure shall be made: To the governing body, for local government officials and employees; in accordance with the rules of the house of representatives and the senate, for members of the general assembly; and to the secretary of state, for all others.           Source: L. 88: Entire article added, p. 905, § 1, effective July 1.   ANNOTATION   Local government officials should not be interested in any contract made by them in their official capacity and an official who has a private interest in any matter proposed or pending before the governing body should disclose the interest to the governing body and not vote on it; however, this section specifically exempts any contract awarded to the lowest responsible bidder based on competitive bidding procedures. Indep. Ethics Comm'n Advisory Opinion 12-01.   It would not pose a violation of this section for a retired community college accounting professor to enter into a contract with the college since he was not involved in the accounting procedures at the college when he was employed there and the proposed contract does not involve a matter in which he was directly involved as a professor. Indep. Ethics Comm'n Advisory Opinion 10-08.   It would not violate this section for a former employee of the department of health care policy and financing to enter into a contract with a consulting company to work on project management issues relating to a major health care provider, where the state agency indicated there is no conflict. Indep. Ethics Comm'n Letter Ruling 10-02.   Considering the numerous layers of subcontracting among various entities, the six-month waiting period does not apply to an employee of the department of corrections seeking a position with a subcontractor of a subcontractor of a county correctional facility that, in turn, has an intergovernmental agreement with the employee's employer, the department of corrections, to provide services. Indep. Ethics Comm'n Advisory Opinion 17-05; Indep. Ethics Comm'n Advisory Opinion 17-06; Indep. Ethics Comm'n Letter Ruling 17-02.   It would violate this section for a former employee of the department of human services to enter into a contract or seek employment before the passage of six months with one of the direct service organizations that continues to contract with the department since the former employee possesses knowledge not readily available to members of the public as a result of the former state employment. Indep. Ethics Comm'n Letter Ruling 14-02.   It does not violate this section and the six-month waiting period does not apply to a former employee who seeks to contract out her consulting services to entities that contract with the department with which she had previously been employed because she was not directly involved in the execution of contracts and the development of programs while she was employed with the state department and because her consulting employment would not put entities that do not utilize her consulting services at a competitive disadvantage. Indep. Ethics Comm'n Letter Ruling 17-02.   Because employee's duties as area maintenance manager for the governor's office of information technology (OIT) have been reassigned and he no longer has responsibilities or duties over the site in question and the employee has made a full disclosure to his supervisors and there is no information that he took advantage of information unavailable to others not in government employment, the employee is not in violation of this section if he leases properties owned by a limited liability corporation controlled by his wife to the OIT. Indep. Ethics Comm'n Advisory Opinion 13-05.   A state agency is in the best position to determine whether a state employee's future employment outside of state government poses a conflict of interest given the agency's superior understanding of the duties performed by the state employee involved. Indep. Ethics Comm'n Advisory Opinion 13-13; Indep. Ethics Comm'n Advisory Opinion 17-05.   There is no violation of the public trust or appearance of impropriety if state employee receives profits from his patented design since he developed the design at the request of the employer, patented it only after obtaining permission from the agency, and agreed to put the needs of the people of the state first by not charging the department for present or future use of the design. Indep. Ethics Comm'n Advisory Opinion 15-04.