PART 9 -- CONTRACTOR QUALIFICATIONS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SUBPART 209.1--RESPONSIBLE PROSPECTIVE CONTRACTORS
209.104-1 General standards.
SUBPART 9.2 — QUALIFICATIONS REQUIREMENTS
9.206 Acquisitions subject to qualification requirements.
SUBPART 9.3 -- FIRST ARTICLE TESTING AND APPROVAL
SUBPART 9.4 -- DEBARMENT, SUSPENSION, AND INELIGIBILITY
209.405 Effect of listing.
SUBPART 9.5 -- ORGANIZATIONAL AND CONSULTANT CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
9.500 Scope of subpart.
9.504 Contracting officer responsibilities.
9.505 General rules.
9.507 Solicitation provisions and contract clause.
(g)(i) Ownership or control by the government of a terrorist country.
(C) Submit the request for advice to PSD/ PL2. PL2 will serve as the liaison between DISA and Deputy Director, DPAP/ Contract Policy and International Contracting (CPIC).
(ii) Ownership or control by a foreign government when access to proscribed information is required.
(C) Submit waiver request to PSD/PL2. PL2 serves as the liaison between DISA and DPAP/USD AT&L.
(a)(1) The "designee" is the HCA.
(b) The "other official" is the HCA.
(e) The "designee" is the HCA.
(b) The designee is the HCA.
(e)(3) Whenever a decision is made not to enforce a qualification requirement, the contracting officer shall request concurrence from the activity that established the requirement.
(a) The contracting officer shall provide a written determination explaining the compelling reason to continue to do business with contractor’s who are suspended or debarred to PL21
Policy Branch for review and coordination with the HCA for approval before submitting it to
GSA’s Office of Acquisition Policy.
(b)(ii) The contracting officer shall provide a written determination for a Code “H” exemption to PL21 Policy Branch for review and coordination with the HCA for approval before notifying the Environmental Protection Agency.
(a) Investigation and referral. Refer any matter that may be a cause for debarment to the HCA. The HCA shall (1) consult with DISA GC regarding an appropriate investigation method, (2) request an investigation by the DoD Inspector General or other office, and (3) if warranted by the results of the subsequent investigation, prepare a formal recommendation to debar and submit the recommendation to the debarment official (DISA GC).
(b) Decision making process. Based on a review of the recommendation to debar, the GC initiates proposed debarment by taking the actions listed in FAR 9.406-3(c). The contractor shall be given an opportunity to submit, in person, in writing, or through a representative, information and argument in opposition to the proposed debarment. For actions listed in FAR 9.406-3(b)(2), the contractor shall be given the opportunity to make a presentation of matters in opposition, as provided in FAR 9.406-3(b)(2)(i). The presentation shall be conducted before the GC or a designee. If the contractor’s presentation of matters in opposition raises a genuine dispute over material facts, DISA GC may withdraw the proposed debarment or require additional fact- finding that shall be conducted in accordance with the principles in FAR 9.406-3(b).
(a) This subpart applies to all DISA’s contracting organizations, prime contractors, and subcontractors.
The designee is the HCA. The Procurement Integrity Act (PIA) Ombudsman shall review prior to HCA approval.
(a)(1) Ensure the OCCI clause, 52.209-9000, is incorporated into all solicitations and resulting contracts for supplies and services.
(2) Review the contractors’ Organizational and Consultant Conflicts of Interest Plan (OCCIP) to determine if a potential or actual conflict exists.
(b) Contracting officers shall obtain the advice from the local GC team.
(d) Use the remediation procedures in FAR Subpart 9.506, if appropriate, to identify and evaluate potential conflict(s) of interest and/or to develop recommended actions. If a prime or subcontractor breaches any of the OCCI restrictions, does not disclosure, and/or misrepresents any relevant facts required to be disclosed concerning the contract, the contracting officer may terminate the contract, disqualify the Contractor from subsequent related contractual efforts, and pursue any remedies as may be permitted by the contract or law.
(S-90) DISA’s ORGANIZATIONAL AND CONSULTANT CONFLICTS OF INTEREST (OCCIs) clause, DARS 52.209-9000, must be inserted into every DISA solicitation and resulting contract for supplies and services.
(S-90) Contractor participation in more than one of the following areas may give rise to an unfair competitive advantage resulting from access to advance acquisition planning, source selection sensitive or proprietary information. Furthermore, contractor participation in more than one area may give rise to a real or apparent loss of contractor impartiality and objectivity where its advisory or planning assistance in one area potentially affects its present or future
participation in another area. The following is not an inclusive list, but represents some potential circumstances where OCCIs may occur:
(1) Providing systems engineering, technical direction, product support. Services or end items required to meet the mission requirements of DISA’s activities and programs. This includes, for example: concept exploration and development; system design/engineering; system development and integration; COTS procurement and integration; internal development testing; deployment; installation; operations; and maintenance. When a contractor provides such
services but does not have contractual responsibility for related development, integration, assembly or production for that system, that contractor is prohibited from competing either as a prime or subcontractor for a contract to supply that system.
(2) Preparing specifications and work statements. With certain exceptions, a contractor who assists with, prepares, and/or furnishes a statement of work (SOW) and/or specifications for a government requirement may not compete for the subsequent award because this may give that contractor an unfair competitive advantage. This includes, for example: requirements analysis, acquisition support, budget planning and management, business process reengineering, program planning and execution support, and independent technical management support.
(3) Providing evaluation services. Contractors cannot evaluate their own proposals, products and services, or those of their market competitors whose development or marketing contractor is or has been substantially involved because the contractor is placed in a position whereby their judgment may be biased. For example, it would be inappropriate for a contractor to assist in the evaluation of proposals if it will financially benefit from the selection of one company over another. Further, increased attention should be given to situations where a contractor is in a position to assess or evaluate a competitor where detrimental findings could serve, directly or indirectly, the interest of the advising contractor. Therefore, all parties involved must ensure proper safeguards are taken and integrity of the process to protect the government's best interest.
(4) Obtaining access to proprietary information. When a contractor requires proprietary information from others to perform on a Government contract and can use the leverage of the contract to obtain it, the contractor may gain an unfair competitive advantage unless restrictions are imposed. These restrictions protect the information and require companies to provide it
when appropriate and necessary for contract performance. For example, services which, by their very nature, give the Contractor or Subcontractor access to extensive data about the contracts of other DISA contractors. Such an advantage could be perceived as an unfair by a competing contractor who is not given similar access to the same relevant information.
(S-91) A sample OCCI memorandum for record template can be found at https://www.ditco.disa.mil/DitcoContractingTemplates/doku.php?id=ko_organizational_conflict