C.F.R. » Title 48 » CHAPTER 1—FEDERAL ACQUISITION REGULATION › SUBCHAPTER A—GENERAL › PART 3—IMPROPER BUSINESS PRACTICES AND PERSONAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST › Subpart 3.10—Contractor Code of Business Ethics and Conduct

48 C.F.R. § 3.1004

3.1004 Contract clauses.

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(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 $7.5 million and the performance period is 120 days or more.

(b)(1) Unless the contract is for the acquisition of a commercial product or commercial service or will be performed entirely outside the United States, insert the clause at 52.203-14, Display of Hotline Poster(s), if—

(i) The contract exceeds $7.5 million 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 “$7.5 million” with the lesser amount that the agency has established.

[72 FR 65881, Nov. 23, 2007, as amended at 73 FR 67090, Nov. 12, 2008; 80 FR 38296, July 2, 2015; 85 FR 62487, Oct. 2, 2020; 86 FR 61020, Nov. 4, 2021; 90 FR 41876, Aug. 27, 2025]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 1 case (1 in the last 5 years), 2021–2021 · leading case: Marsteller v. Tilton (N.D. Ala. 2021).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Marsteller v. Tilton (N.D. Ala. 2021). “See 48 C.F.R. §§ 3.1004 , 570.701(i). B. This action concerns five FMS contracts and contract modifications that the Army awarded to MD Helicopters between 2011 and 2012.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.