48 C.F.R. § 3.903

3.903 Policy.

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

(a)(1) Contractors and subcontractors are prohibited from discharging, demoting, or otherwise discriminating against an employee as a reprisal for disclosing, to any of the entities listed at paragraph (b) of this section, information that the employee reasonably believes is—

(i) Evidence of gross mismanagement of a Federal contract;

(ii) A gross waste of Federal funds;

(iii) An abuse of authority relating to a Federal contract;

(iv) A substantial and specific danger to public health or safety; or

(v) A violation of law, rule, or regulation related to a Federal contract (including the competition for or negotiation of a contract).

(2) A reprisal is prohibited even if it is undertaken at the request of an executive branch official, unless the request takes the form of a non-discretionary directive and is within the authority of the executive branch official making the request.

(b) Disclosure may be made to the following entities:

(1) A Member of Congress or a representative of a committee of Congress.

(2) An Inspector General.

(3) The Government Accountability Office.

(4) A Federal employee responsible for contract oversight or management at the relevant agency.

(5) An authorized official of the Department of Justice or other law enforcement agency.

(6) A court or grand jury.

(7) A management official or other employee of the contractor or subcontractor who has the responsibility to investigate, discover, or address misconduct.

(c) An employee who initiates or provides evidence of contractor or subcontractor misconduct in any judicial or administrative proceeding relating to waste, fraud, or abuse on a Federal contract shall be deemed to have made a disclosure.

[88 FR 69520, Oct. 5, 2023]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 3 cases, 2011–2015 · leading case: Myers v. Alutiiq Int'l Solutions, LLC, 811 F. Supp. 2d 261 (D.D.C. 2011).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Myers v. Alutiiq Int'l Solutions, LLC, 811 F. Supp. 2d 261 (D.D.C. 2011). “” 48 C.F.R. § 3.903 . Plaintiff alleges that the close personal relationship between the COR, Bailey, and a government contractor, Lori Strickland, violated federal contracting regulations.”

Leyden v. Am. Accreditation Healthcare Comm'n/urac, 83 F. Supp. 3d 241 (D.D.C. 2015). “Leyden also argues that federal contracting regulations prohibit retaliation against employees who expose conflicts in connection with government contracts, see 48 C.F.R. § 3.903 , and that criminal statutes prohibit conflicts of interest on the part of government employees, see…”

Myers v. Alutiiq Int'l Solutions, LLC (D.D.C. 2011). “” 48 C.F.R. § 3.903 . Plaintiff alleges that the close personal relationship between the COR, Bailey, and a government contractor, Lori Strickland, violated federal contracting regulations.”

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.