Common use of XXxX OCI Clause in Contracts

XXxX OCI. The following examples illustrate situations in which questions concerning OCI may arise. They are not all inclusive, but are intended to help the TOCO apply general guidance to individual contract and TO situations: (1) Unequal access to information: Access to "nonpublic information" as part of the performance of a TO provided under the contract or work performed under a separate Government contract could provide the Contractor a competitive advantage in a later competition. Such an advantage could easily be perceived as unfair by a competing vendor who is not given similar access to the relevant information. If the requirements of the Government procurement anticipate the successful vendor may have access to nonpublic information, the successful vendor should be required to submit and negotiate an acceptable mitigation plan. Alternatively, the "nonpublic information" may be provided to all vendors. (2) Biased ground rules: A Contractor in the course of performance under a TO contract has in some fashion established important "ground rules" for another requirement, where the same Contractor may be a competitor. For example, a Contractor may have drafted the statement of work, specifications, or evaluation criteria of a future procurement. The primary concern of the Government in this case is that a Contractor so situated could slant key aspects of procurement in their own favor, to the unfair disadvantage of competing vendors. If the requirements of the Government procurement anticipate the Contractor may have been in a position to establish important ground rules, including but not limited to those described herein, the Contractor should be required to submit and negotiate an acceptable mitigation plan. (3) Impaired objectivity: A Contractor in the course of performance of a TO or contract is placed in a situation of providing assessment and evaluation findings over itself, or another business division, or subsidiary of the same corporation, or other entity with which it has a significant financial relationship. The concern in this case is that the Contractor's ability to render impartial advice to the Government could appear to be undermined by the Contractor's financial or other business relationship to the entity whose work product is being assessed or evaluated. In these situations, a "xxxxxxx off" of lines of communication may well be insufficient to remove the perception that the objectivity of the Contractor has been tainted. If the requirements of the Government procurement indicate that the successful vendor may be in a position to provide evaluations and assessments of itself or corporate siblings, or other entity with which it has a significant financial relationship, the affected Contractor should provide a mitigation plan that includes recusal by the vendor from the affected contract work. Such recusal might include divestiture of the work to a third party vendor.

XXxX OCI. The following examples illustrate situations in which questions concerning OCI may arise. They are not all inclusive, but are intended to help the TOCO Task Order Contracting Officer (TOCO) apply general guidance to individual contract and TO situations: (1) Unequal access to information: Access to "nonpublic information" as part of the performance of a TO provided under the contract or work performed under a separate Government contract could provide the Contractor a competitive advantage in a later competition. Such an advantage could easily be perceived as unfair by a competing vendor who is not given similar access to the relevant information. If the requirements of the Government procurement anticipate the successful vendor may have access to nonpublic information, the successful vendor should be required to submit and negotiate an acceptable mitigation plan. Alternatively, the "nonpublic information" may be provided to all vendors. (2) Biased ground rules: A Contractor in the course of performance under a TO contract has in some fashion established important "ground rules" for another requirement, where the same Contractor may be a competitor. For example, a Contractor may have drafted the statement of work, specifications, or evaluation criteria of a future procurement. The primary concern of the Government in this case is that a Contractor so situated could slant key aspects of procurement in their own favor, to the unfair disadvantage of competing vendors. If the requirements of the Government procurement anticipate the Contractor may have been in a position to establish important ground rules, including but not limited to those described herein, the Contractor should be required to submit and negotiate an acceptable mitigation plan. (3) Impaired objectivity: A Contractor in the course of performance of a TO or contract is placed in a situation of providing assessment and evaluation findings over itself, or another business division, or subsidiary of the same corporation, or other entity with which it has a significant financial relationship. The concern in this case is that the Contractor's ability to render impartial advice to the Government could appear to be undermined by the Contractor's financial or other business relationship to the entity whose work product is being assessed or evaluated. In these situations, a "xxxxxxx off" of lines of communication may well be insufficient to remove the perception that the objectivity of the Contractor has been tainted. If the requirements of the Government procurement indicate that the successful vendor may be in a position to provide evaluations and assessments of itself or corporate siblings, or other entity with which it has a significant financial relationship, the affected Contractor should provide a mitigation plan that includes recusal by the vendor from the affected contract work. Such recusal might include divestiture of the work to a third party vendor.