§ 2637.201 - Restrictions on any former Government employee's acting as representative as to a particular matter in which the employee personally and substantially participated.

(a) Basic prohibition of 18 U.S.C. 207(a). No former Government employee, after terminating Government employment, shall knowingly act as agent or attorney for, or otherwise represent any other person in any formal or informal appearance before, or with the intent to influence, make any oral or written communication on behalf of any other person (1) to the United States, (2) in connection with any particular Government matter involving a specific party, (3) in which matter such employee participated personally and substantially as a Government employee.

(b) Representation: Acting as agent or attorney, or other representative in an appearance, or communicating with intent to influence—(1) Attorneys and agents. The target of this provision is the former employee who participates in a particular matter while employed by the Government and later “switches sides” by representing another person on the same matter.

[Note:

The examples in these regulations do not incorporate the special statutory restrictions on Senior Employees, except where the terms “Senior Employee” or “Senior” are expressly used.]

Example 1:

A lawyer in the Department of Justice personally works on an antitrust case involving Q Company. After leaving the Department, he is asked by Q Company to represent it in that case. He may not do so.

(2) Others. The statutory prohibition covers any other former employee, including managerial and technical personnel, who represents another person in an appearance or, by other communication, attempts to influence the Government concerning a particular matter in which he or she was involved. For example, a former technical employee may not act as a manufacturer's promotional or contract representative to the Government on a particular matter in which he or she participated. Nor could such employee appear as an expert witness against the Government in connection with such a matter. (See § 2637.208 for specific rules relating to expert witnesses.)

(3) Appearances; communications made with intent to influence. An appearance occurs when an individual is physically present before the United States in either a formal or informal setting or conveys material to the United States in connection with a formal proceeding or application. A communication is broader than an appearance and includes for example, correspondence, or telephone calls.

Example 1:

An appearance occurs when a former employee meets with an agency employee personally to discuss a matter; or when he submits a brief in an agency administrative proceeding in his own name.

Example 2:

A former employee makes a telephone call to a present employee to discuss a particular matter that is not the subject of a formal proceeding. She has made a communication.

(4) Government visits to others premises. Neither a prohibited appearance nor communication occurs when a former Government employee communicates with a Government employee who, at the instance of the United States, visits or is assigned to premises leased to, or owned or occupied by, a person other than the United States which are or may be used for performance under an actual or proposed contract or grant, when such communication concerns work performed or to be performed and occurs in the ordinary course of evaluation, administration, or performance of the actual or proposed contract or grant.

(5) Elements of “influence” and potential controversy required. Communications which do not include an “intent to influence” are not prohibited. Moreover, acting as agent or attorney in connection with a routine request not involving a potential controversy is not prohibited. For example, the following are not prohibited: a question by an attorney as to the status of a particular matter; a request for publicly available documents; or a communication by a former employee, not in connection with an adversary proceeding, imparting purely factual information. (See also § 2637.204(d) of this part.)

Example 1:

A Government employee, who participated in writing the specifications of a contract awarded to Q Company for the design of certain education testing programs, joins Q Company and does work under the contract. She is asked to accompany a company vice-president to a meeting to state the results of a series of trial tests, and does so. No violation occurs when she provides the information to her former agency. During the meeting a dispute arises as to some terms of the contract, and she is called upon to support Q Company's position. She may not do so. If she had reason to believe that the contractual dispute would be a subject of the meeting, she should not have attended.

(6) Assistance. A former employee is not prohibited from providing in-house assistance in connection with the representation of another person.

Example 1:

A Government employee administered a particular contract for agricultural research with Q Company. Upon termination of her Government employment, she is hired by Q Company. She works on the matter covered by the contract, but has no direct contact with the Government. At the request of a company vice-president, she prepares a paper describing the persons at her former agency who should be contacted and what should be said to them in an effort in increase the scope of funding of the contract and to resolve favorably a dispute over a contract clause. She may do so.

(7) Project responses not included. In a context not involving a potential controversy involving the United States no finding of a “intent to influence” shall be based upon whatever influential effect inheres in an attempt to formulate a meritorious proposal or program.

Example 1:

The employee of Q Company in the previous example is asked to design an educational testing program, which she does and transmits it to the Government. This is not prohibited despite the fact that her well-designed program may be inherently influential on a question of additional funding under the contract. She may not argue for its acceptance.

(c) “Particular matter involving a specific party or parties”—(1) Specific matters vs. policy matters. The prohibitions of subsections (a) and (b) of 18 U.S.C. 207, are based on the former Government employee's prior participation in or responsibility for a “judicial or other proceeding, application, request for a ruling or other determination, contract, claim, controversy, investigation, charge, accusation, arrest, or other particular matter involving a specific party or parties” in which the United States is a party or has a direct and substantial interest. Such a matter typically involves a specific proceeding affecting the legal rights of the parties or an isolatable transaction or related set of transactions between identifiable parties. Rulemaking, legislation, the formulation of general policy, standards or objectives, or other action of general application is not such a matter. Therefore, a former Government employee may represent another person in connection with a particular matter involving a specific party even if rules or policies which he or she had a role in establishing are involved in the proceeding.

Example 1:

A Government employee formulated the policy objectives of an energy conservation program. He is not restricted from later representing a university which seeks a grant or contract for work emerging from such a program.

Example 2:

A Government employee reviews and approves a specific city's application for Federal assistance for a renewal project. After leaving Government service, she may not represent the city in relation to that project.

Example 3:

An employee is regularly involved in the formulation of policy, procedures and regulations governing departmental procurement and acquisition functions. Participation in such activities does not restrict the employee after leaving the Government as to particular cases involving the application of such policies, procedures, or regulations.

Example 4:

An employee of the Office of Management and Budget participates substantially on the merits of a decision to reduce the funding level of a program, which has the effect of reducing the amount of money which certain cities receive to conduct youth work programs. After leaving the Government she may represent any of the cities in securing funds for its youth program, since her participation was in connection with a program, not a particular matter involving specific parties.

Example 5:

An agency attorney participates in drafting a standard form contract and certain “standard terms and clauses” for use in future contracts. He is not thereafter barred from representing a person in a dispute involving the application of such a “standard term or clause” in a particular contract in which he did not participate as a Government employee.

(2) Technical matters. In connection with technical work, participation in projects generally involving one or more scientific or engineering concepts, in feasibility studies, or in proposed programs prior to the formulation of a contract will not restrict former Government employees with respect to a contract or specific programs entered into at a later date.

Example 1:

A Government employee participates significantly in formulating the “mission need” of a project pursuant to OMB Circular No. A-109, and the award of a contract to Z Company, the purpose of which is to propose alternative technical approaches. He is not barred, after leaving Government service, from representing Q Company which later seeks a contract to manufacture one of the systems suggested by the Z Company.

Example 2:

A Government employee, who has worked for years on the design of a new satellite communications system, joins C Company. Later, the Government issues a “request for proposals” (“rfp”) to construct the new system, which is circulated generally to industry. The employee proposes to act as C Company's representative in connection with its anticipated proposals for the contract. He may do so. The satellite contract became a particular matter when the rfp was being formulated; it would ordinarily not become one involving a specific party or parties until initial proposals or indications of interest therein by contractors were first received. Moreover, if the employee's work for C Company were limited to the formulation and communication of a proposal in response to the rfp, it would not be prohibited to the extent it involved a communication for the purpose of furnishing scientific or technological information to the Government, exempt under 18 U.S.C. 207(f). See § 2637.206 below. (See paragraph (3) below as to a case where the employee's own participation may cause a different result.)

(3) Relationship of personal participation to specificity. In certain cases, whether a matter should be treated as a “particular matter involving specific parties” may depend on the employee's own participation in events which give particularity and specificity to the matter in question. For example, if a Government employee (i) personally participated in that stage of the formulation of a proposed contract where significant requirements were discussed and one or more persons was identified to perform services thereunder and (ii) actively urged that such a contract be awarded, but the contract was actually awarded only after the employee left, the contract may nevertheless be a particular matter involving a specific party as to such former Government employee.

Example 1:

A Government employee advises her agency that it needs certain work done and meets with private firm X to discuss and develop requirements and operating procedures. Thereafter, the employee meets with agency officials and persuades them of the need for a project along the lines discussed with X. She leaves the Government and the project is awarded by other employees to firm X. The employee is asked by X to represent it on the contract. She may not do so.

(4) The same particular matter must be involved. The requirement of a “particular matter involving a specific party” applies both at the time that the Government employee acts in an official capacity and at the time in question after Government service. The same particular matter may continue in another form or in part. In determining whether two particular matters are the same, the agency should consider the extent to which the matters involve the same basic facts, related issues, the same or related parties, time elapsed, the same confidential information, and the continuing existence of an important Federal interest.

Example 1:

A Government employee was substantially involved in the award of a long-term contract to Z Company for the development of alternative energy sources. Six years after he terminates Government employment, the contract is still in effect, but much of the technology has changed as have many of the personnel. The Government proposes to award a “follow on” contract, involving the same objective, after competitive bidding. The employee may represent Q Company in its proposals for the follow-on contract, since Q Company's proposed contract is a different matter from the contract with Z Company. He may also represent Z Company in its efforts to continue as contractor, if the agency determines on the basis of facts referred to above, that the new contract is significantly different in its particulars from the old. The former employee should first consult his agency and request a written determination before undertaking any representation in the matter.

Example 2:

A Government employee reviewed and approved certain wiretap applications. The prosecution of a person overheard during the wiretap, although not originally targeted, must be regarded as part of the same particular matter as the initial wiretap application. The reason is that the validity of the wiretap may be put in issue and many of the facts giving rise to the wiretap application would be involved. Other examples: See § 2637.201(b)(1), Example 1, and (c), Example 2.

(5) United States must be a party or have an interest. The particular matter must be one in which the United States is a party, such as in a judicial or administrative proceeding or a contract, or in which it has a direct and substantial interest. The importance of the Federal interest in a matter can play a role in determining whether two matters are the same particular matter.

Example 1:

An attorney participated in preparing the Government's antitrust action against Z Company. After leaving the Government, she may not represent Z Company in a private antitrust action brought against it by X Company on the same facts involved in the Government action. Nor may she represent X Company in that matter. The interest of the United States in preventing both inconsistent results and the appearance of impropriety in the same factual matter involving the same party, Z Company, is direct and substantial. However, if the Government's antitrust investigation or case is closed, the United States no longer has a direct and substantial interest in the case.

Example 2:

A member of a Government team providing technical assistance to a foreign country leaves and seeks to represent a private contractor in making arrangements with the Government to perform the same service. The proposed new contract may or may not be considered a separate matter, depending upon whether the United States has a national interest in maintaining the original contract. The agency involved must be consulted by the former employee before the representation can be undertaken.

(d) “Participate personally and substantially”—(1) Basic requirements. The restrictions of section 207(a) apply only to those matters in which a former Government employee had “personal and substantial participation,” exercised “through decision, approval, disapproval, recommendation, the rendering of advice, investigation or otherwise.” To participate “personally” means directly, and includes the participation of a subordinate when actually directed by the former Government employee in the matter. “Substantially,” means that the employee's involvement must be of significance to the matter, or form a basis for a reasonable appearance of such significance. It requires more than official responsibility, knowledge, perfunctory involvement, or involvement on an administrative or peripheral issue. A finding of substantiality should be based not only on the effort devoted to a matter, but on the importance of the effort. While a series of peripheral involvements may be insubstantial, the single act of approving or participation in a critical step may be substantial. It is essential that the participation be related to a “particular matter involving a specific party.” (See paragraph (c) of this section.) (See also § 2637.203(f) of this part.)

Example 1:

If an officer personally approves the departmental budget, he does not participate substantially in the approval of all items contained in the budget. His participation is substantial only in those cases where a budget item is actually put in issue. Even then, the former Government employee is not disqualified with respect to an item if it is a general program rather than a particular matter involving a specific party. The former Government employee may, however, have official responsibility for such matters. (See § 2637.202(b).)

Example 2:

A Government lawyer is not in charge of, nor has official responsibility for a particular case, but is frequently consulted as to filings, discovery, and strategy. Such an individual has personally and substantially participated in the matter.

(2) Participation on ancillary matters. An employee's participation on subjects not directly involving the substantive merits of a matter may not be “substantial,” even if it is time-consuming. An employee whose responsibility is the review of a matter solely for compliance with administrative control or budgetary considerations and who reviews a particular matter for such a purpose should not be regarded as having participated substantially in the matter, except when such considerations also are the subject of the employee's proposed representation. (See § 2637.202(b)(3) of this part.) Such an employee could theoretically cause a halt in a program for noncompliance with standards under his or her jurisdiction, but lacks authority to initiate a program or to disapprove it on the basis of its substance.

(3) Role of official responsibility in determining substantial participation. “Official responsibility” is defined in § 2637.202(b)(1). “Personal and substantial participation” is different from “official responsibility.” One's responsibility may, however, play a role in determining the “substantiality” of an employee's participation. For example, ordinarily an employee's forbearance on a matter is not substantial participation. If, however, an employee is charged with responsibility for review of a matter and action cannot be undertaken over his or her objection, the result may be different. If the employee reviews a matter and passes it on, his or her participation may be regarded as “substantial” even if he or she claims merely to have engaged in inaction.

(e) Agency responsibility in complex cases. In certain complex factual cases, the agency with which the former Government employee was associated is likely to be in the best position to make a determination as to certain issues, for example, the identity or existence of a particular matter. Designated agency ethics officials should provide advice promptly to former Government employees who make inquiry on any matter arising under these regulations.