Our Website Uses Cookies 


We and the third parties that provide content, functionality, or business services on our website may use cookies to collect information about your browsing activities in order to provide you with more relevant content and promotional materials, on and off the website, and help us understand your interests and improve the website.


For more information, please contact us or consult our Privacy Notice.

Your binder contains too many pages, the maximum is 40.

We are unable to add this page to your binder, please try again later.

This page has been added to your binder.

Missing Data Hinders Contractor Disclosure Rule Nine Years In(1)

August 2, 2017, BNA's Federal Contracts Report

Fred Levy is quoted in a Federal Contracts Report article regarding the effectiveness of the Mandatory Disclosure Rule, enacted almost a decade ago. “I’ve heard anecdotally that some government people complain that they get mostly the small stuff, and that there must be bigger matters out there,” says Levy. “On the other hand, from my perspective as somebody who works with contractors, I can tell you that the disclosure requirement is ingrained in them,” he adds. “They know the rule, they understand the rule, and almost uniformly, when an issue pops up, they ask, ‘Is this a disclosure matter? And if I do make a disclosure, is it to the IG, or is to the contracting officer?’ My clients err on the side of disclosure.”

Before the disclosure rule was adopted, Levy says, “There was concern that contractors would tend to characterize matters as not involving fraud — that contractors would dump an issue on a contracting officer, and would try to avoid it being brought to the attention of DOJ or the IGs, and yet get the benefits of having disclosed it.” But it’s a different story now, he notes. “I haven’t heard anybody, since the inception of the rule, talking about soft disclosures as an issue."

 

Share this article: