Welcome to the Air Force Institute of Technology

By Caitlin Belue, JA Summer Hire

The Air Force Institute of Technology is like any other military installation—it must work to keep the roles of military members, civilian employees, and contractor employees distinguishable at all times. The most important thing to remember is that contractor employees are not federal employees.

It is important to remember that, just like Active Duty and Civilian, contract employees follow a different set of rules. Contractor personnel are subject to the ethical concerns put into place by their employer when they create a contract with the government, but they must also be aware of the government’s rules. The number one concern for government employees with regard to contracts is ensuring the contract work is performed. Other concerns government employees have to deal with include security, conflicts of interest, use of government resources, and gifts.

Government contractors are required to wear distinctive nametags or clothing to help government workers more easily identify them. They are also required to identify themselves as contractors on all email and telephone correspondence. Although contractors may be identified, government employees must still be mindful of discussing certain internal government information. “Even though the contractor effort is within the scope of the support contract, task order or delivery order, there is some information that we may not release outside the government,” (Government-Contractor relationship). Government employees may not release “non-public” information to contractor employees. Because this can be a very difficult issue, you should always consult with the contracting officer and legal counsel regarding questions concerning the release of information to contractors.

To clarify, a conflict of interest is “the existence of a set of circumstances in which a contractor may be unable to render impartial advice to the government…the essence is divided loyalty,” (Government-Contractor relationship). It is the responsibility of all government personnel to be on the look out for conflicts of interest, before they get out of hand. This includes speaking to and coordinating with the Contracting Officer, who is responsible for identifying and neutralizing conflicts of interest in government-contractor relationships. AFIT is supported by contracting officers at the 88^th and ASC Contracting offices. Individual contracting officers can be identified by reviewing the contract. Conflicts of interest are also a concern when considering off-duty employment with current or potential contractors. All off-duty employment requests must be reviewed by the legal office.

Ethically speaking, gifts are a concern for every member here at AFIT, contractor or government employee. The Joint Ethics Regulation is very clear on the ability to accept gifts. If a gift is from a prohibited source, or was given because of an official position, it cannot be accepted. A gift is any gratuity, favor, discount, entertainment, hospitality, loan, or anything with monetary value. However, there are some exceptions which allow government personnel to accept a gift. Some of the more common exceptions are: gifts based on personal relationships (of an appropriate nature, of course), valued up to $20, or from a public service, award, or honorary degree may be accepted. All questions regarding gifts, either to or from contractors or their employees, need to be routed through the legal office.

In most common situations, contractors are required to provide all their own property to perform government duties. However, here at AFIT we have specialized equipment, and it is not always necessary for contractors to provide property. Whether equipment is supposed to be provided will be detailed in the contract. Also, as a reminder, contractors are not allowed to utilize any of the on base facilities, like the BX or commissary, unless they are separately authorized due to their reserve, retired, or dependant status.

Several instances of improper government employee/contractor relationships have gone so far as to attract media attention. Perhaps most alarming was the alleged misconduct of General T. Michael Moseley, Former Chief of Staff, U.S. Air Force. In 2005, Gen. Moseley was accused of providing preferential treatment to a contractor, providing nonpublic information about the Air Force’s strategic vision, and allowing unsolicited presentations of the contractor’s capabilities. He was also accused of misusing subordinate time and government property, having government employees complete the work outlined in the contract, and soliciting and accepting gifts from this prohibited source. These allegations were substantiated by the DoD Inspector General office. The final report recommended the Secretary of the Air Force take appropriate corrective action with regard to Gen. Moseley.