December 2018 - page 2

We finished up last week with a couple of posts on trafficking in persons. Thursday we discussed the general prohibition found in statutes and regulations (see Trafficking in Persons) and followed that up on Friday with definition of recruitment fees (see Trafficking in Persons – Recruit Fees). One of the prohibitions found in FAR 22.17 makes it unlawful for Government contractors and subcontractors to charge employees fees for the privilege of working.for the company.

Source: PNWC’s Government Contracting Update: Trafficking in Persons – Recruitment Fees – Methods of Payment

The FAR (Federal Acquisition Regulations) Councils are proposing to amend the FAR to implement a provision in prior NDAAs (National Defense Authorization Acts) to strengthen and make permanent protections for disclosures of certain information. It also clarifies the prohibition on reimbursement for certain legal costs incurred by contractors and subcontractors in defense of employee whistleblower complaints.

Source: PNWC’s Government Contracting Update: Whistleblower Protection for Employees of Government Contractors

Yesterday we discussed the FAR prohibitions against “trafficking in persons” and the underlying statutory basis for those regulations (see Trafficking in Persons). One of the prohibitions, as you recall, was one prohibiting contractors and subcontractors from charging employees recruitment fees. One of the problems with this prohibition has been that no one could agree on what constituted “recruitment fees”. In fact, in 2015, GAO (Government Accountability Office) came out with a report recommending that agencies develop a more precise definition of recruitment fees. According to GAO, without a clear definition, agencies would face challenges enforcing the prohibition. So, through the regulatory process, the Government has done just that; defined in FAR 22.1702 the term recruitment fees. Here it is:

Source: PNWC’s Government Contracting Update: Trafficking in Persons – Recruitment Fees