FAR 3.103-2—Evaluating the certification.
Plain-English Summary
FAR 3.103-2 explains how contracting officers must evaluate the Certificate of Independent Price Determination and what to do when the certificate is altered, incomplete, or suspected to be false. It covers four main topics: what does and does not count as a prohibited "disclosure" of prices, when a blanket authorization may be used by an agent to certify on behalf of the price-setting person, how the certification works in joint offers, and when an offer must be rejected for suspected collusion. It also sets out the special review process for altered disclosures of price information, including review by the chief of the contracting office and a written determination on whether the disclosure was intended to restrict competition. Finally, it requires reporting certain rejections or suspected false certifications to the Attorney General and makes clear that this administrative determination does not block later criminal or civil action. In practice, this section is meant to protect the integrity of sealed bidding and negotiated procurements by identifying suspicious price coordination while avoiding automatic rejection for ordinary commercial pricing practices or legitimate agency relationships.
Key Rules
Ordinary pricing is not disclosure
Certain facts, by themselves, do not count as a prohibited disclosure under the certificate. These include publishing price lists, telling customers about planned price-list changes, selling the same items to commercial customers at the same prices offered to the Government, and participating in a reverse auction.
Blanket agent authority may qualify
An individual may sign under a blanket authorization only if the proposed contract is clearly within the scope of that authorization and the person granting the authorization is the one actually responsible for setting the offered prices at the time of certification.
Joint offers are concern-specific
When two or more concerns submit a joint offer, each representative’s certification applies only to that representative’s own concern. One concern’s certification does not cover the conduct of the other concern.
Altered core certificate terms require rejection
If the offeror deletes or modifies paragraph (a)(1) or (3), or paragraph (b) of the certificate, the contracting officer must reject the bid or proposal. These changes are treated as unacceptable alterations to the certification.
Altered disclosure clause gets special review
If paragraph (a)(2) is deleted or modified, the offer must include a signed statement explaining the circumstances of the price disclosure. The chief of the contracting office must review the altered certificate and statement and decide in writing whether the disclosure was intended to restrict competition; a positive finding requires rejection, while a negative finding allows consideration for award.
Suspected false certification must be reported
Whenever an offer is rejected under the altered-certificate rules, or the certificate is suspected of being false, the contracting officer must report the matter to the Attorney General under FAR 3.303.
Administrative review does not bar prosecution
The written determination under paragraph (b)(2) does not prevent or limit later criminal or civil actions related to the same conduct.
Responsibilities
Contracting Officer
Review the certificate for deletions, modifications, or signs of falsity; reject offers that alter prohibited portions of the certificate; report rejected or suspected false certifications to the Attorney General in accordance with FAR 3.303; and ensure the offer is handled according to the required review process when paragraph (a)(2) is altered.
Chief of the Contracting Office
Review altered certificates involving paragraph (a)(2) together with the required signed statement, and make a written determination on whether the disclosure was made for the purpose or had the effect of restricting competition.
Offeror
Submit the certificate without unauthorized deletions or modifications; provide a signed statement explaining any disclosure of prices when paragraph (a)(2) is altered; ensure any agent signing under blanket authorization is properly authorized and within scope; and ensure joint offer certifications are limited to each concern’s own activities.
Person Responsible for Determining Offered Prices
If granting blanket authorization, be the actual person within the offeror’s organization responsible for setting the prices at the time the certification is made, and limit the authorization to contracts clearly within its scope.
Attorney General
Receive reports of rejected offers or suspected false certificates as required by FAR 3.303 and handle any resulting criminal or civil matters as appropriate.
Practical Implications
Contractors should not assume that any price sharing is automatically disqualifying; ordinary commercial pricing practices and reverse auction participation are expressly carved out, but only if they are not used to mask collusion.
Any edit to the certificate can be fatal. Deleting or changing the wrong paragraph can trigger mandatory rejection, so offerors should use the exact prescribed language unless the regulation specifically allows a statement explaining a price disclosure.
If a company uses an agent or representative to sign, the authorization must be tightly matched to the procurement and must come from the actual price-setting authority; weak or generic delegations create risk.
Joint ventures and teaming arrangements should be careful to separate each concern’s certification obligations, because one party’s certification does not protect the others.
Contracting officers should treat suspected false certifications seriously and document the file carefully, because the regulation requires reporting and preserves the Government’s ability to pursue later enforcement actions.
Official Regulatory Text
(a) Evaluation guidelines . (1) None of the following, in and of itself, constitutes "disclosure" as it is used in paragraph (a)(2) of the Certificate of Independent Price Determination (hereafter, the certificate): (i) The fact that a firm has published price lists, rates, or tariffs covering items being acquired by the Government. (ii) The fact that a firm has informed prospective customers of proposed or pending publication of new or revised price lists for items being acquired by the Government. (iii) The fact that a firm has sold the same items to commercial customers at the same prices being offered to the Government. (iv) Participating in a reverse auction (see subpart 17.8 ). (2) For the purpose of paragraph (b)(2) of the certificate, an individual may use a blanket authorization to act as an agent for the person(s) responsible for determining the offered prices if- (i) The proposed contract to which the certificate applies is clearly within the scope of the authorization; and (ii) The person giving the authorization is the person within the offeror’s organization who is responsible for determining the prices being offered at the time the certification is made in the particular offer. (3) If an offer is submitted jointly by two or more concerns, the certification provided by the representative of each concern applies only to the activities of that concern. (b) Rejection of offers suspected of being collusive. (1) If the offeror deleted or modified paragraph (a)(1) or (3) or paragraph (b) of the certificate, the contracting officer shall reject the offeror’s bid or proposal. (2) If the offeror deleted or modified paragraph (a)(2) of the certificate, the offeror must have furnished with its offer a signed statement of the circumstances of the disclosure of prices contained in the bid or proposal. The chief of the contracting office shall review the altered certificate and the statement and shall determine, in writing, whether the disclosure was made for the purpose or had the effect of restricting competition. If the determination is positive, the bid or proposal shall be rejected; if it is negative, the bid or proposal shall be considered for award. (3) Whenever an offer is rejected under paragraph (b)(1) or (2)of this section, or the certificate is suspected of being false, the contracting officer shall report the situation to the Attorney General in accordance with 3.303 . (4) The determination made under paragraph (2) of this section shall not prevent or inhibit the prosecution of any criminal or civil actions involving the occurrences or transactions to which the certificate relates.