FAR 3.907—Whistleblower Protections Under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (the Recovery Act).

Definitions.

FAR 3.907-1 is the definitions section for the Recovery Act whistleblower protections in FAR 3.9. It defines the key terms that determine who is covered, what money is covered, what kinds of disclosures are protected, and which oversight officials receive complaints or perform related duties. The section specifically addresses the meanings of Board, covered funds, covered information, Inspector General, and non-Federal employer. In practice, these definitions control whether a contractor, subcontractor, or other recipient of Recovery Act funds can invoke the whistleblower protections and whether a disclosure falls within the statute’s scope. They also matter because the definitions are intentionally broad in some places and narrow in others, which affects compliance, internal reporting, investigations, and retaliation risk. For contracting officers and contractors, this section is the gateway to understanding when Recovery Act-related whistleblower procedures apply and how to identify the proper oversight channel.

Policy.

FAR 3.907-2 states the core anti-retaliation policy for disclosures of covered information by employees of non-Federal employers. It prohibits an employer from discharging, demoting, or otherwise discriminating against an employee because the employee reported covered information to specified recipients, including the Board, an Inspector General, the Comptroller General, a Member of Congress, State or Federal regulatory or law enforcement agencies, a supervisor or other internal official with authority to investigate or stop misconduct, a court or grand jury, or the head of a Federal agency. In practical terms, this section is designed to protect whistleblowers and encourage reporting of fraud, waste, abuse, and other misconduct connected to federal contracting or federal programs. It matters because contractors and subcontractors can face legal exposure if they take adverse action against an employee after a protected disclosure, even when the disclosure is made outside the company. For contracting officers and agencies, the policy reinforces the government’s interest in preserving open reporting channels and preventing retaliation that could conceal misconduct. For contractors, it means personnel actions must be carefully separated from any employee complaint or disclosure activity.

Procedures for filing complaints.

FAR 3.907-3 explains how an employee files a complaint alleging reprisal for protected disclosures under Recovery Act Section 1553, and what happens if a contracting officer receives such a complaint. It covers the proper recipient for the complaint, the required contents of the complaint, and the forwarding duties of the contracting officer. In practice, this section is designed to make whistleblower reprisal complaints reach the agency Inspector General quickly and with enough detail to identify the contract and the alleged retaliation. It also helps ensure complaints are routed through the agency’s established internal channels, including any other designated officials such as agency legal counsel. For contractors and contracting personnel, the section matters because it sets the procedural path for allegations of retaliation tied to Recovery Act-funded contracts and reduces the risk that a complaint will be mishandled or delayed.

Procedures for investigating complaints.

FAR 3.907-4 is a very short cross-reference provision that tells readers how complaints under this subpart must be investigated: the investigation process must follow section 1553 of the Recovery Act. In practical terms, this section does not create a separate, stand-alone investigation procedure inside the FAR; instead, it directs agencies, contracting personnel, and other officials to use the Recovery Act’s statutory complaint-investigation framework when handling complaints covered by FAR 3.907. The section matters because it ties the FAR’s whistleblower-related complaint process to the specific legal requirements Congress established for Recovery Act funds, helping ensure consistency, due process, and proper handling of allegations. For contractors and agency personnel, the key takeaway is that any complaint investigation under this section must be conducted under the Recovery Act’s rules, not by ad hoc local practice. This means the controlling details—such as who may complain, what conduct is covered, and how the investigation proceeds—come from section 1553 of the Recovery Act rather than from this FAR text itself.

Access to investigative file of Inspector General.

FAR 3.907-5 explains who can access an Inspector General’s investigative file in a reprisal case under the Recovery Act whistleblower protections, when that access becomes available, and what limits still apply. It covers the employee alleging reprisal, the non-Federal employer in a civil action, the Inspector General’s authority to withhold certain material, the point at which the IG investigation is treated as closed for Privacy Act disclosure purposes, and the confidentiality restrictions on the IG while the matter is pending. In practice, this section is about balancing transparency for the parties with privacy, law-enforcement sensitivity, and protection of confidential sources or investigative methods. It matters because access to the investigative file can affect appeals, civil litigation, settlement posture, and the ability of each side to understand the evidence supporting or refuting the reprisal claim. Contractors and agencies should read this section as a disclosure rule tied to Privacy Act requirements, not as a blanket right to every document in the file. The section also makes clear that the IG cannot casually answer inquiries or reveal information about the complainant outside the Privacy Act or other applicable law.

Remedies and enforcement authority.

FAR 3.907-6 explains the remedies and enforcement process for whistleblower reprisal complaints involving non-Federal employers under the Recovery Act framework. It covers the burden of proof for showing that a protected disclosure was a contributing factor in a reprisal, the employer’s opportunity to rebut the claim by clear and convincing evidence, the agency head’s duty to act within 30 days after receiving the Inspector General’s report, and the types of relief that may be ordered. It also addresses when a complainant is deemed to have exhausted administrative remedies and may file a de novo action in federal district court, including the right to a jury trial, the Department of Justice’s role in enforcing agency orders, and judicial review in the court of appeals. In practice, this section determines how whistleblower retaliation claims are proven, what remedies can be imposed, how quickly agencies must respond, and what litigation options remain available if administrative relief is denied, delayed, or ignored. For contractors and other non-Federal employers, it creates significant exposure to reinstatement, back pay, damages, fees, and enforcement litigation if reprisal is found.

Contract clause.

FAR 3.907-7 is a very short but important implementation rule for the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (Recovery Act). It tells contracting officers to include the contract clause at 52.203-15, Whistleblower Protections Under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, in every solicitation and contract that is funded in whole or in part with Recovery Act funds. In practice, this section is about ensuring that recipients of Recovery Act money are on notice that whistleblower protections apply and that employees are protected when they disclose certain information about gross mismanagement, gross waste, abuse of authority, or substantial and specific dangers to public health or safety. The section does not describe the whistleblower rights in detail; instead, it is the clause-insertion instruction that makes those rights part of the procurement. For contracting officers, the key significance is compliance: if Recovery Act funding is present, the clause must be included. For contractors, the practical effect is that the contract will carry specific employee-protection obligations tied to Recovery Act-funded work.