Evaluator Conflict of Interest Form for RFPs: What 2 CFR 200.318(c) Requires

The afternoon before evaluation begins

A committee chair is packing the proposal binders the afternoon before evaluation begins. She glances at the list of respondents and notices that one offeror's board roster includes the name of a colleague who agreed to score. Nobody has done anything wrong yet. The colleague has not seen a proposal, and no scores exist.

But the chair realizes she has no paper showing that anyone on the committee was ever asked. The organization's policy says evaluators must be free of conflicts. Nothing in the file says that each evaluator was asked, what they answered, or when.

Months later, a funder's monitor or a losing offeror may ask the same question. The answer is much easier to give when each evaluator's disclosure is dated, signed and sitting ahead of the first score. This guide walks through what 2 CFR 200.318(c)(1) frames, what a form should ask, and how to record the answers so you can show what you did.

What 2 CFR 200.318(c)(1) asks of the people who evaluate

Under 2 CFR 200.318(c), no employee, officer, agent or board member with a real or apparent conflict of interest may take part in the selection, award or administration of a contract supported by a federal award. The rule covers more than staff. Board members and agents who help with an evaluation are inside it. The current wording comes from the 2024 revision of the Uniform Guidance, effective October 1, 2024 (89 FR 30046); check your award terms for the version that applies to your award.

The rule also says what counts. A conflict includes the case where the employee, officer, agent or board member, a member of their immediate family, their partner, or an organization that employs or is about to employ any of them, has a financial or other interest in or a tangible personal benefit from an entity considered for a contract.

Two words carry the weight: "real" and "apparent." The regulation does not define them separately. In practice, a real conflict is one that exists, and an apparent conflict is one a reasonable observer might see, even if the evaluator is entirely fair. A form that asks only about actual wrongdoing misses the second category.

The same paragraph requires written standards of conduct covering conflicts of interest, bars soliciting or accepting gratuities, favors or anything of monetary value from contractors (your standards may address interests that are not substantial and unsolicited gifts of nominal value), and requires the standards to provide for disciplinary action for violations. Your form should follow those standards, not stand in for them. If your organization has no written standards, the form will not fix that gap.

The text above is drawn from 2 CFR 200.318(c)(1) as published on eCFR. eCFR is authoritative but unofficial, and the official edition is the annual CFR on govinfo.gov, so read the section itself before quoting it in your own standards.

State and local ethics law varies, and it can be stricter than the federal rule. Where both apply, your standards may need to satisfy both. We do not summarize those laws here. Your counsel, state ethics office or awarding agency can tell you which apply.

What an evaluator conflict of interest form for an RFP should ask

A usable evaluator conflict of interest form RFP committees can reuse asks specific questions. A single line reading "I have no conflicts" invites a quick signature and tells you little. The questions below are design suggestions, and you should align them with your own written standards of conduct.

• Financial interests. Does the evaluator, or a close family member, hold an ownership, investment or compensation interest in any organization that may respond?
• Relationships. Is the evaluator a current or recent employee, officer, director or board member of a possible offeror? Do they have a close personal relationship with anyone at one?
• Gifts and hospitality. Has the evaluator accepted anything of value from a possible offeror, or been offered something?
• Prior involvement. Did the evaluator help draft the specifications or the solicitation? Under 2 CFR 200.319, contractors that draft specifications must be excluded from competing, and that logic suggests asking about drafting roles too.
• Anything else. An open question asking about any circumstance that might look like a conflict to a reasonable observer.

Add a line for the offeror list. Evaluators cannot answer well about firms they have not seen. The usual approach is to give them the list of respondents, or of firms known to be interested, before they sign. Have them answer against that list, not against a general sense of who might apply.

Finally, include a duty to update. A conflict can surface after signing, such as a new job for a spouse or an offeror's acquisition by a firm the evaluator knows. The form should say the evaluator must disclose it promptly, and to whom.

Where a confidentiality agreement fits

Many organizations combine conflict disclosure and confidentiality into one signature page. That is common and reasonable, but the two serve different purposes. A conflict disclosure answers whether the evaluator can be impartial. A confidentiality agreement covers what the evaluator may do with proposal contents and committee discussions.

An RFP evaluator confidentiality agreement usually covers a few points:

• proposal contents, pricing and scores stay inside the committee;
• no contact with offerors about the solicitation outside the channel the solicitation names;
• no discussing scores with other evaluators until the process allows it;
• materials are returned or destroyed according to your records policy.

The third point connects to independence. If evaluators see each other's scores early, anchoring becomes possible, or at least arguable. The piece on evaluator scoring independence explains why the file should show scores were set separately before discussion.

Confidentiality rules also interact with local public-records law. What becomes public, and when, is set by your jurisdiction and your solicitation terms. We do not summarize those rules here. Ask counsel how your agreement language should treat them.

When to sign, and what happens when someone discloses

Timing matters more than wording. The form should be completed before the evaluator sees a proposal and before any score is entered. An attestation dated after scoring tells a monitor very little. The form is useful only if it came first.

A practical order looks like this:

1. Fix the committee roster and the list of known respondents.
2. Send each evaluator the form with that list.
3. Collect signed forms and review every disclosure.
4. Release proposals only to evaluators whose forms are complete.

When an evaluator discloses something, someone other than that evaluator must decide what follows. That is usually the committee chair or a procurement official. The possible outcomes are recusal, a documented determination that the interest does not affect the evaluation, or referral to counsel or the awarding agency for a view. Which outcome fits is a judgment for your organization under its own policy.

Write the decision down, and include the reasoning. A note reading "disclosed; reviewed by chair; evaluator recused from scoring proposal B only" is far more useful than a blank space. If you ever need to explain why an evaluator did or did not score a given proposal, the note answers it.

If a conflict surfaces after scoring starts, do not quietly drop the scores. Record when it came to light, who reviewed it, what was decided and why. Then check with the awarding agency or pass-through entity on whether the evaluation needs to be redone in part.

Recording the attestation in the evaluation file

Under 2 CFR 200.318(i), records must be detailed enough to show the history of each procurement, including the rationale for the method, the contract type, contractor selection or rejection, and the basis for the price. Conflict forms are not one of those four named elements. But they help show that the selection was made by people who were asked the right question at the right time.

Keep these items together in the file:

• the blank form and the date of the version used;
• each evaluator's signed and dated form;
• the respondent list each evaluator saw when signing;
• the chair's written note on every disclosure and the decision reached;
• any later updates.

Consider also what the file says about the committee itself. A roster, each member's role and the date each form was signed let a monitor match people to attestations quickly. The procurement file documentation checklist lists what else belongs beside them, and the award memo should refer to the committee's makeup and any recusals.

Retention is a separate question. Under 2 CFR 200.334, records generally must be kept for 3 years from the final financial report, unless an exception applies, such as a written notice extending the period. Local public-records rules may require longer, so confirm with your awarding agency or pass-through entity. For an overview of the wider federal standards, see Uniform Guidance procurement standards for nonprofits.

Practical steps before the first score

Start with what you control. Write or update your standards of conduct, draft the form around them, and keep one version-dated master. Then, for each solicitation, assemble the respondent list, send the form, review every answer and record each decision before releasing proposals.

Paper and spreadsheets can hold all of this, and many small offices run it that way. The weak point is enforcement. Nothing stops an evaluator from scoring before signing, or a signature page from drifting out of the folder. RFPManagement is designed to address this: evaluators are invited by magic link, and a conflict-of-interest attestation must be completed before the first score saves. Scoring stays human-only. The workspace is not yet open, and you can join the waitlist to hear when it is.

If you want a documentation set for the award file, the Award Documentation Kit is designed to help you record the pieces an award file should hold. It is available in the store now. The kit helps you document what you did. It does not decide whether any form is sufficient for your award.

RFPManagement records and computes. It does not give legal or procurement advice. The award decision stays with your organization.