EAO 570

Like separate contracts, separate RFPs leading to separate contracts are separate “matters” for purposes of the revolving door provision in Government Code section 572.054(b). However, the conclusion that a specific work activity constitutes “participation in” one matter does not necessarily preclude the conclusion that the same work also constitutes “participation in” another matter. Tex. Ethics Comm’n Op. No. 397 (1998). When an officer or employee of an agency participates in the decision to cancel or rescind an RFP, and the agency subsequently issues another RFP for the same service or product, the employee may have participated in both the rescinded RFP and the reissued RFP for purposes of section 572.054(b), even if the RFP is not reissued until after the employee’s state service has concluded. Whether the former officer or employee participated in the reissued RFP depends on, among other things, whether the agency reviews or analyzes the former officer’s or employee’s work in connection with reissuing the RFP. Here, the requestor has asked the Commission to rely on facts that would demonstrate her lack of participation in the subsequent RFP, so this opinion concludes that she is not precluded from working on a response. However, we caution agency officers and employees against using their authority to cancel a procurement for essential state services with an intent to profit from their knowledge of the agency’s inevitable search for a new provider.