Suspension and Debarment:
Some Agency Programs Need Greater Attention, and Governmentwide Oversight Could Be Improved
GAO-12-127T, Oct 6, 2011
- Accessible Text:
This testimony discusses the Federal government's use of suspensions and debarments. In 2010, spending on contracted goods and services was more than $535 billion. To protect the government's interests, federal agencies are required to award contracts only to responsible sources--those that are determined to be reliable, dependable, and capable of performing required work. One way to do so is through the use of suspensions and debarments, which are actions taken to exclude firms or individuals from receiving contracts or assistance based on various types of misconduct. The Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) prescribes overall policies and procedures governing the suspension and debarment of contractors by agencies and directs agencies to establish appropriate procedures to implement them. This flexibility enables each agency to establish a suspension and debarment program suitable to its mission and structure. Even though the FAR specifies numerous causes for suspensions and debarments, including fraud, theft, bribery, tax evasion, or lack of business integrity, the existence of one of these does not necessarily require that the party be suspended or debarred. Agencies are to establish procedures for prompt reporting, investigation, and referral to the agency suspension and debarment official. Parties that are suspended, proposed for debarment, or debarred are precluded from receiving new contracts, and agencies must not solicit offers from, award contracts to, or consent to subcontracts with these parties, unless an agency head determines that there is a compelling reason for such action. Today, we are publicly releasing a report that addresses (1) the nature and extent of governmentwide exclusions reported in the Excluded Parties List System (EPLS) maintained by the General Services Administration (GSA); (2) the relationship between practices at selected agencies and the level of suspensions and debarments under federal acquisition regulations; and (3) governmentwide efforts to oversee and coordinate the use of suspensions and debarments across federal agencies. This statement will highlight the key findings and recommendations of our report.
For fiscal years 2006 through 2010, about 4,600 cases--about 16 percent of all cases in EPLS--involved suspension and debarment actions taken at the discretion of agencies against firms and individuals based on any of the numerous causes specified in either the FAR or NCR, such as fraud, theft, or bribery or history of failure to perform on government contracts or transactions. Such cases generally result in exclusion from all federal contracts, grants, and benefits. About 47 percent of suspension and debarment cases were based on the NCR, which covers federal grants and assistance, with the Department of Housing and Urban Development accounting for over half of these grant and assistance-related cases. The other 53 percent of suspension and debarment cases were based on causes specified in the FAR and related to federal procurements. While each agency suspension and debarment program we reviewed is unique, the four with the most suspension and debarment cases for fiscal years 2006 through 2010--DLA, Navy, GSA, and ICE--share certain characteristics. These include a dedicated suspension and debarment program with full-time staff, detailed policies and procedures, and practices that encourage an active referral process. ISDC, established in 1986, monitors the governmentwide system of suspension and debarment. More recently, the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 strengthened the committee's role by specifying functions ISDC was to perform. When more than one agency has an interest in the debarment or suspension of a contractor, the FAR requires ISDC to resolve the lead agency issue and coordinate such resolution among all interested agencies prior to the initiation of any suspension or debarment by any agency. According to ISDC officials, ISDC relies on voluntary agency participation in its informal coordination process, which works well when used. However, not all agencies coordinate through ISDC. In summary, we recommend that several agencies take steps to improve their suspension and debarment programs ensuring that they incorporate the characteristics we identified as common among agencies with more active programs, including (1) assigning dedicated staff resources, (2) developing detailed implementing guidance, and (3) promoting the use of a case referral process. We also recommend that the Administrator of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy issue governmentwide guidance to ensure that agencies are aware of the elements of an active suspension and debarment program and the importance of cooperating with ISDC. Overall, the agencies concurred or generally concurred with our recommendations. In its comments, Justice stated that its existing guidelines are sufficient, but we do not agree. Several other agencies noted that they are taking actions to incorporate the characteristics we identified as common among agencies with more active programs.