This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-05-479 
entitled 'Federal Procurement: Additional Data Reporting Could Improve 
the Suspension and Debarment Process' which was released on August 29, 
2005. 

This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability 
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part 
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every 
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of 
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text 
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the 
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided 
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed 
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic 
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail 
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this 
document to Webmaster@gao.gov. 

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright 
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed 
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work 
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the 
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this 
material separately. 

Report to Congressional Committees: 

United States Government Accountability Office: 

GAO: 

July 2005: 

Federal Procurement: 

Additional Data Reporting Could Improve the Suspension and Debarment 
Process: 

GAO-05-479: 

GAO Highlights: 

Highlights of GAO-05-479, a report to congressional committees: 

Why GAO Did This Study: 

Federal government purchases of contracted goods and services have 
grown to more than $300 billion annually. To protect the government’s 
interests, the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) provides that 
agencies can suspend or debar contractors for causes affecting present 
responsibility—such as serious failure to perform to the terms of a 
contract. The FAR provides flexibility to agencies in developing a 
suspension or debarment process. 

GAO was asked to (1) describe the general guidance on the suspension 
and debarment process and how selected agencies have implemented the 
process, and (2) identify any needed improvements in the suspension and 
debarment process. We examined the FAR and the regulations of 24 
agencies that have FAR supplements governing suspension and debarment 
procedures. We selected 6 defense and civilian agencies representing 
about 67 percent of fiscal year 2003 federal contract spending for in- 
depth review. 

What GAO Found: 

The FAR prescribes policies governing the circumstances under which 
contractors may be suspended or debarred, the standards of evidence 
that apply to exclusions, and the usual length of these exclusions. To 
implement these policies, 24 agencies developed FAR supplementation. In 
fiscal year 2004, the 6 agencies we reviewed in depth suspended a total 
of 262 parties and debarred a total of 590 parties. Five agencies 
entered into a total of 38 administrative agreements, which permit 
contractors that meet certain agency-imposed requirements to remain 
eligible for new contracts. Agency officials said that such agreements 
can help improve contractor responsibility, ensure compliance through 
monitoring, and maintain competition. In certain circumstances, 
agencies can continue to do business with excluded contractors, such as 
when there is a compelling need for an excluded contractor’s service or 
product. In fiscal year 2004, two of the agencies we reviewed in 
depth—the Air Force and the Army—issued compelling reason waivers to 
continue doing business with excluded parties. 

To help ensure excluded contractors do not unintentionally receive new 
contracts during the period of exclusion, the FAR requires contracting 
officers to consult the Excluded Parties List System (EPLS)—a 
governmentwide database on exclusions—and identify any competing 
contractors that have been suspended or debarred. However, the data in 
EPLS may be insufficient for this purpose. For example, as of November 
2004, about 99 percent of records in EPLS for the 6 agencies we 
reviewed in depth did not have contractor identification numbers—a 
unique identifier that enables agencies to conclude confidently whether 
a contractor has been excluded. In the absence of these numbers, 
agencies use the company’s name to search EPLS, which may not identify 
an excluded contractor if the contractor’s name has changed. Further, 
information on administrative agreements and compelling reason 
determinations is not routinely shared among agencies. Such information 
could help agencies in their exclusion decisions and promote greater 
transparency and accountability. 

Actions Taken by Six Selected Agencies in Fiscal Year 2004: 

[See PDF for image]

Source: Agency-reported data. 

[End of table] 

What GAO Recommends: 

GAO makes two recommendations: that GSA make contractor identification 
numbers a required field in the EPLS database and that OMB require 
sharing of data on administrative agreements and compelling reason 
determinations. DOD, GSA, and OMB concurred with these recommendations. 

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-479. 

To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on 
the link above. For more information, contact William T. Woods at (202) 
512-4841 or woodsw@gao.gov. 

[End of section] 

Contents: 

Letter: 

Results in Brief: 

Background: 

FAR Provides Governmentwide Policies, and Agencies Make Specific 
Exclusion Decisions: 

Additional Reporting and Sharing of Information Could Improve the 
Effectiveness of the Process: 

Conclusions: 

Recommendations: 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology: 

Appendix II: Statutory Debarments: 

Appendix III: Trends in Exclusions in EPLS for Selected Agencies: 

Appendix IV: Selected Agencies' Suspension and Debarment Organizations: 

Appendix V: Comments from the Department of Defense: 

Tables: 

Table 1: Agencies That Developed Supplements to the FAR, Adopted NCR, 
or Developed Additional Guidance: 

Table 2: Actions Taken by Six Selected Agencies in Fiscal Year 2004: 

Table 3: Key Characteristics of Administrative Agreements: 

Table 4: Statutory Debarments: 

Table 5: Agencies' Suspension and Debarment Organizations: 

Figures: 

Figure 1: Exclusions in EPLS Governmentwide from 1995 to 2004: 

Figure 2: Current Exclusions in EPLS among Six Selected Agencies, as of 
November 2004: 

Figure 3: Typical Elements of Selected Agencies' Suspension and 
Debarment Process: 

Figure 4: Trends in Exclusions in EPLS for Selected Agencies from 1995 
to 2004: 

Abbreviations: 

CAGE: Contractor and Government Entity: 

DFARS: Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement: 

DLA: Defense Logistics Agency: 

DOD: Department of Defense: 

EPA: Environmental Protection Agency: 

EPLS: Excluded Parties List System: 

FAR: Federal Acquisition Regulation: 

FPDS: Federal Procurement Data System: 

GSA: General Services Administration: 

ISDC: Interagency Suspension and Debarment Committee: 

NCR: Nonprocurement Common Rule: 

OMB: Office of Management and Budget: 

United States Government Accountability Office: 

Washington, DC 20548: 

July 29, 2005: 

The Honorable Susan M. Collins: 
Chairman: 
The Honorable Joseph I. Lieberman: 
Ranking Minority Member: 
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs: 
United States Senate: 

The Honorable Tom Davis:
Chairman: 
The Honorable Henry A. Waxman:
Ranking Minority Member: 
Committee on Government Reform: 
House of Representatives: 

Federal government purchases of contracted goods and services have 
grown to more than $300 billion annually.[Footnote 1] 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. To protect the government's interests, the 
Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) provides that agencies can suspend 
or debar contractors from future contracts for various reasons, such as 
conviction of or indictment for certain offenses, or a serious failure 
to perform to the terms of a contract.[Footnote 2] The FAR provides 
flexibility to agencies in developing a suspension and debarment 
process. While this flexibility enables agencies to meet their 
individual needs, it also highlights the importance of transparency 
into their processes to help determine whether suspension and debarment 
actions are protecting the government's interests. 

Given the significant amount of federal dollars spent by agencies to 
acquire goods and services, and the need to ensure that the government 
only does business with responsible contractors, you asked us to (1) 
describe the general guidance on the suspension and debarment process 
and how selected agencies have implemented the process, and (2) 
identify any needed improvements in the suspension and debarment 
process. 

To conduct our work, we examined the FAR and the regulations of the 24 
agencies that have issued supplements to the FAR governing suspension 
and debarment procedures. From these 24 agencies, we selected 6 defense 
and civilian agencies for in-depth review of policies and practices: 
the Air Force, Army, Navy, and Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) within 
the Department of Defense (DOD); the General Services Administration 
(GSA); and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Together, these 6 
agencies accounted for about 67 percent of fiscal year 2003 federal 
contract spending, as reported in the Federal Procurement Data System 
(FPDS).[Footnote 3] We also analyzed data from the Excluded Parties 
List System (EPLS)--a Web-based database on governmentwide exclusions 
maintained by GSA--and from the selected agencies' internal data 
management systems. We conducted our work from August 2004 through June 
2005 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing 
standards. For more information on our scope and methodology, see 
appendix I. 

Results in Brief: 

The FAR prescribes policies governing such matters as the circumstances 
under which contractors may be excluded from federal contracting, the 
standards of evidence that apply to suspensions and debarments, and the 
usual length of these exclusions. The FAR requires agencies to 
establish a process for determining exclusions, and allows agencies to 
supplement the FAR to implement the process. The supplements to the FAR 
or additional guidance developed by 24 agencies generally designate 
internal responsibilities for suspension and debarment procedures and 
intra-agency coordination. The 6 agencies we reviewed in depth 
suspended a total of 262 parties and debarred a total of 590 parties in 
fiscal year 2004. Five of the 6 agencies entered into a total of 38 
administrative agreements--an alternative to suspension and debarment 
where contractors that meet certain requirements imposed by the agency 
may remain eligible for new contracts. Agency officials said that such 
agreements can serve the government's interest by improving contractor 
responsibility, ensuring compliance through monitoring, and maintaining 
competition. In fiscal year 2004, the Army and EPA used these 
agreements the most. In certain circumstances, agencies can continue to 
do business with excluded contractors, such as when there is a 
compelling need for an excluded contractor's service or product. In 
fiscal year 2004, two of the agencies we reviewed, the Air Force and 
the Army, issued compelling reason determinations, known as waivers, to 
continue doing business with a total of five excluded parties. 

To help ensure that excluded contractors do not unintentionally receive 
new contracts during a period of exclusion, the FAR requires 
contracting officers to consult EPLS to identify any competing 
contractors that have been suspended or debarred. We found, however, 
that the data in EPLS may be insufficient for this purpose. 
Specifically, although the FAR requires that agencies enter 
contractors' unique identification numbers in EPLS, there is no 
required field in the EPLS database for these numbers. As a result, 
contractor identification numbers have not been routinely entered in 
EPLS. For the 6 agencies we reviewed in depth, about 99 percent of 
records in the EPLS database as of November 2004 did not have 
contractor identification numbers. In the absence of a unique 
identifier in EPLS, agencies use name matching to identify excluded 
contractors, a technique that may not always be reliable. Consequently, 
contracting officials cannot always be fully confident that a 
prospective contractor is not on the list of excluded parties. The 
Interagency Suspension and Debarment Committee (ISDC) provides a forum 
for sharing information among suspension and debarment officials. 
However, neither ISDC nor any other entity collects or reports data on 
administrative agreements or compelling reason waivers. Increased 
sharing of information on the terms and effectiveness of past and 
current administrative agreements would be helpful to officials in 
considering new agreements. Similarly, reporting information on 
compelling reason determinations would allow suspension and debarment 
officials to assess the use of these waivers and would promote greater 
transparency and accountability. 

We are making two recommendations aimed at improving the quality and 
availability of data used in the suspension and debarment process: to 
make contractor identification numbers a required field in the EPLS 
database and to increase sharing of data on administrative agreements 
and compelling reason determinations. In comments on a draft of this 
report, DOD, GSA, and OMB generally agreed with these recommendations. 
EPA submitted technical comments on the draft, and we have incorporated 
these comments into the report as appropriate. Written comments from 
DOD are reproduced in their entirety in appendix V. 

Background: 

Suspensions and debarments apply governmentwide--one agency's 
suspension or debarment decision precludes all other agencies from 
doing business with an excluded party. Suspensions and debarments may 
be either statutory or administrative. Statutory debarments, also 
referred to as declarations of ineligibility, are based on violation of 
law, such as statutory requirements to pay minimum wages.[Footnote 4] 
Administrative debarments are based on the causes specified in the FAR, 
including commission of offenses such as fraud, theft, bribery, or tax 
evasion. In 1988, the Nonprocurement Common Rule (NCR) was implemented 
to provide a parallel process to the FAR for suspending and debarring 
parties from receiving federal grants, loans, and other nonprocurement 
transactions.[Footnote 5] The FAR and NCR provide for reciprocity with 
each other--that is, any exclusion under the FAR shall be recognized 
under NCR, and any exclusion under NCR shall be recognized under the 
FAR.[Footnote 6]

Exclusions of companies or individuals from federal contracts 
(procurements) or other federal funding such as grants 
(nonprocurements), as well as declarations of ineligibility, are listed 
in EPLS, a Web-based system maintained by GSA.[Footnote 7] EPLS also 
includes an archive of expired exclusions. Agencies are required to 
report all excluded parties by entering data directly into the database 
within 5 working days after the exclusion becomes effective. The FAR 
includes a list of the information to be included in EPLS, such as the 
contractor's name and address, contractor identification number, the 
cause of the action, the period of the exclusion, and the name of the 
agency taking the action.[Footnote 8]

From January 1995 to November 2004, the number of exclusion actions 
taken each year by all agencies governmentwide has ranged from about 
3,400 in 1995 to almost 7,000 in 2002, with an average of 5,700 actions 
taken annually (see fig.1). 

Figure 1: Exclusions in EPLS Governmentwide from 1995 to 2004: 

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure]

In November 2004, the number of current exclusions governmentwide 
totaled about 32,500, about 3,500 of which were the result of statutory 
debarments. Of this governmentwide total, EPLS showed that the 6 
agencies we reviewed had excluded about 2,400 parties, 617 of which 
were the result of statutory debarments by EPA, based on violations of 
the Clean Water and Clean Air Acts (see fig. 2). For exclusion actions 
taken each year by the six selected agencies from 1995 to 2004, see 
appendix III. 

Figure 2: Current Exclusions in EPLS among Six Selected Agencies, as of 
November 2004: 

[See PDF for image]

Note: Procurement/nonprocurement actions include suspensions, and 
proposed and actual debarments, as well as other exclusions related to 
procurement and nonprocurement activities. Generally, statutory 
debarments are based on violations of law such as those requiring 
payment of minimum wages. Of the agencies we reviewed in depth, only 
EPA had administered statutory debarments as of November 2004. 

[End of figure]

In 1987, we reported that the suspension and debarment regulations and 
procedures generally provided an effective tool for protecting the 
government against doing business with fraudulent, unethical, or 
nonperforming contractors.[Footnote 9] We noted, however, that there 
was a need for timely access to a governmentwide list of excluded 
parties. We also identified areas for improvement in the process and 
recommended amendments to the FAR. The following recommendations have 
been implemented: (1) that governmentwide exclusions be extended to 
contractors proposed for debarment; (2) that the definition of 
affiliate, i.e., related firms or those under common control, include a 
description of indicators of control, such as common management or 
ownership; (3) that suspended and debarred contractors also be excluded 
from subcontracting under government contracts; and (4) that the extent 
to which orders placed under certain contractual arrangements--such as 
multiple awards schedules, basic ordering agreements, and indefinite 
quantity contracts--are covered by exclusions be clarified. 

FAR Provides Governmentwide Policies, and Agencies Make Specific 
Exclusion Decisions: 

The FAR prescribes general policies governing the circumstances under 
which contractors may be excluded from federal contracting, requires 
agencies to establish a process for determining exclusions, and allows 
agencies the flexibility to supplement the FAR to implement the 
process. The supplements to the FAR and additional guidance developed 
by 24 agencies generally designate internal responsibilities for 
suspension and debarment procedures and intra-agency coordination. As 
an alternative to exclusion, agencies sometimes enter into 
administrative agreements with contractors with whom they believe there 
is a continuing need to do business. These agreements can encourage 
changes in business practices designed to promote contractor 
responsibility. In limited circumstances, an agency may continue to do 
business with excluded contractors. 

The FAR requires federal agencies to conduct business only with 
responsible contractors and prescribes overall suspension and debarment 
policies. A suspension may be imposed only when an agency determines 
that immediate action is necessary to protect the government's 
interests. To initiate a suspension, an agency must have adequate 
evidence that the party has committed certain civil or criminal 
offenses or that there is another compelling cause affecting the 
contractor's present responsibility.[Footnote 10] Generally, legal 
proceedings must begin within 12 months or the suspension terminates. 
To initiate a debarment, an agency must have evidence of conviction or 
civil judgment for certain offenses, a preponderance of evidence that 
the party has committed certain offenses, such as serious failure to 
perform to the terms of a contract, or any other cause of so serious or 
compelling a nature that it affects the contractor's present 
responsibility.[Footnote 11] The agency debarring official is 
responsible for determining whether debarment is in the government's 
interest, and the FAR states that the seriousness of the contractor's 
actions and any remedial measures or mitigating factors should be 
considered. Generally, the period of debarment should not exceed 3 
years. 

Figure 3 provides a general overview of the suspension and debarment 
process. 

Figure 3: Typical Elements of Selected Agencies' Suspension and 
Debarment Process: 

[See PDF for image]

Note: There are some variations in the process among agencies, and this 
figure does not include every possible scenario for a case. For 
example, a case initiated as a possible suspension could result in a 
determination that there is no immediate need for suspension and could 
later result in a proposal for debarment. 

[End of figure] 

The FAR allows agencies flexibility to supplement FAR provisions and 
develop guidance based on agency needs. The 24 agencies we reviewed had 
included suspension and debarment policies in FAR supplements; 21 had 
also adopted NCR; and 12 had developed additional guidance, such as 
directives and policy memos to implement their suspension and debarment 
processes (see table 1). The additional guidance generally designates 
responsibilities for suspension and debarment procedures and addresses 
intra-agency coordination. 

Table 1: Agencies That Developed Supplements to the FAR, Adopted NCR, 
or Developed Additional Guidance: 

Agency: Agency for International Development; 
Supplement: Yes; 
NCR: Yes; 
Guidance: No. 

Agency: Department of Agriculture; 
Supplement: Yes; 
NCR: Yes; 
Guidance: No. 

Agency: Broadcasting Board of Governors; 
Supplement: Yes; 
NCR: No; 
Guidance: Yes. 

Agency: Department of Commerce; 
Supplement: Yes; 
NCR: Yes; 
Guidance: No. 

Agency: DOD Air Force; 
Supplement: Yes; 
NCR: Yes; 
Guidance: Yes. 

Agency: DOD Army; 
Supplement: Yes; 
NCR: Yes; 
Guidance: Yes. 

Agency: DOD DLA; 
Supplement: Yes; 
NCR: Yes; 
Guidance: Yes. 

Agency: DOD Navy; 
Supplement: Yes; 
NCR: Yes; 
Guidance: Yes. 

Agency: Department of Education; 
Supplement: Yes; 
NCR: Yes; 
Guidance: Yes. 

Agency: Department of Energy; 
Supplement: Yes; 
NCR: Yes; 
Guidance: No. 

Agency: Environmental Protection Agency; 
Supplement: Yes; 
NCR: Yes; 
Guidance: Yes. 

Agency: General Services Administration; 
Supplement: Yes; 
NCR: Yes; 
Guidance: Yes. 

Agency: Federal Emergency Management Agency; 
Supplement: Yes; 
NCR: No; 
Guidance: No. 

Agency: Department of Health and Human Services; 
Supplement: Yes; 
NCR: Yes; 
Guidance: No. 

Agency: Department of Justice; 
Supplement: Yes; 
NCR: Yes; 
Guidance: Yes. 

Agency: Department of Labor; 
Supplement: Yes; 
NCR: Yes; 
Guidance: No. 

Agency: National Aeronautics and Space Administration; 
Supplement: Yes; 
NCR: Yes; 
Guidance: No. 

Agency: National Science Foundation; 
Supplement: Yes; 
NCR: Yes; 
Guidance: Yes. 

Agency: Nuclear Regulatory Commission; 
Supplement: Yes; 
NCR: No; 
Guidance: No. 

Agency: Office of Personnel Management; 
Supplement: Yes; 
NCR: Yes; 
Guidance: No. 

Agency: Department of State; 
Supplement: Yes; 
NCR: Yes; 
Guidance: No. 

Agency: Department of Transportation; 
Supplement: Yes; 
NCR: Yes; 
Guidance: Yes. 

Agency: Department of Treasury; 
Supplement: Yes; 
NCR: Yes; 
Guidance: Yes. 

Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs; 
Supplement: Yes; 
NCR: Yes; 
Guidance: No. 

Totals; 
Supplement: 24; 
NCR: 21; 
Guidance: 12. 

Source: GAO analysis of supplements to FAR and guidance. 

[End of table]

Each of the six agencies we reviewed in depth--the Air Force, Army, 
Navy, Defense Logistics Agency, EPA, and GSA--has included suspension 
and debarment policies in FAR supplements, adopted NCR, and developed 
guidance for implementing suspension and debarment procedures: 

* The Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) 
designates suspension and debarment officials in the various DOD 
organizations--including the Air Force, Army, Navy, and Defense 
Logistics Agency--and a process for waiving contractor exclusions for 
compelling reasons. In addition, in September 1992, the Under Secretary 
of Defense for Acquisition issued guidance stating that (1) when 
appropriate, before action is taken on suspension, a contractor should 
be informed that DOD has extremely serious concerns with the 
contractor's conduct, and the contractor should be allowed to provide 
information on its behalf, and (2) DOD debarring officials should 
coordinate fully within DOD, and in certain cases among civilian 
agencies, to determine the possible effects of the suspensions and 
debarments on other organizations as well as to receive additional 
information that may affect the exclusion decision. 

* EPA's Acquisition Regulation, a FAR supplement, designates the roles 
of various officials and clarifies EPA's suspension and debarment 
procedures. An August 1993 memorandum of understanding provides 
specific responsibilities for EPA's Office of Acquisition Management 
and Office of Grants and Debarment in the processing of suspension and 
debarment actions. In addition, EPA has established guidance on 
initiating a suspension or debarment action. EPA also included a 
specific section in NCR addressing EPA's statutory disqualifications 
under the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts. 

* GSA also supplemented the FAR with a regulation that designates the 
roles of various officials and clarifies suspension and debarment 
procedures. The GSA Acquisition Manual contains similar language to the 
FAR supplement. In addition, GSA's Office of Inspector General 
Operations Manual outlines responsibilities for investigating cases, 
coordinating with law enforcement agencies, and making referrals to 
GSA's suspension and debarment officials. In November 2002, GSA issued 
an internal order concerning the requirement for legal review of 
suspension and debarment decisions. 

Each of the agencies we reviewed established an organizational 
structure that identifies the lead office, responsibilities, and 
staffing to manage their suspension and debarment activities. (See app. 
IV for a summary of each agency's suspension and debarment 
organizational structure.) Table 2 shows specific actions reported by 
the six agencies we reviewed during fiscal year 2004. 

Table 2: Actions Taken by Six Selected Agencies in Fiscal Year 2004: 

Agency: Air Force; 
Suspensions: 94; 
Proposed debarments: 246; 
Debarments: 233; 
Administrative agreements: 2. 

Agency: Army; 
Suspensions: 68; 
Proposed debarments: 113; 
Debarments: 90; 
Administrative agreements: 9. 

Agency: Navy; 
Suspensions: 2; 
Proposed debarments: 27; 
Debarments: 33; 
Administrative agreements: 0. 

Agency: DLA; 
Suspensions: 12; 
Proposed debarments: 147; 
Debarments: 133; 
Administrative agreements: 1. 

Agency: GSA; 
Suspensions: 70; 
Proposed debarments: 53; 
Debarments: 33; 
Administrative agreements: 4[A]. 

Agency: EPA; 
Suspensions: 16[B]; 
Proposed debarments: 65[B]; 
Debarments: 68; 
Administrative agreements: 22. 

Agency: Total; 
Suspensions: 262; 
Proposed debarments: 651; 
Debarments: 590; 
Administrative agreements: 38. 

Source: Agency-reported data. 

[A] GSA has only recently begun to use administrative agreements and 
entered into four during fiscal year 2004.[Footnote 12]

[B] These data include eight cases in which a suspension and proposed 
debarment were issued simultaneously under the NCR. 

[End of table]

Administrative agreements, also referred to as compliance agreements, 
provide an alternative to exclusion when contractors that are being 
considered for suspension or debarment have addressed the cause of the 
problem through actions such as disciplining individuals, revising 
internal controls, and disclosing problems to the appropriate 
government agency in a timely manner.[Footnote 13] Under administrative 
agreements, contractors agree to meet certain requirements and may 
continue to enter into contracts with the government. Agency officials 
said that reaching administrative agreements with contractors can serve 
the government's interest by improving contractor responsibility, 
ensuring compliance through monitoring the requirements of the 
agreement, and maintaining competition among contractors. 
Administrative agreements can be negotiated at any point in the 
suspension and debarment process, such as when a contractor 
independently acknowledges a problem, but the agencies we reviewed in 
depth said these agreements are most commonly negotiated as an 
alternative to debarment. These agreements generally follow a 
consistent format, emphasize corporate ethics programs, and are in 
effect for a period of 3 years. Table 3 summarizes the key contractor 
requirements included in the agreements we reviewed.[Footnote 14]

Table 3: Key Characteristics of Administrative Agreements: 

Key Characteristics: Written ethics policy or code; 
GSA: Yes; 
EPA: Yes; 
Air Force: Yes; 
Army: Yes; 
DLA: Yes; 
Navy: Yes. 

Key Characteristics: Employee ethics training; 
GSA: Yes; 
EPA: Yes; 
Air Force: Yes; 
Army: Yes; 
DLA: Yes; 
Navy: Yes. 

Key Characteristics: Compliance hotline; 
GSA: Yes; 
EPA: Yes; 
Air Force: Yes; 
Army: Yes; 
DLA: Yes; 
Navy: Yes. 

Key Characteristics: Ethics officer or advisor; 
GSA: Yes; 
EPA: Yes; 
Air Force: Yes; 
Army: Yes; 
DLA: Yes; 
Navy: Yes. 

Key Characteristics: Independent auditor or ombudsman to monitor 
compliance; 
GSA: Yes; 
EPA: Yes; 
Air Force: Yes; 
Army: Yes; 
DLA: No; 
Navy: No. 

Key Characteristics: Scheduled reporting to agency; 
GSA: Yes; 
EPA: Yes; 
Air Force: Yes; 
Army: Yes; 
DLA: Yes; 
Navy: Yes. 

Key Characteristics: Contractor payment for portion of agency's 
administrative costs; 
GSA: No; 
EPA: Yes; 
Air Force: Yes; 
Army: Yes; 
DLA: No; 
Navy: Yes. 

Source: Agency reported data. 

Note: GAO analysis of 8 administrative agreements. 

[End of table]

While administrative agreements provide an alternative to exclusion, 
agencies can continue to do business with excluded contractors in 
limited circumstances through the use of waivers by making a 
determination that there is a compelling reason to award a contract to 
an excluded party.[Footnote 15] This determination requires a written 
explanation of the reason for doing business with an excluded 
contractor, such as an urgent need for the contractor's supplies or 
services, or that the contractor is the only known source.[Footnote 16] 
Of the six agencies we reviewed, only the Air Force and the Army 
reported that compelling reason waivers had been issued over the past 2 
years. The Air Force reported that three waivers had been granted--in 
August and September 2003 and in August 2004--to continue contracting 
with the Boeing Company for launch services for military space 
equipment based on national security concerns and to mitigate program 
schedule and cost risks. In fiscal year 2004, the Air Force issued one 
waiver for sole-source reasons, and the Army issued four waivers based 
on urgent need. 

Suspension and debarment constitutes exclusion of all divisions or 
other organizational elements of the contractor, unless the exclusion 
decision is otherwise limited.[Footnote 17] Exclusions may extend to 
affiliates, if named in the suspension or debarment notice and 
decision.[Footnote 18] Organizational entities of excluded contractors 
that can demonstrate independence may be allowed to receive government 
contracts. 

Additional Reporting and Sharing of Information Could Improve the 
Effectiveness of the Process: 

The information in EPLS may be insufficient to enable contracting 
officers to determine with confidence that a prospective contractor is 
not currently suspended, debarred, or proposed for debarment. Further, 
information on administrative agreements and compelling reason waivers 
is not routinely shared among agencies or captured centrally in a 
database such as EPLS. The Interagency Suspension and Debarment 
Committee (ISDC), which monitors the suspension and debarment system, 
provides a useful forum for sharing information among suspension and 
debarment officials. 

Incomplete or Unreliable EPLS Data Make It Difficult to Identify 
Excluded Parties: 

The FAR requires agencies to enter various information on contractors 
into EPLS, including contractors' and grantees' Data Universal 
Numbering System (DUNS) number[Footnote 19]--a unique nine-digit 
identification number assigned by Dun & Bradstreet, Inc. to identify 
unique business entities.[Footnote 20] We found, however, that while 
the EPLS database has a field for entering contractors' DUNS numbers, 
it is not a required field in the database, and the data appear to be 
routinely omitted from the database. For the 6 agencies we reviewed in 
depth, about 99 percent of records in the EPLS database as of November 
2004 did not have DUNS contractor identification numbers. 

To ensure that excluded contractors do not unintentionally receive new 
contracts during the period of exclusion, the FAR and NCR require 
contracting officers and awarding officials to consult EPLS and 
identify any competing contractors that have been suspended or 
debarred.[Footnote 21] Because EPLS lacks unique identifiers for most 
of the cases for the six agencies we reviewed in depth, contracting 
officers use the competing contractor's name to search the system to 
determine whether a prospective contractor has been excluded from doing 
business with the federal government. However, a contractor's name as 
it appears in a bid or proposal may not be the same as in EPLS. For 
example, the XYZ Company may submit bids or proposals using "XYZ 
Company" but appear as "XYZ" in EPLS. Therefore, if the contracting 
officer searched for an exact match, EPLS would not identify the 
company.[Footnote 22] Searching for partial matches would fail to 
identify companies that have changed their names. According to agency 
suspension and debarment officials, contracting officers have 
overlooked excluded contractors when using EPLS, due in part to not 
being able to match contractor names. Though agency officials could not 
recall specific cases, they said that this difficulty in matching names 
is more likely to occur in cases in which contractors have changed 
their names. 

We too had difficulty matching names using EPLS. For example, because 
of the various ways a contractor's name might be entered in the 
database and because contractor names sometimes change over time, we 
could not be assured that we identified all contractors that have been 
excluded more than once. We also attempted to match contractors' names 
in EPLS and FPDS--the database containing government contracting 
actions--to determine whether excluded contractors had received new 
contracts during a period of exclusion.[Footnote 23] Although this 
effort did not produce any matches, we cannot conclude with confidence 
that excluded contractors are not receiving new contracts because of 
the lack of consistency regarding contractor names both between and 
within the databases. This problem has been longstanding. In our 1987 
report, we noted similar difficulties in matching data from the list of 
excluded parties with FPDS data. Despite our findings, the problem 
continues, increasing the risk that suspended or debarred contractors 
will be awarded new contracts during a period of exclusion. 

The overall reliability of reported data is also a concern. According 
to GSA officials, responsibility for ensuring data reliability rests 
with the agencies entering data into EPLS. GSA does not know, however, 
whether agencies have tested the reliability of their EPLS data. The 
absence of information on data reliability makes using the system for 
oversight or analysis problematic. For example, when we attempted to 
use EPLS to determine the average length of time of exclusions, we 
found many records with an indefinite termination date. In some cases, 
parties are listed as excluded for an indefinite period of time pending 
the outcome of a case. In nonprocurement cases, parties also may be 
excluded for an indefinite period of time.[Footnote 24] However, when a 
record is entered in EPLS without a termination date, the system 
defaults to record the termination date as indefinite. In the absence 
of information on data reliability, there is no way to estimate the 
extent to which the entries with indefinite termination dates reflect 
parties that had been excluded for an indefinite period of time or 
parties for which no termination date had been entered. 

ISDC Provides an Opportunity to Facilitate Sharing of Information on 
Administrative Agreements and Exclusion Waivers: 

The Interagency Suspension and Debarment Committee (ISDC) is 
responsible for coordinating policy, practices, and information sharing 
on various suspension and debarment issues.[Footnote 25] The ISDC 
serves as an interagency forum and conducts monthly meetings for 
federal agencies' suspension and debarment officials. While ISDC is not 
a decision-making body, it develops recommendations for the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) on interagency issues, such as determining 
which agency should take the lead on a case when more than one agency 
does business with a particular contractor. The ISDC reports to OMB's 
Office of Federal Financial Management and has been chaired by EPA's 
suspension and debarment officer since 1988. 

In its March 2002 report on interagency coordination, the ISDC 
emphasized the importance of identifying a lead agency to coordinate 
with other federal agencies that do business with a contractor before 
entering into an administrative agreement. In our discussions with 
several suspension and debarment officials they said that, in addition, 
sharing information on past and current administrative agreements 
within the broader community of suspension and debarment officials 
would also be useful. They said that when an agency official is 
considering taking action with respect to a particular contractor, it 
would be helpful to know whether another agency had ever used an 
administrative agreement with that contractor, what the terms of the 
agreement were, and whether the contractor had complied with the 
agreement. That information is not currently collected centrally nor 
routinely made available to all suspension and debarment officials. Of 
the agencies we reviewed, only the Army has taken initiative to share 
information on administrative agreements. In February 2005, the Army 
launched the "Army Fraud Fighter's Web Site," which includes a list of 
contractors with which they have entered into administrative 
agreements.[Footnote 26]

Similarly, greater sharing of information on compelling reason waivers 
also would be helpful. We found that information on compelling reason 
waivers was not readily available from most agencies we reviewed. To 
obtain information on compelling reason waivers, we had to reconcile 
the information we collected from the DOD agencies with information we 
collected from GSA for those agencies. The FAR supplement for DOD 
requires DOD to provide written notice of any compelling reason waiver 
determination to GSA,[Footnote 27] but we had to make repeated requests 
from DOD agencies and GSA in order to obtain complete information. In 
our view, accountability and transparency of the process would be 
enhanced were this information routinely collected and reported by all 
agencies. For example, more information on the use of waivers would 
allow suspension and debarment officials to evaluate patterns in the 
use of waivers to determine whether they were used more commonly in 
some industries than others. They could also assess the rationales 
cited by agencies in granting waivers to determine whether agencies are 
applying standards consistently or whether the governmentwide standards 
are in need of revision. 

Conclusions: 

Federal agencies faced with the challenge of ensuring that they only do 
business with responsible contractors may not be identifying excluded 
contractors when awarding new contracts. Improving the EPLS database by 
requiring agencies to enter contractor identification numbers into the 
system could provide the data needed to enhance agency confidence that 
excluded contractors can be readily identified. Sharing information 
among agencies on administrative agreements and compelling reason 
waivers could also improve the transparency and effectiveness of the 
suspension and debarment process and thereby help to ensure the 
government's interests are protected. 

Recommendations: 

To improve the effectiveness of the suspension and debarment process, 
we are making two recommendations that: 

* the Administrator of General Services modify the EPLS database to 
require contractor identification numbers for all actions entered into 
the system and: 

* the Director of the Office of Management and Budget require agencies 
to collect and report data on administrative agreements and compelling 
reason determinations to the Interagency Suspension and Debarment 
Committee and ensure that these data are available to all suspension 
and debarment officials. 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

We provided a draft of this report to DOD, EPA, GSA, and OMB for review 
and comment. DOD provided written comments which are included in 
appendix V. EPA provided technical comments on the draft, and we have 
incorporated these comments into the report as appropriate. GSA and OMB 
provided oral comments. 

DOD generally concurred with our recommendations. In addition to 
requiring the contractor identification numbers for all actions entered 
into the system, DOD believes that the EPLS database should include a 
field for the Contractor and Government Entity (CAGE) code, if 
available. DOD stated that given the automated procurement system used 
by many DOD offices, it is important to enable these offices to check 
for the CAGE code of a prospective contractor in the EPLS database. DOD 
also provided technical comments on the draft report, and we have 
revised the draft accordingly. 

GSA concurred with our recommendation that GSA modify the EPLS database 
to require contractor identification numbers for all actions entered 
into the system. GSA stated that it is in the process of competing the 
EPLS application, and the identification number will be a required 
field when the updated system becomes operational in fiscal year 2006. 
In addition, the updated system will be required to interface with the 
Central Contractor Registration System, which should improve the 
quality of contractor data in EPLS. The new system also should have 
greater capability to allow agencies to report information such as the 
reasons why a party has been excluded. 

OMB concurred with our recommendation that OMB require agencies to 
collect and report data on administrative agreements and compelling 
reason determinations to the Interagency Suspension and Debarment 
Committee and make this information available to all suspension and 
debarment officials. 

As agreed with your offices, unless you release this report earlier, we 
will not distribute it until 30 days from the date of this letter. At 
that time, we will send copies of this report to the Secretary of 
Defense, the Administrator of General Services, the Administrator of 
the Environmental Protection Agency, the Director of the Office of 
Management and Budget, and interested congressional committees. We will 
also make copies available to others upon request. In addition, this 
report will be available at no charge on GAO's Web site at http://
www.gao.gov. 

If you have any questions about this report, please contact me at (202) 
512-4841 or woodsw@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of 
Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last 
page of this report. Major contributors to this report were Amelia 
Shachoy, Assistant Director, Marie Ahearn, Ken Graffam, Mehrunisa 
Qayyum, Emma Quach, Jeffrey Rose, Karen Sloan, and Cordell Smith. 

Signed by: 

William T. Woods, Director: 
Acquisition and Sourcing Management: 

[End of section]

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology: 

We conducted our work at six agencies--General Services Administration 
(GSA), Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and four DOD agencies-- 
Air Force, Army, Defense Logistics Agency (DLA), and Navy. The DOD 
agencies were selected on the basis of the dollar value of contracting 
actions reported in the Federal Procurement Data System (FPDS) for 
fiscal year 2003---the year for which the most recent and complete data 
were available at the time of our review. We selected GSA because of 
its central role in federal procurement and in maintaining the Excluded 
Parties List System (EPLS). We selected EPA because of its active role 
in suspension and debarment, including its role in chairing the 
Interagency Suspension and Debarment Committee (ISDC) and in 
implementing systematic procedures for tracking the status of 
suspension and debarment cases. Together, these agencies accounted for 
about 67 percent of fiscal year 2003 federal contract spending, as 
reported in the FPDS. We also reviewed literature and interviewed 
government and nongovernment officials, academics, and private sector 
organizations with relevant experience. 

To describe the general guidance on the suspension and debarment 
process and how selected agencies have implemented the process, we 
examined the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), Nonprocurement 
Common Rule (NCR), and the regulations and guidance of the 24 agencies 
that have issued supplements to the FAR governing suspension and 
debarment procedures. We analyzed documents and testimonial evidence at 
the 6 selected agencies to determine how each agency (a) used 
administrative agreements; (b) coordinated and shared suspension and 
debarment information; and (c) collected data to monitor the suspension 
and debarment process. 

To identify any needed improvements in the suspension and debarment 
process, we analyzed data from GSA's EPLS as of November 18, 2004. This 
analysis included comparing the EPLS and FPDS databases to identify any 
suspended or debarred contractors that received a new contract during a 
period of suspension or debarment. We compared 44,634 records for 
excluded parties in EPLS with 1,006,919 contractors listed in FPDS at 
the end of fiscal year 2003, the latest year for which complete data 
were available at the time of our review. Because EPLS records do not 
require contractor identification numbers, we compared other 
identifiers, such as name and address, to determine whether a contract 
action in FPDS was for the issuance of a new contract during the period 
of exclusion. We also analyzed the data for the length of time parties 
are excluded and to determine the extent to which parties are excluded 
more than once. To assess the reliability of EPLS data we (1) performed 
electronic testing of the required data elements for obvious errors in 
accuracy and completeness, (2) reviewed related documentation, and (3) 
interviewed knowledgeable agency officials. We found the data to be 
insufficiently reliable for determining whether excluded contractors 
receive new contracts, for determining the termination dates of 
exclusions, or for performing simple analyses such as the average 
length of exclusions or the percentage of parties excluded more than 
one time. We also reviewed other areas for improvements, such as 
agencies' internal data reporting and the role of the ISDC. 

We conducted our work from August 2004 through June 2005 in accordance 
with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

[End of section]

Appendix II: Statutory Debarments: 

Statutory debarments, or exclusions, are based on statutory, executive 
order, or regulatory authority other than the FAR. The grounds and 
procedures for statutory debarments may be set forth in regulations 
issued by agencies, such as the Department of Labor and EPA, which have 
enforcement responsibilities but may not be the procuring agencies. The 
authorities for these statutory debarments use various terminology for 
exclusion, such as "ineligible," "prohibited," or "listing;" however, 
the terms all encompass sanctions precluding contract awards or 
involvement in a contract for a specific period of time. Table 4 lists 
the authorities identified in GSA's EPLS as reasons for debarring 
individuals and contractors from receiving federal contracts. 

Table 4: Statutory Debarments: 

Statute: Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988; 
Description: Ineligible for federal benefits, including contracts, at 
discretion of sentencing judge following conviction(s) for a federal or 
state offense relating to the distribution or possession of controlled 
substances. (Permanently ineligible upon conviction of third offense 
for distribution.) 21 U.S.C. § 862. 

Statute: Buy American Act; 
Description: Debarred by an agency for violation of the Act concerning 
nonuse of American-produced materials. 41 U.S.C. § 10(b). 

Statute: Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act; 
Description: Prohibited from receiving federal contracts following 
conviction under either Act if intended performance is to be at 
facility which gave rise to the conviction and violating facility is 
owned, leased or supervised by convicted person at the time of award. 
42 U.S.C. § 7606; 33 U.S.C. § 1368. 

Statute: Davis-Bacon Act; 
Description: Debarred by Comptroller General for violation of the 
minimum or prevailing wage rate requirements of the Act for 
construction or repair of public buildings and works. 40 U.S.C. § 276a-
2(a). 

Statute: Service Contract Act; 
Description: Debarred by Secretary of Labor for violation of the 
minimum wage requirements of the Act, for service employees. 41 U.S.C. 
§ 354. 

Statute: Walsh-Healy Act; 
Description: Debarred by the Secretary of Labor for violation of the 
minimum wages, 40-hour work week and non-use of child labor 
requirements of the Act. 41 U.S.C. §35. 

Statute: Prohibition on Persons Convicted of Defense Contract Related 
Felonies; 
Description: Prohibited from serving in management or supervisory 
capacity on DOD contracts or serving on board of directors or as a 
consultant to defense contractors awarded DOD contracts following 
conviction of fraud or any other felony, arising out of a contract with 
DOD, 10 U.S.C. 2408. 

Statute: Reorganization Plan No. 14 of 1950, 5 USC Appendix; 
Description: Declared ineligible to receive federal contracts by the 
Secretary of Labor under the Plan's authority and based on violations 
of one or more labor standards in certain numerous federal statutes, 
such as the Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act, 40 U.S.C. 
327. 

Statute: Prohibition on Entering into Contracts Against Interest of 
U.S; 
Description: Prohibited from receiving DOD contracts over $110,000 
based on a finding by the Secretary of State that a foreign government 
supporting international terrorism owns or controls a significant 
interest in the contracting firm. 10 USC § 2327(b); DFARS § 209.104-
1(g). 

Statute: Military Recruiting on Campus; 
Description: Institutions of higher education declared ineligible to 
receive contracts based on DOD finding that the institution denied 
military recruitment on campus. Pub. L. 103-337, as amended by Pub. L. 
104-324. This provision was repealed by Pub. L. 106-65, Oct. 5, 1999. 
Currently, 10 USC 983 and DFARS 209.470-2 prohibit DOD from contracting 
with an institution of higher education if DOD determines that the 
institution prevents military recruitment or Senior Reserve Officer 
Training Corps (ROTC) on campus. 

Statute: Drug-Free Workplace Act of 1988; 
Description: Suspension or debarment from receiving federal contracts 
for violations of the Drug- Free Workplace Act of 1988, 41 U.S.C. 701. 

Statute: Executive Order 11246, as amended; 
Description: Declared ineligible for award of federal contracts by 
Secretary of Labor based on failure to satisfy obligations under equal 
opportunity or affirmative action clauses of a federal contract. 

Source: GAO analysis of EPLS codes indicating the reason for statutory 
debarment. 

Note: There is no statutory requirement to suspend or debar contractors 
who have unpaid federal tax debt.[Footnote 28]

[End of table]

[End of section]

Appendix III: Trends in Exclusions in EPLS for Selected Agencies: 

Figure 4: Trends in Exclusions in EPLS for Selected Agencies from 1995 
to 2004: 

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure]

[End of section]

Appendix IV: Selected Agencies' Suspension and Debarment Organizations: 

The FAR and NCR require agencies to establish a process for suspension 
and debarment. The organizational structure established to manage the 
process at the six agencies we reviewed is summarized in table 5. 

Table 5: Agencies' Suspension and Debarment Organizations: 

Agency: EPA; 
Lead office: Office of Grants and Debarment; 
Responsibilities: Division dedicated to investigations and case 
development refers cases to suspension and debarment official; 
Staffing: 1 Suspension and Debarment Officer 12 Professional Staff. 

Agency: GSA; 
Lead office: Office of Chief Acquisition Officer, Office of Acquisition 
Integrity; 
Responsibilities: Office of Inspector General handles suspension and 
debarment as one aspect of its investigative work and refers cases to 
the Office of Acquisition Integrity. Suspension and debarment is one 
aspect of the acquisition integrity function; 
Staffing: 1 Suspension and Debarment Officer 2 Professional Staff 1 
Support Staff. 

Agency: DLA; 
Lead office: Office of General Counsel, Contracting Integrity Office; 
Responsibilities: Defense Criminal Investigative Service performs law 
enforcement function and makes referrals to DLA. DLA also receives 
referrals from other military services' Defense Criminal Investigative 
Organizations; 
Staffing: 1 Suspension and Debarment Officer 1 Professional Staff. 

Agency: Air Force; 
Lead office: Office of Deputy General Counsel, Contractor 
Responsibility Division; 
Responsibilities: Division within General Counsel's office dedicated to 
suspension and debarment actions. Defense Criminal Investigative 
Organizations also refer cases. This Division is also responsible for 
the procurement fraud program; 
Staffing: 1 Suspension and Debarment Officer 3 Professional Staff Co-op 
students provide support. 

Agency: Army; 
Lead office: Office of Judge Advocate General, Contract Appeals 
Division, Procurement Fraud Branch; 
Responsibilities: Suspension and debarment is one aspect of the 
procurement fraud function. Additional support from the Contract 
Appeals Division is available. Defense Criminal Investigative 
Organizations also refer cases; 
Staffing: 3 Suspension and Debarment Officers (US, Europe, Korea) 6 
Professional Staff 1 Support Staff. 

Agency: Navy; 
Lead office: Office of General Counsel, Procurement Integrity Office; 
Responsibilities: Suspension and debarment is one aspect of the 
Procurement Integrity function. Defense Criminal Investigative 
Organizations also refer cases; 
Staffing: 1 Suspension and Debarment Officer 3 Professional Staff 1 
Support Staff. 

Source: GAO analysis of agency-reported data. 

[End of table]

[End of section]

Appendix V: Comments from the Department of Defense: 

OFFICE OF THE UNDER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE:
3000 DEFENSE PENTAGON: 
ACQUISITION, TECHNOLOGY AND LOGISTICS:
WASHINGTON, DC 20301-3000: 

Mr. William T. Woods:
Director, Acquisition and Sourcing Management: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street, N.W.: 
Washington, DC 20548: 

JUL 22 2005: 

Dear Mr. Woods,

This is the Department of Defense (DoD) response to the GAO draft 
report GAO-05-479, FEDERAL PROCUREMENT: Additional Data Reporting Could 
Improve the Suspension and Debarment Process, dated July 8, 2005, (GAO 
Code 120363). 

As explained in the enclosure, the DoD concurs with comments regarding 
the two recommendations made by the referenced report. Please direct 
any questions or comments to my principal action officer, Mr. Gary 
Blasser, by calling 703-695-7197 or via e-mail at Gary.Blasser@osd.mil. 

Signed by: 

Deidre A. Lee: 

Director, Defense Procurement and Acquisition Policy: 

Enclosure: As stated: 

GAO DRAFT REPORT - DATED JULY 8, 2005 GAO CODE 120363/GAO-05-479: 

"FEDERAL PROCUREMENT: Additional Data Reporting Could Improve the 
Suspension and Debarment Process"

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE COMMENTS TO THE RECOMMENDATIONS: 

RECOMMENDATION 1: To improve the effectiveness of the suspension and 
debarment system, we recommend that the Administrator of General 
Services modify the EPLS database to require contractor identification 
numbers for all actions entered into the system. 

RESPONSE: Concur with comments. This recommendation is consistent with 
the prescription at Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) section 
9.404(b). Presently, FAR summarizes these identification numbers as: 
the Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) Number, Social Security 
Number (SSN), Employer Identification Number (EIN), or other Taxpayer 
Identification Number (TIN), if available. In addition, the EPLS 
database should include a field for entry, and use, of either a 
Contractor and Government Entity (CAGE) Code or a NATO Contractor and 
Government Entity (NCAGE) Code, if available. Maximizing use of these 
identification numbers should enable acquisition personnel to more 
easily and accurately identify entities that have been suspended, 
proposed for debarment, or debarred. 

DoD Military Departments and defense agencies account for more than 99% 
of all suspension and debarment actions taken against entities. 
Whenever DoD offices suspend; propose debarment; or debar an entity, 
they provide the entity's name and CAGE Code or NCAGE Code to the 
Defense Logistics Information Service (DLIS - http://www.dlis.dla.mil/) 
DLIS lists such entities as ineligible for contract awards. Given the 
automated procurement system used by many DoD offices, it is important 
to enable these offices to check for the CAGE Code or NCAGE Code of a 
prospective awardee in the EPLS database. 

The report indicates that GAO found the EPLS database has a field for 
entering an entity's DUNS Number, but it noted this is not a required 
field. As a result, this data is often omitted from the EPLS database. 
The DAR Council is considering an April 2005 recommendation by its 
Debarment Suspension Business Ethics Subcommittee to address this issue 
by making it mandatory to include the DUNS Number and CAGE/NCAGE Code 
of an entity as part of any suspension or debarment recommendation sent 
to a DoD Suspension and Debarment Official. 

RECOMMENDATION 2: To improve the suspension and debarment process, we 
recommend that the Director of the Office of Management and Budget 
require agencies to collect and report on administrative agreements and 
compelling reason determinations to the Interagency Suspension and 
Debarment Committee and ensure that these data are available to all 
suspension and debarment offices. 

RESPONSE: Concur with comments. As required by 10 U.S.C. 2393(b) as 
implemented by DFARS 209.405, DoD must provide written notice of a 
Compelling Reason Determination to the General Services Administration 
(GSA), Office of Acquisition Policy. DoD suggests it may be better if 
GSA were to make a copy of each determination available, only under 
that portion of the EPLS website that has access reserved for 
Government employees, rather than to involve the Interagency Suspension 
and Debarment Committee as referenced in the recommendation. 
Notification that an agency has executed an administrative agreement 
could be handled similarly, again - in a location available only to 
Government employees. If so, this may require a modification of 
existing regulations to establish and help maintain such a practice. 
Meanwhile, DoD agencies informally share information about their 
Administrative Agreements, and this has proven to be sufficient. 

[End of section] 

FOOTNOTES

[1] The total dollar value of contracting actions reported in the 
Federal Procurement Data System (FPDS) exceeded $300 billion in fiscal 
years 2003 and 2004. 

[2] A suspension is a temporary exclusion of a contractor pending the 
completion of an investigation and any ensuing legal proceedings. A 
debarment is a fixed-term exclusion. Generally, the period of debarment 
shall not exceed 3 years. Suspensions and debarments are frequently 
referred to collectively as exclusions. 

[3] At the time we were planning our review, fiscal year 2003 was the 
latest year with complete available data. 

[4] Minimum wage statutes include, for example, the Davis-Bacon Act and 
the Service Contract Act. Other statutes that might be the basis for a 
statutory debarment include the Buy American Act and various 
environmental protection acts. Statutory debarments are further 
described in appendix II. Declarations of ineligibility also may be 
based on executive orders or non-FAR regulations. 

[5] NCR was adopted under the rulemaking authority of the respective 
agencies after the Office of Management and Budget issued guidelines, 
as provided for in Executive Order No. 12549 (1986) and is described in 
FAR 9.403. The policies and procedures are common to executive branch 
agencies and federal agencies that elected to join the governmentwide 
NCR system, but an agency can modify the common rule for specific 
suspension and debarment issues unique to the agency. NCR was amended 
on November 26, 2003, in 68 Fed. Reg. 66535 to resolve technical 
differences between the procurement and nonprocurement systems. 

[6] While this report focuses mainly on the FAR suspension and 
debarment provisions, the same provisions are generally included in the 
NCR. 

[7] EPLS is the single repository for suspensions, proposed and actual 
debarments, as well as other exclusions related to federal procurement 
and nonprocurement activities. The database can be accessed at 
www.epls.gov. 

[8] FAR 9.404. 

[9] GAO, Procurement: Suspension and Debarment Procedures, GAO/NSIAD-
87-37BR (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 13, 1987). 

[10] Adequate evidence means information sufficient to support the 
reasonable belief that a particular act or omission has occurred. 
Indictment constitutes adequate evidence for suspension. FAR 2.101; FAR 
9.407-2. 

[11] A preponderance of the evidence means proof by information that, 
compared with that opposing it, leads to the conclusion that the fact 
at issue is more probably true than not. FAR 2.101. 

[12] One of these administrative agreements was reached with WorldCom. 
See GAO, GSA Actions Leading to Proposed Debarment of WorldCom, GAO-04-
741R (Washington, D.C.: May 26, 2004) for more information on the 
proposed debarment of WorldCom, Inc. 

[13] Voluntary exclusions are another form of alternative remedy 
provided for by the NCR. These exclusions are referred to as 
governmentwide exclusion agreements, which are based on the terms of 
settlement between an entity and one or more federal agencies. 

[14] For DOD agencies, a number of these elements are required. See, 
for example, DFARS subpart 203.70. 

[15] FAR 9.405; DFARS 209.405. 

[16] Additionally, FAR precludes contractors from entering into 
subcontracts in excess of $25,000 with a contractor that is debarred, 
suspended, or proposed for debarment unless there is a compelling 
reason to do so, and so notifies the contracting officer before 
entering into such a subcontract. FAR 52.209-6. 

[17] FAR 9.407-1(c) and 9.406-1(b). 

[18] Affiliates are business concerns, organizations, or individuals 
where, directly or indirectly, one controls the other or a third party 
controls both. FAR 9.403. 

[19] FAR 9.404(c). 

[20] Unique identifiers also include an individual's Social Security 
number, Employer Identification Number, or other Taxpayer 
Identification Number. 

[21] Contracting officers are required to consult EPLS (1) after 
opening bids or receipt of proposals, and (2) immediately prior to 
contract award. FAR 9.405(d)(1) and (4). Additionally, for acquisitions 
where the contract value is expected to exceed the simplified 
acquisition threshold, which is generally $100,000, FAR requires 
offerors to certify that they are not presently debarred, suspended, 
proposed for debarment, or declared ineligible for the award of 
contracts by any federal agency. FAR 52.209-5 and FAR 52.212-3(h). 

[22] EPLS allows either exact or partial name searches. 

[23] To determine whether suspended or debarred contractors were 
receiving new contracts during a period of exclusion, we compared 
44,634 records for excluded parties in EPLS with 1,006,919 contracting 
actions listed in FPDS for fiscal year 2003--the latest year for which 
complete data were available at the time of our review. 

[24] Most of these exclusions are for individual service providers, 
such as physicians, who have engaged in fraud and have been excluded 
from participation in federal health care programs. 

[25] The ISDC was created by Executive Order 12549 in February 1986. 

[26] www.jagcnet.army.mil/ARMYFRAUD. 

[27] DFARS § 209.405. 

[28] GAO has recently reported on contractors who have unpaid federal 
tax debt. See GAO, Financial Management: Thousands of Civilian Agency 
Contractors Abuse the Federal Tax System with Little Consequence, GAO-
05-637, (Washington, D.C.: June 16, 2005). 

GAO's Mission: 

The Government Accountability Office, the investigative arm of 
Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional 
responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability 
of the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use 
of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides 
analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make 
informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO's commitment to 
good government is reflected in its core values of accountability, 
integrity, and reliability. 

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony: 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 
cost is through the Internet. GAO's Web site ( www.gao.gov ) contains 
abstracts and full-text files of current reports and testimony and an 
expanding archive of older products. The Web site features a search 
engine to help you locate documents using key words and phrases. You 
can print these documents in their entirety, including charts and other 
graphics. 

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and 
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as "Today's Reports," on its 
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document 
files. To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to 
www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to e-mail alerts" under the "Order 
GAO Products" heading. 

Order by Mail or Phone: 

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent 
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or 
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. 
Orders should be sent to: 

U.S. Government Accountability Office

441 G Street NW, Room LM

Washington, D.C. 20548: 

To order by Phone: 

Voice: (202) 512-6000: 

TDD: (202) 512-2537: 

Fax: (202) 512-6061: 

To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs: 

Contact: 

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470: 

Public Affairs: 

Jeff Nelligan, managing director,

NelliganJ@gao.gov

(202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office,

441 G Street NW, Room 7149

Washington, D.C. 20548: