How much discretion in punishing contractors should agencies have?

Dan Gordon, the outgoing administrator of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy, told senators Nov. 16 that mandatory suspensions and debarments of contractors actually undermine the judgment of the agency official who is charged to make those decisions.

“It seems to undercut the role of the suspension and debarment official to say we’re taking away your discretion,” Gordon told Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) during a hearing held by the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee.

With mandatory suspensions or debarments, “we’re deciding no matter what you’ve done to correct the problem, no matter what remedial measures you’ve taken, you’re going to automatically suspend or debar,” he added.

Related stories:

Procurement leader blasts mandatory debarment proposal

Suspension, debarment grab attention, resources

In contrast, McCaskill supports requirements for mandatory suspension or debarment of a company for a criminal indictment and conviction of a situation related to a federal contract. She said it's a matter of good character on behalf of the United States.

“I think deterrents for other contractors are really important, and it allows leverage to get better behavior out of contractors,” McCaskill said. The senator chairs the committee’s Contracting Oversight Subcommittee. She’s also chairwoman of the Armed Services Committee’s Readiness and Management Support Subcommittee, which considers contracting issues, among other areas.

Steven Shaw, deputy general counsel for contractor responsibility for the Air Force, also disagreed with McCaskill's proposal. Instead, he suggested a mandatory referral within a period of time to a debarring official after a criminal conviction. Beyond that, any termination by default of a contract should be going to the debarring official. Shaw has been the Air Force’s debarring official for the last 15 years.

He posed a few situations that may be a concern if the penalties were mandatory. New management may have taken the reins of a company with an entirely new corporate structure. Or the misconduct could have come from an instance from years ago.

“You need to be able to encourage companies to fix the problem, and if there’s mandatory debarment, I don’t know if you have that encouragement,” he said.

But mandatory suspensions or debarments may not be too far off, despite the objections of some.

The fiscal 2012 Defense Department Appropriations Act (H.R. 2219) has a new provision that would prohibit DOD from awarding a contract to a company that was convicted of a felony criminal violation under any federal law in the previous two years. DOD would be stopped from awarding a contract any corporation with unpaid federal taxes. Other appropriations bills include similar language.

The House passed the bill earlier this year. The Senate has not passed its version.

During the hearing, Gordon said the administration has proposed different option. An agency would have to abide by a mandatory suspension or debarment, unless officials conclude there were particular circumstances that would not require an automatic penalty.

“There would be a presumption that would address your concern,” he told McCaskill. But “you’d still retain the ability for the agency to say this is a special case.”

About the Author

Matthew Weigelt is a freelance journalist who writes about acquisition and procurement.

Cyber. Covered.

Government Cyber Insider tracks the technologies, policies, threats and emerging solutions that shape the cybersecurity landscape.


Reader comments

Thu, Nov 17, 2011

Still much slips thru the cracks and this adds to the apathy and indifference. Since the risk is rather low there are a lot of abuses creeping under the radar when added up results in a considerable loss. Furthermore, corrective actions can and do result in a ‘sick’ environment. I have seen some contractors who got caught with their hand in the cookie jar become rather oppressive to their employees.

Thu, Nov 17, 2011 Scott

It seems like national politics has taken over in the federal workplace with ongoing articles about "punishing" federal contractors. The appearance that all federal employees are good and wholesome while contractors are trash builds on the "us vs. them" mentality that exists from our President to our elected representatives. Many federal contractors work under ambiguous and contradictory regulations and taskings and, for the most part, we do our best to adhere to the whims of the multitude of agencies that feel they want to control every movement of our body. To automatically punish us is a purposeful attempt to place blame and cover their own butts. Not too many years ago, federal agencies and contractors worked as partners in an attempt to accomplish an over-reaching goal; now all we contractors seem to be are whipping boys in order to preserve the power maddness that currently exists in our government bureaucracy.

Thu, Nov 17, 2011

Why not make it a 3 strikes you're out? Companies are allowed 3 indiscretions - no matter the severity. Once they hit the magic 3 - out they go and they cannot come back. I believe that significant money could be saved by eliminating many of these deadbeat, self-serving corporations.

Please post your comments here. Comments are moderated, so they may not appear immediately after submitting. We will not post comments that we consider abusive or off-topic.

Please type the letters/numbers you see above

More from 1105 Public Sector Media Group