DOT’S SUSPENSION AND DEBARMENT 

PROGRAM DOES NOT SAFEGUARD 

AGAINST AWARDS TO IMPROPER PARTIES

Department of Transportation

Report Number: ZA-2010-034

Date Issued: January 7, 2010
U.S. Department of

Memorandum

Transportation

Office of the Secretary

of Transportation

Office of Inspector General

Subject: ACTION: Report on DOT’s Suspension and 

Debarment Program Does Not Safeguard Against 

Awards To Improper Parties

Department of Transportation

Date: January 7, 2010

Report Number ZA2010034

From: Mark H. Zabarsky

Assistant Inspector General for Acquisition and 

Procurement Audits

Reply to 

Attn. of: JA-60

To: Assistant Secretary for Administration

Federal Aviation Administrator 

The Department of Transportation (DOT) is responsible for overseeing significant 

contract and grant obligations to meet its mission needs. These obligations 

averaged $56 billion annually over the last 4 years and grew under the American 

Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA), which added $48 billion to 

DOT’s management responsibilities. DOT’s stewardship of taxpayer dollars 

includes adhering to Federal suspension and debarment (S&D) regulations and 

policies, which permit the exclusion of parties1

On May 18, 2009, we issued an Advisory on DOT’s Suspension and Debarment 

Program,

found to be unethical, dishonest, or 

otherwise irresponsible, from receiving contracts and grants involving Federal 

funds. Suspension and debarment are among the Government’s strongest tools to 

deter unethical and unlawful uses of Federal funds because one Federal agency’s 

S&D action is applicable Governmentwide.

2 which highlighted potential management and funding risks that could 

impact the effective and efficient use of ARRA funds.3

 1 In this report, we use the term “parties” to refer to businesses, individuals, and other entities subject to suspension and 

debarment. Individuals, businesses, non-profits, even state and local government entities may be suspended or 

debarred.

 This report presents the 

2

 ARRA and Office of Management and Budget guidance requires that Inspectors General promptly report such risks. 3 U.S. Department of Transportation, Office of Inspector General, ARRA Advisory – DOT’s Suspension and Debarment 

Program, Advisory No. AA-2009-001, May 18, 2009. All OIG reports and testimonies can be viewed on our website 

at: www.oig.dot.gov. 
2

results of our audit on (1) the timeliness of Operating Administrations’ (OA) S&D 

decisions and reporting and (2) DOT’s S&D policies and oversight of OA actions 

to exclude prohibited parties from obtaining contracts, grants, and cooperative 

agreements.

4

Our review focused on the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Federal 

Aviation Administration (FAA), and Federal Transit Administration (FTA). 

These OAs represented over 90 percent of DOT’s S&D activity over calendar 

years 2005 through 2008. We performed our audit between October 2006 and 

October 2009 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing 

standards as prescribed by the Comptroller General of the United States, including 

tests as we considered necessary, to detect fraud, waste, and abuse. Exhibit A 

describes the scope of our audit and the methodology we used to achieve our 

objectives.

 

RESULTS IN BRIEF 

OAs’ S&D decisions and reporting have been significantly delayed, increasing the 

risk that DOT and other agencies will award contracts and grants to parties that 

DOT will ultimately suspend or debar. A recent case illustrates this risk. 

Specifically, in the 10 months FHWA took to make a suspension decision, the 

Commonwealth of Kentucky used $24 million in ARRA funds to award contracts 

to companies whose officials were associated with parties that FHWA ultimately 

suspended. On average, the OAs we reviewed took over 300 days to reach a 

suspension decision and over 400 days to reach a debarment decision. Several 

factors contribute to these delays. First, some OAs have not relied on indictment 

or conviction standards to establish the evidentiary basis for suspension or 

debarment actions; instead, they often perform extra, time-consuming tasks that 

are not required by applicable regulations and polices before deciding cases. 

Second, OAs have not assigned sufficient priority to their S&D workload. 

Instead, staff typically performed this work as a collateral duty, which resulted in 

cases being delayed. Reporting of DOT’s S&D decisions was also untimely. 

Nearly half of the S&D decisions we reviewed were not promptly entered into the 

Excluded Party Listing System (EPLS)—a web-based system used to track S&D 

decisions and affected parties Governmentwide—within 5 days, as required by 

DOT. These data entry delays make it difficult for officials to confidently identify 

excluded parties and ensure they are not awarded new contracts or grants.

Several weaknesses in DOT’s S&D policies, procedures, and internal controls 

make them inadequate to safeguard DOT’s efforts to exclude prohibited parties 

 4 For DOT, contracts and grants are the most common types of covered transactions. As a result, we will use the term 

“contracts and grants” to refer to all covered transactions.
3

from obtaining contracts and grants. First, DOT’s policy does not clearly establish 

that OAs must suspend or propose debarment within 45 days of a suspension or 

debarment referral from the Office of Inspector General’s (OIG) Office of 

Investigations or other sources. As a result, the policy has been open to 

interpretation, leaving some OAs to exceed the 45-day limit. Second, DOT does 

not provide sufficient management oversight to ensure it has an effective S&D 

Program. Although DOT revised its S&D policy to provide more accountability 

and transparency, the policy did not assign monitoring of its S&D Program to a 

specific office. The Office of the Secretary (OST) and DOT’s nine OAs are 

responsible for managing their own S&D programs. Consequently, OST is not 

aware of many of the problems and cannot take the appropriate corrective action.

Finally, DOT lacks controls needed to identify weaknesses in capturing accurate 

and timely data in EPLS. Incomplete and inaccurate data not only weaken Federal 

agencies’ ability to identify excluded parties, they weaken the usefulness of 

DOT’s annual S&D reports as an oversight tool. In fiscal year 2008 alone, the 

report excluded 53 pending S&D cases. These deficiencies leave DOT and other 

government agencies vulnerable to doing business with irresponsible parties. 

To address these Program weaknesses, we recommend that the Office of Senior 

Procurement Executive (OSPE) revise DOT’s S&D Order to strengthen its internal 

controls and modify its corresponding data systems. We also recommend actions 

be taken by FAA to strengthen its S&D Program.

BACKGROUND 

In fiscal year 2008, the Federal Government’s contract obligations exceeded $500 

billion to over 160,000 contractors. To protect this significant investment, 

agencies are permitted to suspend or debar parties that are found to be unethical, 

dishonest, or otherwise irresponsible. Suspensions and debarments, however, 

cannot be used as punishment for past misconduct or a leverage to resolve

criminal, civil, or administrative matters. (See table 1 for key S&D elements.)

In 2005, DOT revised its policy, Governmentwide Debarment, Suspension and 

Ineligibility (Order 4200.5D), in part, after learning that it awarded a contract to a 

company that was under our investigation against which it could have initiated a 

suspension action. The revisions aimed to strengthen DOT's S&D policies and 

add accountability to the S&D Program by, for example, establishing deadlines for 

making S&D decisions, reporting them to the General Services Administration 

(GSA), and requiring an annual report on all S&D actions to be used as an 

oversight tool. At the 2006 National Fraud Prevention Conference, the Secretary 

explained these revisions as a “zero-tolerance policy for those who try to shortchange the American people” and urged DOT administrators to enforce it 

vigorously.
4

Table 1. Summary of Key Elements of Federal Suspension and Debarment

Policies

Suspension Debarment

Overview

• Action that temporarily prevents a party from 

participating in most government-funded 

procurement and nonprocurement5

transactions6

• A final determination that a party is not 

presently responsible and thus ineligible 

to participate in federally funded contracts 

pending completion of an or grants.

investigation or legal proceedings.

Standards of Evidence/ Causes

• Adequate evidence that there may be a cause 

of debarment; an indictment for criminal 

conduct constitutes adequate evidence.

• Immediate need for action to protect Federal 

business interests. 

• Preponderance of evidence that the party 

warrants debarment; a conviction of 

criminal conduct or a civil judgment 

constitutes a preponderance of evidence. 

• Agency may consider remedial measures 

and mitigating factors when determining 

party’s present responsibility.

Prior Notice

• None required. • At least 30 days.

Timeframe for OAs to Take Action under DOT Order

• Within 45 days of notification of an indictment 

or other referral.

• Within 45 days of notification of a 

conviction or other referral.

Period of Ineligibility

• Usually not to exceed 1 year. • Usually not to exceed 3 years.

Entitlement To Contest

• After notice from the agency’s suspension 

official, but a suspension is effective 

immediately.

• If a party contests the debarment during 

the notice period, the debarment is not 

effective until the suspension and 

debarment official issues a written 

decision.

Source: DOT Order 4200.5D, Governmentwide Debarment, Suspension and Ineligibility, 2 CFR, Part 180, OMB 

Guidelines to Agencies on Governmentwide Debarment and Suspension (Nonprocurement), and FAR, Subpart 9.4.

Agencies are required to report excluded parties in EPLS, a web-based system 

maintained by GSA to track S&D decisions Governmentwide. EPLS includes 

 5 Nonprocurement includes any transaction, other than a procurement contract, including but not limited to grants, 

cooperative agreements, loans, and loan guarantees. 6 A suspended or debarred party may not participate in “covered transactions.” Covered transactions include contracts, 

grants, cooperative agreements, direct loans or contracts or subcontracts under them. During an assessment the 

suspending official may examine the basic documents, including grants, cooperative agreements, loan authorizations, 

contracts, and other relevant documents are also covered transactions. For DOT, contracts and grants are the most 

common types of covered transactions. As a result, we will use the term “contracts and grants” to refer to all 

covered transactions.
5

information on entities that have been debarred, suspended, proposed for 

debarment, or otherwise declared ineligible from receiving Federal contracts, 

certain subcontracts, and certain Federal assistance and benefits. Such information 

includes the contractor’s name, address, and identification number; the cause for

suspension or debarment and the associated period of exclusion; and the name of 

the agency that took the action. While GSA maintains EPLS, individual agencies 

are responsible for reporting accurate data within 5 working days of the action’s 

effective date. 

In February 2009, the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

convened a hearing on the effectiveness of the Federal Government’s attempts to 

prevent ineligible parties from receiving Government contracts.

7

 The Government 

Accountability Office testified that parties excluded for serious offenses—ranging 

from national security violations to tax fraud—improperly received Federal 

contracts and other funds due, in part, to deficiencies in Federal information 

systems used to track suspended and debarred parties.8

DELAYS IN DECIDING AND REPORTING CASES HINDER THE 

EFFECTIVENESS OF DOT’S S&D PROGRAM

 

OAs often do not meet DOT’s deadlines for deciding and reporting S&D cases. 

Delays are largely due to unnecessary and lengthy reviews before deciding cases, 

a lack of priority assigned to DOT’s S&D workload. Also, DOT’s Order requires

S&D actions be entered into EPLS within 5 working days after an action’s 

effective date. However, a lack of OSPE documentation and staff causes these 

actions to be entered untimely. Not only do these delays put DOT and other 

Federal agencies at risk of awarding contracts or grants to parties who should be 

suspended or debarred, but they also create funding risks that could impact the 

effective and efficient use of funds—especially those awarded under ARRA. 

FHWA’s Untimely Suspension Failed To Prevent the Award of 

Recovery Act Funds to Parties Under Indictment

Over the past 2 years, we have reported on the need for DOT to improve the 

timeliness of its S&D decisions and reporting.9

 7 U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, hearing entitled “How Convicts 

and Con Artists Receive New Federal Contracts,” February 26, 2009.

 The disbursement of ARRA funds 

escalated the need to promptly decide and report cases against parties that 

8 U.S. Government Accountability Office, Excluded Parties List System, Suspended and Debarred Businesses and 

Individuals Improperly Receive Federal Funds, GAO-09-419T, February 26, 2009. 9

 DOT-OIG, DOT’s Fiscal Year 2009 Top Management Challenges, PT-2009-005, November 17, 2008. 
6

defrauded the Government—a finding we reported in March 200910 and again in 

our May 2009 ARRA Advisory to DOT.11

Despite this increased attention, between June and August 2009, the 

Commonwealth of Kentucky awarded over $24 million in ARRA funds to

companies that FHWA—the largest recipient of ARRA funding in DOT—could 

have suspended under DOT’s S&D policy and Code of Federal Regulations.

 According to the Secretary of 

Transportation, accountability and monitoring all aspects of Recovery Act funding 

is one of DOT’s highest priorities. 

12 In 

September 2008, OIG sent a referral to FHWA based on an indictment charging 

company officers and a state government official with bribery, conspiracy, and 

theft from a government agency receiving Federal funds, and obstruction of 

justice. These individuals allegedly bribed state officials to obtain confidential 

state documents to determine bid estimates. In July 2009, approximately 10 

months after OIG’s referral, FHWA suspended the individuals cited in the referral, 

two of whom were associated with the companies awarded ARRA contracts.13

Figure 1. Timeline for FHWA’s Suspension

 

Figure 1 highlights the consequences of not expeditiously processing S&D 

actions.

 10 DOT-OIG, American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009: Oversight Challenges Facing the Department of 

Transportation, MH-2009-046, March 31, 2009. 11 DOT-OIG, American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009: DOT Issues Advisory on Department’s Suspension 

and Debarment Program, AA-2009-001, May 18, 2009. 12 The Code of Federal Regulations states that persons are affiliates of each other, or with companies, if direct or 

indirect control can be established. 13 On August 21, 2009, FHWA listed these individuals in EPLS.

September 2008

• DOT’s OIG Office of Investigations forwarded to FHWA’s Chief Counsel a referral notification 

for suspension. The referral was supported by a U.S. District Court indictment. 

• FHWA advised the OIG it would consider taking an administrative action against the parties 

after it received an additional referral from FHWA’s Division Administrator, as prescribed in 

FHWA’s procedures.

July 2009

• Approximately 10 months after the OIG’s referral, FHWA suspended three individuals 

indicted for violating U.S. law. 

• FHWA did not suspend companies affiliated with these individuals, who later received ARRA 

contracts.

August 2009

• An OIG Office of Investigations’ case agent’s review of Recovery Act Projects found that 

ARRA funds were awarded by the Commonwealth of Kentucky in contracts for highway 

projects to companies whose principals FHWA suspended in July 2009. 

• FHWA provided OSPE with input for these individuals in EPLS, 45 days after the suspension 

and debarment official’s decision was effective.
7

Source: OIG analysis of DOT information.

With better communication between FHWA and Kentucky’s Transportation 

Cabinet regarding the forthcoming suspensions, the awarding of the ARRA 

contracts may have been avoided.

Delays in OA S&D Decisions Are Largely Due to Inefficient Processes 

and Failure To Assign Priority to S&D Cases

Complete, accurate, and timely recording of S&D decisions help ensure that 

government contractors who have acted unethically do not receive additional 

government dollars. However, as of March 31, 2009,14

Table 2. Processing Times for S&D Decisions

about 70 percent of OAs’

suspensions took more than the required 45 days—a deadline established to 

protect DOT and the Government’s interests—and the average processing time 

was 301 days. While no time limits are put on debarment decisions, OAs are also 

taking too long to issue these decisions, with processing times averaging 415 days

(see table 2). These lengthy delays have put DOT and other Federal agencies at 

risk of awarding contracts and grants to parties who should be suspended or 

debarred. 

OA

Suspensions Debarments

Number of 

Cases

Processing Times in Days Number of 

Cases

Processing Times in Days

Average Longest 

Case

Average Longest 

Case

FAA 2 10 17 7 172 663

FHWA 5 568 850 12a 641 1,193

FTA 4 113 149 4 165 255

Total 11 301 23 415

a Five FHWA cases are still open without a final decision by a suspension and debarment official. Their disposition is as follows: two

are indefinitely suspended and awaiting the suspension and debarment official’s signature on debarment letter, and three are not 

covered by suspension or debarment and have been waiting for a suspension and debarment official decision for up to 1,193 days. 

Source: OIG analysis of DOT data, June 2005 – December 2008.

Some cases have been pending for several years without action because OAs lack 

follow-up procedures to provide closure to these open cases. For example, 

FHWA, acting as the lead agency in a joint investigation with the Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA),15

 14 OIG analysis was conducted on data collected through December 2007. For additional information on methodology, 

see exhibit A.

did not take timely action to suspend a contractor that 

it knew had been indicted for conspiracy, bribery, and unlawful storage of 

15 According to 2 CFR, 180.620, when more than one Federal agency has an interest in a suspension or debarment, 

agencies may consider designating one agency as the lead agency for making the decision.
8

hazardous materials.16

Two factors contribute to these delays. First, OAs often review cases after 

receiving investigative referrals. However, Federal regulations and DOT’s Order

both state that an indictment is adequate evidence to support a suspension, and a 

conviction or civil judgment is adequate evidence to support a debarment. Despite 

these criteria, OA staff frequently performed extra time-consuming steps in 

deciding their S&D cases, such as researching and gathering additional 

information on the case, analyzing the competitive impact of the case on Federalaid programs, and developing recommendations to suspend or debar the party. 

This lengthy review and decision process unnecessarily prolongs time sensitive 

suspension and debarment decisions. FHWA, which processes the majority of 

S&D cases in DOT, noted these additional steps allow parties—many of which are 

small businesses that depend solely on the Federal Government for work—an 

opportunity to show why they should not be suspended. However, Federal 

regulations provide for suspended parties to contest a suspension or take remedial 

measures to get the suspension lifted. Regardless, in deciding S&D cases, the 

primary concern should be to ensure that the Government does not give additional 

taxpayer funds to indicted or convicted parties. The extra steps OAs perform—

generally without deadlines or monitoring—leave DOT and other Federal agencies 

vulnerable to doing business with fraudulent or unethical parties and do not ensure 

those parties will be excluded from gaining future contracts and grants.

 In May 2005, the company pleaded guilty. However, for 

more than 2 years, FHWA’s debarment action remained “pending.” Ultimately, 

EPA took action to debar the company and its principals in mid-2007. According 

to an FHWA suspension and debarment official, the case “slipped through the 

cracks,” and FHWA needed to reevaluate supporting information to close the case. 

In September 2009—27 months after EPA’s debarment—FHWA administratively

revised its records to show this case was closed.

Second, OAs have not given sufficient priority to their S&D workload. Instead, 

the suspension and debarment officials and support staffs assigned to do S&D 

work stated that such work is considered a collateral duty. Consequently, we 

found their S&D workload competes with their other duties and responsibilities. 

For example, according to these officials, attorneys responsible for S&D are 

pulled from their S&D duties to perform high profile litigation and other 

assignments their OA determined to be a higher priority. As a sign of these 

delays, of the 134 open cases initiated since 2002, 96 do not have documented 

closure in the Governmentwide and DOT tracking system for S&D open cases. 

 16 The company was indicted in Oklahoma and suspended by Oklahoma’s DOT from receiving state contracts in 2004. 
9

Less Than Half of DOT’s S&D Decisions Were Entered into EPLS 

Within the Required Timeframe

Both Federal regulations17 and DOT’s Order require that S&D actions be entered 

into EPLS within 5 working days after an action’s effective date.18

Table 3. Compliance with 5-Day EPLS Entry Requirement

 However, our 

review showed almost half of the 132 EPLS S&D entries between June 2005 and

July 2008 were made after the 5-day requirement. OSPE’s data entry exceeded 

the requirement from 3 to 864 days, and 14 cases took over 100 days (see table 3). 

Source: OIG analysis of DOT data, June 2005 to July 2008.

We found several causes for these delays. In one case, FTA did not provide 

documentation on one business and four individuals it debarred in November 2006

until March 2007, when we brought it to their attention. According to FTA 

officials, S&D staff misplaced paperwork on these decisions, causing this delay.19

DOT LACKS ADEQUATE MANAGEMENT AND CONTROLS TO 

ENSURE S&D PROGRAM INTEGRITY

 

Although we found no new contracts or grants had been awarded to the business 

or individuals during this period, this example highlights how DOT and other 

Federal agencies could be vulnerable to awarding new contracts or grants to 

unethical parties. In another case, FHWA’s submission of required information to 

OSPE was delayed because, according to FHWA officials, personnel had no 

assigned backup while on leave or in training. One OSPE representative also 

noted some submissions lacked data elements required by Federal regulations and 

were returned to OAs for completion. Additionally, OSPE’s EPLS data entries 

have been delayed because backup data entry staff had not been properly trained. 

To better ensure program integrity, management controls are used to emphasize 

accountability, monitoring, and clear organizational roles and responsibilities. 

 17 2 CFR, Subpart E – Excluded Parties List System, 180.520(c) and FAR, Subpart 9.404(c)(3). 18 Under DOT’s Order, OSPE is responsible for entering data into EPLS, and OAs are required to promptly notify 

OSPE of their suspension or debarment decision. 19 We identified this condition by comparing FTA’s list of cases to EPLS and brought it to FTA’s attention.

Met 

standard

Did not meet the standard

5 days

or less 6 – 30 days 31 – 55 days 56 – 100 days 101 – 365 days 365 days 

or more

69 33 8 8 13 1
10

However, no one office is responsible for managing DOT’s S&D Program. 

Instead, program management is delegated to OST and DOT’s nine OAs, creating 

gaps in DOT’s knowledge of weaknesses affecting the S&D Program that warrant 

corrective actions. Such weaknesses include a lack of OA understanding about the 

intent of DOT’s 45-day policy for making S&D decisions, a failure to identify 

inaccurate and missing EPLS data, and the usefulness of DOT’s annual S&D 

reports.

DOT Policy on Timeliness of S&D Decisions Has Been Open to 

Interpretation

DOT’s Order aims to ensure accountability for DOT's S&D Program by 

establishing deadlines for making S&D decisions.20

• FHWA interpreted the 45-day period as the goal for its divisions to conduct 

research and provide an S&D recommendation to FHWA’s suspension and 

debarment officials. 

According to a former Office 

of General Counsel (OGC) attorney responsible for leading the revision of DOT’s 

Order, the intent of the 45-day requirement covers the total timeframe for DOT 

officials to complete all needed tasks to make a final suspension decision or

propose a debarment decision. However, DOT’s S&D 45-day policy is unclear 

and open to interpretation by officials responsible for suspensions and debarments

in the OAs we reviewed. For example: 

• FAA interpreted the 45-day period as the goal for its headquarters staff to 

make a decision after it receives a recommendation and supporting information 

for an S&D action from a regional office.

21

• FTA met the intent of DOT’s Order—that is, it interpreted the 45-day period as 

its goal to suspend or propose debarment after it receives a referral notification.

Interpreting the 45-day requirement other than how it was intended creates 

opportunities for delays—some significant—and ultimately puts DOT and other 

Federal agencies and recipients of Federal funds at an increased risk of awarding 

contracts and grants to unethical, dishonest, or otherwise irresponsible parties. 

 20 DOT Order 4200.5D provides a 45-day timeframe for initiating suspensions and proposed debarments, but this does 

not clearly reference the entire process to make a final S&D decision. 21 According to FAA officials, while not required to adhere to DOT’s Order for procurement S&D decisions, they 

follow the 45-day requirement.
11

Lack of Quality Controls on EPLS Data Has Resulted in Errors That 

Makes it Difficult To Identify Excluded Parties 

Federal regulations require contract and grant officials to check EPLS before 

making awards to ensure that suspended or debarred parties do not receive new 

contracts or grants.22

OSPE is required to enter a range of information provided by OAs on excluded 

parties into EPLS, including their DUNS number—a nine-digit identification 

number assigned by Dun & Bradstreet, Inc. Checking an entity’s DUNS number 

enables agencies to more confidently determine whether a specific contractor has 

been excluded. However, for the 49 suspended or debarred parties that we 

reviewed in EPLS, 8 that were coded correctly as “firms” were missing required 

DUNS numbers

 However, data entered into EPLS were not always accurate 

or complete. Without comprehensive and reliable EPLS data, contracting officers 

cannot confidently identify excluded parties.

23

We found other actions not accurately reflected in EPLS. For example:

and 16 were miscoded by OSPE as “individuals.” While OAs 

are responsible for providing DUNS numbers, OA representatives said they were 

not aware of the requirement, or they did not know how to find the DUNS 

number. An OSPE representative noted she did not want to delay entering 

information into EPLS to obtain the missing DUNS numbers. 

• One business was incorrectly removed from EPLS by OSPE staff and left off 

for over 2 1⁄2 years. 

• Nine parties were listed more than once. 

While OSPE corrected the errors we identified, there is no assurance that other 

errors exist or that errors will not continue because OAs and OSPE do not have an 

effective review process. Specifically, not all OAs retain a copy of their data 

submissions to OSPE, which makes reconciliation impossible. In addition, OA 

staffs are unclear of their responsibilities, which negatively impacts the quality of 

this review. Such weaknesses allow for inaccurate EPLS entries, which increases 

the risk that suspended or debarred businesses could be awarded new contracts or 

grants during a period of exclusion. The importance of DOT providing accurate 

information to EPLS is heightened by the fact that GSA does not verify data 

directly provided by agencies.

 22 2 CFR, Subpart E – Excluded Parties List System, 180.520(c). 23 For the EPLS database, a DUNS number is required for businesses, not individuals.
12

The Usefulness of DOT’s S&D Annual Reports as an Oversight 

Mechanism Is Questionable

DOT’s Order requires OSPE to prepare an annual report detailing all OA cases in 

which S&D actions were considered, initiated, or completed, and the status or

outcome of each case.24 However, the past four annual reports were incomplete 

and inaccurate. For example, the 2008 annual report excluded 53 prior years’ 

open cases.25

According to a former DOT Deputy Assistant General Counsel involved in the 

development of DOT’s Order, the annual report was intended to be used as an 

oversight tool for OGC and OIG to assess OA compliance with the Order. Given 

the unreliability of the annual reports, OGC and OIG have made little or no use of 

these reports because they did not assist in overseeing DOT’s S&D Program. 

While OSPE replaced its paper-based reporting in 2007 with SharePoint, an 

electronic database intended to help track DOT’s S&D caseload, SharePoint failed 

to improve the quality of annual S&D reporting. For example:

 The 2005, 2006, and 2007 annual reports also excluded required 

written justifications documenting why an OA decided not to suspend or debar 

parties in nearly half (19 of 40) of the cases. Other problems with these reports

included cases with incorrect action dates, missing referral dates, and duplicate 

entries. DOT’s Order has not assigned responsibility to OSPE or the OAs for 

ensuring that annual report information is accurate, and the failure of OSPE and 

the OAs to pay sufficient attention to detail, such as verifying data when preparing 

the annual submissions, contributed to these errors. 

• The 2007 annual report excluded about one-fourth (39 of 152) of the cases that 

should have been listed. Also, its format—a 900-page list of raw data that OAs 

entered into SharePoint—was not a usable management or oversight tool. This 

list did not summarize the S&D Program’s activities or results at the DOT or 

OA levels, such as referrals, the number of suspensions and debarments, 

pending cases, and cases where the OA took no action. 

• The 2008 annual report summarized S&D Program activities; however, it 

excluded over 75 percent of the cases that should have been listed. 

In May 2009, DOT’s former Senior Procurement Executive26

 24 OSPE prepares a Department-wide report based on OA submissions.

stated SharePoint is 

intended to be an effective tool to help track cases on a day-to-day basis, as well as 

for management to monitor DOT’s S&D Program. Subsequently, OSPE began a 

SharePoint pilot program intended to allow managers to perform keyword queries 

25 To determine the number of missing cases, we compared the total number of cases listed in SharePoint to the number 

of cases listed in the annual report. 26 As of December 17, 2009, the Senior Procurement Executive left DOT. Pending actions are being carried out by 

OSPE.
13

and generate their own summary reports. As of the date of this report, OSPE has 

not reported on the results of this pilot. 

CONCLUSION

One of the Government’s strongest defenses against contract fraud, waste, and 

abuse is its right to suspend and debar parties found to be unethical, dishonest, or 

otherwise irresponsible. However, despite DOT’s revisions to its S&D Order 

coupled with the deficiencies we found in the S&D Program—untimely decisions, 

unreliable data, and inadequate oversight—the Department has not achieved the 

desired outcome of having a strong S&D program. Furthermore, the additional 

resources provided by ARRA requiring careful oversight heighten the risks of 

DOT awarding taxpayer money to unethical parties. Unresolved S&D cases 

coupled with DOT’s rapid disbursement of billions of ARRA dollars creates a 

‘perfect storm’ for contractor’s intent on defrauding the Government. Until DOT 

takes action to ensure timely S&D decisions, complete and accurate EPLS data, 

and effective oversight, it will continue to risk awarding billions of taxpayer 

dollars to parties that have been suspended or debarred.

 

RECENT AGENCY ACTIONS

On May 19, 2009, in response to our ARRA Advisory, the Deputy Secretary of 

Transportation reported to the Inspector General that DOT has taken actions to 

improve its S&D Program and will maintain a continued focus in this area. Later, 

on May 27, 2009, the former Senior Procurement Executive issued a 

memorandum to DOT’s suspension and debarment officials, which provided 

clarifying expectations to ensure that DOT does not award Federal monies to 

parties that have committed fraud or are otherwise known to be irresponsible and 

to effect more timely processing and reporting of S&D actions. For example, 

these expectations included deciding whether or not to take actions within a 45-

day timeframe and promptly entering such decisions in the EPLS database. In 

addition, OSPE is revising DOT’s S&D Order and plans to issue it by late January 

2010.

On September 21, 2009, in FHWA’s response to our ARRA Advisory, the Chief 

Counsel cited recent actions to improve processing of S&D cases. Some of these 

steps include consolidating the responsibility for processing cases to the Office of 

Chief Counsel, doing a comprehensive review of all pending cases, processing 

OIG referrals since May 2009 within the 45-day requirement, and developing an 
14

action plan for processing high priority cases. We have not verified this 

information but will assess as part of our recommendation follow-up process. 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

While DOT’s recent actions constitute steps towards improving its S&D policy, 

we recommend that DOT officials take the additional actions to address the S&D 

Program’s weaknesses cited in this report:

We recommend that the Senior Procurement Executive:

1. Revise DOT Order 4200.5D, Governmentwide Debarment, Suspension and 

Ineligibility to:

a. Assign an office oversight responsibility for monitoring DOT’s 

implementation of the S&D Program.

b. Require that OAs establish implementation procedures for their S&D 

Program roles and responsibilities.

c. Clarify that OAs are to issue suspension or debarment notices—or make 

a written justification why a suspension or debarment is not warranted 

under the circumstances—within 45 days of notification of a referral. 

d. Require that OAs follow S&D evidence standards provided under 

Federal regulations—an indictment is a sufficient basis by itself for 

suspension, and a civil judgment or conviction is a sufficient basis for 

debarment—and that factors not contemplated by regulations should not 

be considered when determining a party’s present responsibility.

2. Modify DOT’s SharePoint and establish corresponding internal controls and 

validation processes to:

a. Ensure the entry of accurate, complete, and timely S&D data, such as

periodic reconciliations between case files and SharePoint.

b. Upgrade SharePoint to allow queries and summary reports for the 

system to be used as a management oversight tool and meet the annual 

report requirements.

3. Improve OSPE’s internal controls for the entry of accurate, complete, and 

timely S&D information to EPLS, such as periodic reconciliations between 

SharePoint and EPLS.
15

4. Require OAs to immediately provide OSPE a full inventory of DOT’s open 

S&D cases.

We recommend that FAA:

5. Revise FAA’s Procurement Guidance, Debarment and Suspension to:

a. Assign an office oversight responsibility for monitoring implementation 

of FAA’s S&D Program.

b. Require the establishment of implementation procedures for their S&D 

Program roles and responsibilities.

c. Clarify that FAA is to issue suspension or debarment notices—or make 

a written justification why a suspension or debarment is not warranted 

under the circumstances—within 45 days of notification of a referral. 

d. Require adherence to S&D evidence standards provided under Federal 

regulations, namely to (1) suspend parties upon learning of their 

indictment, and (2) debar parties upon learning of their conviction or 

receipt of a civil judgment.

6. Improve its internal controls for the entry of accurate, complete, and timely 

S&D information to EPLS, such as periodic reconciliations between

SharePoint and EPLS.

AGENCY COMMENTS AND OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

RESPONSE 

A draft of this report was provided to the Department on October 28, 2009. On 

December 4, 2009, we received a consolidated response from OST and FAA, 

which can be found in its entirety in the Appendix of this report. OST concurred 

with all our recommendations. FAA concurred with recommendation 5.a., 5.b., 

5.d., and 6, and partially concurred with recommendation 5.c., stating that it will 

clarify AMS guidance to include the 45-day goal for issuance of S&D notices or to 

provide a written justification on why a suspension or debarment is not issued. 

OST and FAA have either taken appropriate corrective actions or provided 

acceptable target dates, with the exception of recommendation 6. We request that 

FAA provide us with a target date for incorporating and conducting a review of 

EPLS entries into its National Acquisition Evaluation Program. 

Additionally, we disagree with FHWA’s comments contained in the Department’s 

response regarding the Commonwealth of Kentucky. While FHWA stated it felt 
16

compelled to do further research to conclude the unindicted parties were affiliates 

before considering a suspension action, our opinion is that sufficient legal cause

existed to immediately suspend the parties as affiliates. Specifically, the FAR's 

definition27 of an "affiliate" for purposes of suspension and debarment states: 

Business concerns, organizations, or individuals are affiliates of each 

other if, directly or indirectly, (1) either one controls or has the power to 

control the other, or (2) a third party controls or has the power to control 

both. Indicia of control include, but are not limited to, interlocking 

management or ownership, identity of interests among family members, 

shared facilities and equipment, common use of employees, or a business 

entity organized following the debarment, suspension, or proposed 

debarment of a contractor which has the same or similar management, 

ownership, or principal employees as the contractor that was debarred, 

suspended, or proposed for debarment.

The evidence available to FHWA in this case included several indicators of 

control specifically listed in the FAR and in our opinion, provided sufficient 

grounds to immediately propose suspension. 

ACTIONS REQUIRED 

OST and FAA's actions planned and taken satisfy the intent of our 

recommendations, subject to follow-up provisions in DOT Order 8000.1C. 

However, regarding recommendation 6, we request that FAA provide us with a

target date for incorporating and conducting a review of EPLS in its National 

Acquisition Evaluation Program. We appreciate the courtesies and cooperation of 

Department of Transportation representatives during this audit. If you have any 

questions concerning this report, please call me at (202) 366-5225 or Anthony 

Wysocki, Program Director, at (202) 493-0223. 

#

cc: Martin Gertel, M-1

Senior Procurement Executive, M-60

James Washington, FAA

Ramesh K. Punwani, FAA

Anthony Williams, ABU-100

Cynthia Thornton, HAIM-13

Tina Campbell, HAIM-13

Kristine Leiphart, TBP-2

 27 FAR 9.403.
17

Exhibit A. Scope and Methodology

EXHIBIT A. SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY 

We conducted this audit in accordance with generally accepted government 

auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to 

obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence that provides a reasonable basis for our 

findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the 

evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions

based on our audit objectives.

We conducted this audit between October 2006 and October 2009. To address our 

objectives, we selected OAs that accounted for most of its S&D activity during 

calendar years 2005 and 2006. From a universe of 129 cases we obtained from 

DOT’s 2005 and 2006 Annual Reports, we identified that the FHWA, FAA, and 

FTA represented 94 percent of DOT’s S&D activity—or 121 cases. Table 4

provides a full account of the universe of 129 cases.

Table 4. Suspension and Debarment Actions - Calendar Year 2005 and 2006

OAs

Casesa Actions 

Total

Considered

Not Acted 

Upon Suspensions Debarments

FAA 8 b 10 3

FHWA 97 37 70 35

FTA 16 b 16 2

Other c 8 1 2 1

 Total 129 38 98 41

a A single case can include multiple parties including businesses, other organizations, and individuals. As a result, totals for cases and 

actions are not intended to equal. 

b OA failed to provide data.

c Maritime Administration and Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration.

Source: DOT’s fiscal year 2005 and 2006 S&D Annual Reports.

During the course of our audit, we interviewed officials and reviewed policies; 

data; and information from OSPE, OGC, OAs (FHWA, FAA, and FTA), and the 

OIG’s Office of Investigations.

To assess whether DOT’s S&D policies, procedures, and internal controls are 

adequate to ensure that prohibited parties are excluded from obtaining contracts

and grants, we reviewed applicable laws, regulations, and departmental polices 

and procedures. Specifically, we analyzed:

• Code of Federal Regulations provisions related to suspension and 

debarment (2 C.F.R. Governmentwide Debarment and Suspension).
18

Exhibit A. Scope and Methodology

• Federal Acquisition Regulation, Subpart 9.4 – Debarment Suspension, and 

Ineligibility.

• DOT Order 4200.5D, Governmentwide Debarment, Suspension and 

Ineligibility, 2005. 

• OA supplements to DOT Order 4200.5D: FHWA Order 2000.2A, FHWA 

NonProcurement Suspension and Debarment Process (Federal-Aid 

Program), 2000.

• OSPE’s Suspension and Debarment Annual Reports, 2005–2008.

Also, we interviewed suspension and debarment officials from OSPE and the OAs 

to obtain their views on these policies and procedures. We worked with OIG’s 

Office of Investigations to understand and assess their role in implementing 

DOT’s Order, such as their processes to referring cases to OAs for suspension or 

debarment consideration. In addition, we interviewed officials from the EPA and 

the Defense Logistics Agency to obtain information on their S&D policies and 

procedures.

To assess whether DOT’s OAs effectively implemented DOT’s S&D policies and 

procedures, we reviewed FAA, FHWA, and FTA’s internal controls, procedures, 

practices, and supporting databases. We interviewed suspension and debarment 

officials in these OAs to obtain a clear understanding of their processes and their 

implementation. In addition, from a list of the 186 parties suspended or debarred 

Departmentwide from 2005 to 2007, we judgmentally selected a sample to 

determine whether required information on such parties was entered in EPLS in a 

timely manner. Our selection criteria were preliminary determination of length of 

time between referral date and action date and whether the case was over a year 

old at the time of review. We analyzed documentation and testimonial evidence at 

the selected OAs to determine how each: (1) used administrative agreements, (2) 

coordinated and shared S&D information, and (3) collected data to monitor the 

S&D process. Also, we compared entries from our sample in the EPLS and 

Federal Procurement Database System-Next Generation to identify if any 

suspended or debarred businesses received a new contract during a period of 

suspension or debarment.

During the course of this audit, we conducted additional analysis on information 

collected from 2007 through 2009 in order to update data initially reviewed during 

the earlier part of the audit. 
19

Exhibit B. Major Contributors to This Report

Exhibit B. Major Contributors to This Report

Anthony Wysocki Program Director

Name Title

Kenneth Prather Program Director

Ann Wright Project Manager

Gary Fishbein Project Manager

Amanda Watson Senior Auditor

Krista Kietrys Writer-Editor

Seth Kaufman Associate Counsel
20

Appendix. Agency Comments

APPENDIX. AGENCY COMMENTS

 U.S. Department of 

Transportation 

Office of the Secretary

of Transportation

______________________________________________________________________________________

Subject: 

ACTION: Management Response to OIG Draft Report, 

“DOT’s Suspension and Debarment Program Does Not 

Safeguard Against Awards to Improper Parties” 

Date: DEC 4 2009

 

From: Linda J. Washington 

Assistant Secretary for Administration 

Reply to

Attn. of:

JA-60 

To: Mark H. Zabarsky

Assistant Inspector General for 

 Acquisition and Procurement Audits

This review from the Office of Inspector General (OIG) provides useful, actionable 

information that has already served as the basis for considerable change in the way 

suspension and debarment cases are handled in the Department, with additional changes 

on the way. The information provided in the report, along with the willingness of the 

OIG staff on this review to directly engage management, and identify the rationale and 

basis for their perspectives, is extremely useful for bringing about the type of positive 

change this Administration has promised. Change is underway both in the Office of the 

Secretary (OST) and in operating administrations (OA) such as the Federal Highway 

Administration (FHWA) and is intended to expedite the handling of suspension and 

debarment cases, raise their priority for action, better track status, and ensure 

expectations are clearly and unequivocally enumerated, particularly with regard to 

responsibilities and timeframes. FHWA in particular has substantially ramped up the 

resources and management attention devoted to suspension and debarment cases and has 

already completed significant accomplishments in the area. In addition, FAA is revising 

its Acquisition Management System guidelines in line with the draft report’s 

recommendations. 

OST is Providing the Framework for Clear Expectations and Better Tracking

Within the Office of the Secretary, the Senior Procurement Executive is responsible for 

overall suspension and debarment policy. This Office also maintains situational 

awareness of suspension and debarment actions within DOT and serves as the single 

point of contact with other agencies to disseminate information about their suspension 

and debarment actions. Making use of the information OIG first conveyed in its May 

Memorandum 
21

Appendix. Agency Comments

advisory report, OST initiated a comprehensive revision of the DOT suspension and 

debarment order. This complex undertaking involves striking an operational balance 

among competing priorities and perspectives and is expected to be complete by January 

29, 2010. 

With regard to situational awareness, OST began requiring the use of an electronic 

reporting system in 2007; however, the system has proven insufficiently robust to provide 

the capability to maintain adequate tracking and awareness. As a result, the Office of the 

Senior Procurement Executive is working to complete a revised SharePoint-based system 

that will offer enhanced tracking and management capabilities by the second quarter of 

fiscal year (FY) 2010. Finally, the Office of the Senior Procurement Executive has taken 

action to better ensure that suspension and debarment data is entered timely and 

accurately into the government-wide Excluded Parties List System (EPLS). Guidance for 

this action was disseminated in September 2009.

FHWA Substantially Strengthened Suspension and Debarment Capabilities

Subsequent to the OIG ARRA Advisory on suspension and debarment, FHWA 

implemented a comprehensive review of suspension and debarment policies, processes, 

backlogs and resources, and has actions completed and underway to substantially 

improve its handling of suspension and debarment referrals. FHWA established a 

dedicated team within the Office of Chief Counsel to work with its debarring official. 

This team is responsible for identification, review and disposition of all pending 

suspension and matters within stated deadlines. This team includes individuals who are 

dedicated to working suspension and debarment issues supplemented by additional legal 

resources to ensure that actions are taken timely. 

This team immediately set about developing and implementing a revised set of detailed 

case processing protocols which brought primary responsibility for action into 

headquarters. Notably, FHWA’s revised policy calls for issuing suspension and proposed 

debarment orders within 45 days of notification to FHWA of an indictment from any 

source, or making a written justification why a suspension or debarment is not warranted 

under the circumstances. FHWA’s actions demonstrate that its new approach to handling 

these cases is capable of meeting that deadline based on the two indictment referrals 

received from OIG since that time. FHWA also completed a comprehensive inventory of 

cases on hand and established a case tracking system that includes monthly status reports 

to management. It has achieved progress addressing that inventory. For example, of the 

6 cases identified in the OIG ARRA Advisory, 3 are now closed, 2 parties have been 

suspended, and FHWA is pursuing information on the final case prior to final disposition. 

To achieve further progress, FHWA intends to work closely with OIG to ensure that 

future referrals provide the full set of information necessary to move forward with 

suspensions. Preliminary analysis indicates that among other sources of delay, the receipt 

of incomplete information in the original referral document can slow the process. FHWA 

and OIG have already begun discussions on suspension and debarment and FHWA 

intends to work with the investigative side of OIG to ensure there is a full and mutual 
22

Appendix. Agency Comments

understanding of the nature and extent of information needed to move these cases to 

completion. This is critical as most referrals come through the OIG and FHWA does not 

have its own investigatory resources. The Office of the Chief Counsel will work more 

closely with the OIG to obtain additional information on referred matters, including 

documentary evidence not otherwise available from state records, regarding ownership 

and control by indicted persons of companies that the OIG believes may be associated 

with them. 

Actions Taken and Pending with Regard to the Commonwealth of Kentucky

With respect to the Commonwealth of Kentucky matter referred to in the OIG draft 

report, FHWA suspended each of the three indicted individuals referred by the OIG. It 

also suspended one company for which corporate records indicate an officer is one of the 

indicted individuals, although there is no information to indicate that this company is 

bidding, or able to bid, on highway work. Even if the company were able to bid, 2 CFR 

1200.405 automatically would exclude this company by virtue of having a principal that 

has been suspended. 

FHWA did not immediately suspend any of the other unindicted companies that the draft 

report maintains were associated with the indicted parties, because from its perspective, 

the available evidence was not legally sufficient. However, FHWA has taken a number 

of other steps to ensure the federal highway program is protected. First, with regard to 

the two Recovery Act funded contracts with the companies in question, FHWA requested 

that OIG staff work together with its division staff to provide additional oversight to 

ensure that public funds invested in these projects are used appropriately and for their 

intended purpose. Secondly, FHWA has issued show cause orders to the six companies 

sharing the same or similar address as the suspended company to provide information and 

documentation regarding the companies’ affiliation with the suspended individuals and 

company. Upon receipt and review of this information, FHWA will take swift and 

appropriate action as warranted. Third, FHWA met with OIG staff to discuss this matter 

in detail to gain a comprehensive sense of the perspective and standards behind the OIG 

position, and has agreed to further review its processes in light of both OIG’s perspective 

and the practices common in other government agencies. FHWA intends to continue this 

dialogue, particularly if any further process changes result.

Federal Transit Administration Addressed Suspension and Debarment Issues

The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) considers its suspension and debarment 

responsibilities to be an important component of its grant and contracting programs and 

procedures. FTA notes that while the information in the OIG draft report regarding the 

time required by FTA to process suspension and debarment actions was accurate at the 

time (2006-2007) for the 4 sample cases reviewed, since then, FTA has acted to improve 

the timeliness of these actions. Specifically, FTA filled the then-vacant position of 

Assistant Chief Counsel for General Law and hired a new Director of Procurement.

These personnel actions, along with establishing standard operating procedures for 
23

Appendix. Agency Comments

Suspension and Debarment processing, has increased FTA’s focus on suspensions and 

debarment and decreased processing times.

RECOMMENDATIONS AND RESPONSES

The OIG draft report offers recommendations to both the Senior Procurement Executive 

within OST and FAA, as FAA operates under independent procurement authority. 

Responses for both sets of recommendations are included in this response, starting with 

those pertaining to OST.

Recommendation 1: Revise DOT Order 4200.5D, Governmentwide Debarment, 

Suspension and Ineligibility to: (a) assign an office oversight responsibility for 

monitoring DOT’s implementation of the suspension and debarment program, (b) require 

that OAs establish implementation procedures for their suspension and debarment 

program roles and responsibilities, (c) clarify that OAs are to issue suspension or 

debarment notices—or make a written justification why a suspension or debarment is not 

warranted under the circumstances—within 45 days of notification of a referral, and (d) 

require that OAs follow suspension and debarment evidence standards provided under 

Federal regulations—an indictment is a sufficient basis by itself for suspension and a 

civil judgment or conviction is a sufficient basis for debarment—and that factors not 

contemplated by regulations should not be considered when determining a party’s present 

responsibility. 

Response: Concur. The Senior Procurement Executive is in the process of revising 

DOT Order 4200.5D, and expects to have it completed by January 29, 2010. The revised 

order accommodates each element of the recommendation. During the interim, the 

Senior Procurement Executive distributed clarifying guidance to appropriate officials 

throughout the Department. This guidance offered some clarification regarding 

expectations for the prompt and appropriate handling of suspension and debarment 

actions. 

Recommendation 2: Modify DOT’s SharePoint and establish corresponding internal 

controls and validation processes to: (a) ensure the entry of accurate, complete, and 

timely suspension and debarment data, such as periodic reconciliations between case files 

and SharePoint, and (b) upgrade SharePoint to allow queries and summary reports for the 

system to be used as a management oversight tool and meet the annual report 

requirements. 

Response: Concur. Modifications to the SharePoint website are underway to provide a 

means to capture and document suspension and debarment actions in a more 

comprehensive manner than previously available. The new system has been beta tested 

and will be undergoing final development once the revised DOT Suspension and 

Debarment Order is fully stabilized. This new system is expected to be complete during 

the second quarter of FY 2010. Upon completion of the site and additional testing, the 

Office of the Senior Procurement Executive will also provide training to OA and OIG 

staff and provide a detailed owners manual for user assistance to help ensure appropriate 

usage of the system.
24

Appendix. Agency Comments

Recommendation 3: Improve the Office of the Senior Procurement Executive’s internal 

controls for the entry of accurate, complete, and timely suspension and debarment 

information to EPLS, such as periodic reconciliations between SharePoint and EPLS. 

Response: Concur. The Office of the Senior Procurement Executive recognized the 

need for a new process to better ensure timely and accurate EPLS reporting. In 

September 2009, it issued a new requirement calling for all suspension and debarment 

actions to be reported to a dedicated web site. These measures will remain in place until 

the revised Order is in place and the revised SharePoint system is fully implemented. 

Final revised procedures will be documented in the Order.

Recommendation 4: Require OAs to immediately provide Office of the Senior 

Procurement Executive a full inventory of DOT’s open suspension and debarment cases. 

Response: Concur. In May 2009, the Senior Procurement Executive issued a request to 

DOT suspension and debarment officials to provide it with updates by May 29, 2009. 

The OAs provided the requested updates and the Senior Procurement Executive is 

monitoring the program utilizing the reports submitted. Once the revised SharePoint site 

is fully operational, we will have the capability to continuously monitor and report on all 

suspension and debarment actions.

FAA RECOMMENDATIONS AND RESPONSES 

Revise FAA’s Procurement Guidance, Debarment and Suspension to:

Recommendation 5a: Assign an office oversight responsibility for monitoring 

implementation of FAA’s suspension and debarment program.

Response: Concur. FAA will assign an office oversight responsibility for monitoring 

implementation of its suspension and debarment program. The assignment will be 

promulgated by a change to FAA’s Acquisition Management System (AMS) Guidance at 

T3.2.2.7, Suspension and Debarment. Action is expected to be completed by April 2010.

Recommendation 5b: Require the establishment of implementation procedures for their 

suspension and debarment program roles and responsibilities.

Response: Concur. Procedures for FAA suspension and debarment program are 

established in FAA’s AMS Guidance at T3.2.2.7.A.3.b.2, Debarment Procedure and 

T3.2.2.7.A.3.b.3, Suspension Procedure. However, FAA will review the Procedures to 

ascertain whether further information will be useful to the AMS audience. Action is 

expected to be completed by April 2010.

Recommendation 5c: Clarify that FAA is to issue suspension or debarment notices—or 

make a written justification why a suspension or debarment is not warranted under the 

circumstances—within 45 days of notification of a referral.
25

Appendix. Agency Comments

Response: Concur in part. FAA will clarify AMS Guidance at T3.2.2.7 to include the 45 

day goal for issuance of suspension or debarment notices or to make a written 

justification why a suspension or debarment is not issued. Action is expected to be 

completed by April 2010.

Recommendation 5d: Require adherence to suspension and debarment evidence 

standards provided under Federal regulations, namely to (1) suspend parties upon 

learning of their indictment, and (2) debar parties upon learning of their conviction or 

receipt of a civil judgment.

Response: Concur. FAA will revise AMS to strengthen adherence to the suspension and 

debarment evidence standards provided under Federal regulations by using “should” in 

lieu of “may.” T3.2.2.7.A.3.c.(2)(b) currently states that the suspending official may 

suspend based on an indictment, and AMS T3.2.2.7.A.3.b.(1)(a) currently states that the 

debarring official may debar based on a conviction or civil judgment. This is consistent 

with Federal regulations at 48 CFR 9 which do not require suspension or debarment 

based on indictment, conviction or a civil judgment. Action is expected to be completed 

by April 2010.

Recommendation 6: Improve its internal controls for the entry of accurate, complete, 

and timely suspension and debarment information to EPLS, such as periodic 

reconciliations between SharePoint and EPLS.

Response: Concur. FAA will incorporate a review of EPLS entries into its National 

Acquisition Evaluation Program (NAEP). NAEP will conduct annual reviews to ensure 

proper and timely entry of applicable data into EPLS.