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 
What GAO Found

United States Government Accountability Office

Why GAO Did This Study

Highlights

Accountability Integrity Reliability

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. 

Highlights of GAO-05-479, a report to 

congressional committees 

July 2005

FEDERAL PROCUREMENT 

Additional Data Reporting Could Improve 

the Suspension and Debarment Process 

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 

Agency Suspensions 

Proposed 

debarments Debarments 

Administrative

agreements 

Air Force 94 246 233 2 

Army 68 113 90 9 

Navy 2 27 33 0 

Defense Logistics 

Agency 12 147 133 1 

GSA 70 53 33 4

EPA 16 65 68 22 

Total 262 651 590 38 

Source: Agency-reported data. 

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 indepth review. 

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. 
Page i GAO-05-479 Suspension and Debarment 

Letter 1

Results in Brief 2 

Background 4 

FAR Provides Governmentwide Policies, and Agencies Make 

Specific Exclusion Decisions 7 

Additional Reporting and Sharing of Information Could Improve 

the Effectiveness of the Process 14 

Conclusions 18 

Recommendations 18 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 19 

Appendix I Scope and Methodology 21 

Appendix II Statutory Debarments 23 

Appendix III Trends in Exclusions in EPLS for Selected Agencies 26 

Appendix IV Selected Agencies’ Suspension and Debarment 

Organizations 28 

Appendix V Comments from the Department of Defense 29 

Tables 

Table 1: Agencies That Developed Supplements to the FAR, 

Adopted NCR, or Developed Additional Guidance 10 

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

2004 12 

Table 3: Key Characteristics of Administrative Agreements 13 

Table 4: Statutory Debarments 23 

Table 5: Agencies’ Suspension and Debarment Organizations 28 

Contents 
Page ii GAO-05-479 Suspension and Debarment 

Figures 

Figure 1: Exclusions in EPLS Governmentwide from 1995 to 2004 5 

Figure 2: Current Exclusions in EPLS among Six Selected 

Agencies, as of November 2004 6 

Figure 3: Typical Elements of Selected Agencies’ Suspension and 

Debarment Process 9 

Figure 4: Trends in Exclusions in EPLS for Selected Agencies from 

1995 to 2004 26 

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 

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. However, 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. 
Page 1 GAO-05-479 Suspension and Debarment 

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.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.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 

 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. 

United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548 
Page 2 GAO-05-479 Suspension and Debarment 

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).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. 

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 intraagency 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 

 3

At the time we were planning our review, fiscal year 2003 was the latest year with 

complete available data. 

Results in Brief 
Page 3 GAO-05-479 Suspension and Debarment 

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. 
Page 4 GAO-05-479 Suspension and Debarment 

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.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.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.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.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 

 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 

nonprocurment 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. 

Background 
Page 5 GAO-05-479 Suspension and Debarment 

address, contractor identification number, the cause of the action, the 

period of the exclusion, and the name of the agency taking the action.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 

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. 

 8

FAR 9.404. 

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

9,000

10,000

11,000

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

Exclusions

In 1997, 3,940 exclusions that had been recorded without action dates were assigned dates of 

February 3, 1997, as part of an electronic conversion that took place on that date.

Source: GAO analysis of EPLS data as of November 2004.
Page 6 GAO-05-479 Suspension and Debarment 

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

November 2004 

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. 

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.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 

 9

GAO, Procurement: Suspension and Debarment Procedures, GAO/NSIAD-87-37BR

(Washington, D.C.: Feb. 13, 1987). 

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

G

EPA

SA

DLA

Navy

Army

Air Force

Exclusions

Source: GAO analysis of EPLS data.

Agency

708

512

160

404

286

351

617

Procurement/nonprocurement suspensions and debarments

Statutory debarments
Page 7 GAO-05-479 Suspension and Debarment 

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. 

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.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 

 10Adequate 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. 

FAR Provides 

Governmentwide 

Policies, and Agencies 

Make Specific 

Exclusion Decisions 
Page 8 GAO-05-479 Suspension and Debarment 

present responsibility.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. 

 11A 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. 
Page 9 GAO-05-479 Suspension and Debarment 

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

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. 

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 

Source: GAO analysis of data from Interagency Committee on Suspension and Debarment and selected agencies.

Suspension Debarment

Typical events that can initiate a case

Contractor has been indicted.

Another federal agency is conducting an investigation.

Official submits information about a contractor (e.g., Defense 

Criminal Investigative Service, Judge Advocate General, or

Inspector General).

Suspension and debarment officials initiate inquiry on the basis

of information from external sources (e.g., contractor community, 

news media, and anonymous tips).

Contractor independently acknowledges a problem.

Typical events that can initiate a case

Is there a reason to suspend (e.g., adequate

evidence and need for immediate action)?

Yes

suspend and look into

option to propose debarment

No

no need for 

suspension

No

case closed or

suspension continues

No

case closed

Yes; choices for action include

 debarment

 no debarment because

 contractor has taken sufficient

 action to correct problem

 negotiate administrative 

 agreement as an alternative

 to debarment

Is there a preponderance of evidence?

Yes 

propose debarment

and pursue case

Is there a reason to propose debarment?

Contractor has been convicted of fraud related to obtaining or 

performing a contract.

Conviction of crimes such as theft, bribery, false statements, 

or tax evasion.

Serious violation of a contract or subcontract such as willful 

failure to perform.
Page 10 GAO-05-479 Suspension and Debarment 

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 Supplement NCR Guidance 

Agency for International Development z z 

Department of Agriculture z z 

Broadcasting Board of Governors z z

Department of Commerce z z 

DOD Air Force z z z

DOD Army z z z

DOD DLA z z z

DOD Navy z z z

Department of Education z z z

Department of Energy z z 

Environmental Protection Agency z z z

General Services Administration z z z

Federal Emergency Management Agency z 

Department of Health and Human Services z z 

Department of Justice z z z

Department of Labor z z 

National Aeronautics and Space Administration z z 

National Science Foundation z z z

Nuclear Regulatory Commission z 

Office of Personnel Management z z 

Department of State z z 

Department of Transportation z z z

Department of Treasury z z z

Department of Veterans Affairs z z 

Totals 24 21 12 

Source: GAO analysis of supplements to FAR and guidance. 
Page 11 GAO-05-479 Suspension and Debarment 

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 
Page 12 GAO-05-479 Suspension and Debarment 

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 Suspensions 

Proposed 

debarments Debarments 

Administrative 

agreements 

Air Force 94 246 233 2 

Army 68 113 90 9 

Navy 2 27 33 0 

DLA 12 147 133 1 

GSA 70 53 33 4a

EPA 16b 65b 68 22 

Total 262 651 590 38 

Source: Agency-reported data. 

a

GSA has only recently begun to use administrative agreements and entered into four during fiscal 

year 2004.12 

b

These data include eight cases in which a suspension and proposed debarment were issued 

simultaneously under the NCR. 

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.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 

 12One 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. 

13Voluntary 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. 
Page 13 GAO-05-479 Suspension and Debarment 

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.14

Table 3: Key Characteristics of Administrative Agreements 

Key Characteristics GSA EPA Air Force Army DLA Navy 

 Written ethics policy or code z z z z z z

 Employee ethics training z z z z z z

 Compliance hotline z z z z z z

 Ethics officer or advisor z z z z z z

 Independent auditor or ombudsman to monitor compliance z z z z 

 Scheduled reporting to agency z z z z z z

 Contractor payment for portion of agency’s administrative costs z z z z

Source: Agency reported data. 

Note: GAO analysis of 8 administrative agreements. 

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.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.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 

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

subpart 203.70. 

15FAR 9.405; DFARS 209.405. 

16Additionally, 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. 
Page 14 GAO-05-479 Suspension and Debarment 

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 solesource 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.17 Exclusions may extend to affiliates, if named in the 

suspension or debarment notice and decision.18 Organizational entities of 

excluded contractors that can demonstrate independence may be allowed 

to receive government contracts. 

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. 

The FAR requires agencies to enter various information on contractors 

into EPLS, including contractors’ and grantees’ Data Universal Numbering 

System (DUNS) number19—a unique nine-digit identification number 

assigned by Dun & Bradstreet, Inc. to identify unique business entities.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 

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

18Affiliates are business concerns, organizations, or individuals where, directly or 

indirectly, one controls the other or a third party controls both. FAR 9.403. 

19FAR 9.404(c). 

20Unique identifiers also include an individual’s Social Security number, Employer 

Identification Number, or other Taxpayer Identification Number. 

Additional Reporting 

and Sharing of 

Information Could 

Improve the 

Effectiveness of the 

Process 

Incomplete or Unreliable 

EPLS Data Make It 

Difficult to Identify 

Excluded Parties 
Page 15 GAO-05-479 Suspension and Debarment 

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.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.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 

 21Contracting 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). 

22EPLS allows either exact or partial name searches. 
Page 16 GAO-05-479 Suspension and Debarment 

during a period of exclusion.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.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. 

 23To 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. 

24Most 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. 
Page 17 GAO-05-479 Suspension and Debarment 

The Interagency Suspension and Debarment Committee (ISDC) is 

responsible for coordinating policy, practices, and information sharing on 

various suspension and debarment issues.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.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 

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

26www.jagcnet.army.mil/ARMYFRAUD. 

ISDC Provides an 

Opportunity to Facilitate 

Sharing of Information on 

Administrative Agreements 

and Exclusion Waivers 
Page 18 GAO-05-479 Suspension and Debarment 

determination to GSA,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. 

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. 

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. 

 27DFARS § 209.405. 

Conclusions 

Recommendations 
Page 19 GAO-05-479 Suspension and Debarment 

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. 

Agency Comments 

and Our Evaluation 
Page 20 GAO-05-479 Suspension and Debarment 

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. 

William T. Woods, Director 

Acquisition and Sourcing Management 
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology 

Page 21 GAO-05-479 Suspension and Debarment 

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 

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology 
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology 

Page 22 GAO-05-479 Suspension and Debarment 

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. 
Appendix II: Statutory Debarments 

Page 23 GAO-05-479 Suspension and Debarment 

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 Description 

Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988 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. 

Buy American Act Debarred by an agency for violation of the Act concerning nonuse of American-produced 

materials. 41 U.S.C. § 10(b). 

Clean Air Act and 

Clean Water Act 

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. 

Davis-Bacon Act 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). 

Service Contract Act Debarred by Secretary of Labor for violation of the minimum wage requirements of the 

Act, for service employees. 41 U.S.C. § 354. 

Walsh-Healy Act 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. 

Prohibition on Persons Convicted of 

Defense Contract Related Felonies 

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. 

Reorganization Plan No. 14 of 1950, 5 USC 

Appendix 

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. 

Prohibition on Entering into Contracts 

Against Interest of U.S. 

 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). 

Appendix II: Statutory Debarments 
Appendix II: Statutory Debarments 

Page 24 GAO-05-479 Suspension and Debarment 

Statute Description 

Military Recruiting on Campus 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. 

Drug-Free Workplace Act of 1988 Suspension or debarment from receiving federal contracts for violations of the Drug-Free 

Workplace Act of 1988, 41 U.S.C. 701. 

Executive Order 11246, as amended 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.1

 1

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). 
Appendix II: Statutory Debarments 

Page 25 GAO-05-479 Suspension and Debarment 
Appendix III: Trends in Exclusions in EPLS 

for Selected Agencies 

Page 26 GAO-05-479 Suspension and Debarment 

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

Appendix III: Trends in Exclusions in EPLS 

for Selected Agencies 

Calendar year

Exclusions

Source: GAO analysis of EPLS data as of November 2004.

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900

1999

1998

1997

1996

1995

1999

1998

1997

1996

1995

1999

1998

1997

1996

1995

1999

1998

1997

1996

1995

1999

1998

1997

1996

1995

1999

1998

1997

1996

1995 Air Force

Army

Navy

DLA

GSA

EPA
Page 27 GAO-05-479 Suspension and Debarment 

Calendar year

Exclusions

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900

2004

2003

2002

2001

2000

2004

2003

2002

2001

2000

2004

2003

2002

2001

2000

2004

2003

2002

2001

2000

2004

2003

2002

2001

2000

2004

2003

2002

2001

2000 Air Force

Army

Navy

DLA

GSA

EPA
Appendix IV: Selected Agencies’ Suspension 

and Debarment Organizations 

Page 28 GAO-05-479 Suspension and Debarment 

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 Lead office Responsibilities Staffing 

EPA Office of Grants and Debarment Division dedicated to investigations and case 

development refers cases to suspension and 

debarment official. 

1 Suspension and Debarment 

Officer 

12 Professional Staff 

GSA Office of Chief Acquisition Officer, 

Office of Acquisition Integrity 

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. 

1 Suspension and Debarment 

Officer 

2 Professional Staff 

1 Support Staff 

DLA Office of General Counsel, 

Contracting Integrity Office 

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. 

1 Suspension and Debarment 

Officer 

1 Professional Staff 

Air Force Office of Deputy General Counsel, 

Contractor Responsibility Division 

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. 

1 Suspension and Debarment 

Officer 

3 Professional Staff 

Co-op students provide 

support 

Army Office of Judge Advocate General, 

Contract Appeals Division, 

Procurement Fraud Branch 

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. 

3 Suspension and Debarment 

Officers (US, Europe, Korea)

6 Professional Staff 

1 Support Staff 

Navy Office of General Counsel, 

Procurement Integrity Office 

Suspension and debarment is one aspect of the 

Procurement Integrity function. Defense Criminal 

Investigative Organizations also refer cases. 

1 Suspension and Debarment 

Officer 

3 Professional Staff 

1 Support Staff 

Source: GAO analysis of agency-reported data.

Appendix IV: Selected Agencies’ Suspension 

and Debarment Organizations 
Appendix V: Comments from the Department 

of Defense 

Page 29 GAO-05-479 Suspension and Debarment 

Appendix V: Comments from the Department 

of Defense 
Appendix V: Comments from the Department 

of Defense 

Page 30 GAO-05-479 Suspension and Debarment 
Appendix V: Comments from the Department 

of Defense 

Page 31 GAO-05-479 Suspension and Debarment (120438) 
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and 

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. 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost 

is through GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday, GAO posts 

newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site. To 

have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon, go 

to www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to Updates.” 

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 

Contact: 

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

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

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

Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, JarmonG@gao.gov (202) 512-4400 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

Paul Anderson, Managing Director, AndersonP1@gao.gov (202) 512-4800 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

GAO’s Mission 

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony 

Order by Mail or Phone 

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs 

Congressional 

Relations 

Public Affairs 

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER