Federal Procurement: Additional Data Reporting Could Improve the Suspension and Debarment Process
Published: 2005-07-29T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: Federal government purchases of contracted goods and services have grown to more than $300 billion annually. To protect the government's interests, the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) provides that agencies can suspend or debar contractors for causes affecting present responsibility--such as serious failure to perform to the terms of a contract. The FAR provides flexibility to agencies in developing a suspension or debarment process. GAO was asked to (1) describe the general guidance on the suspension and debarment process and how selected agencies have implemented the process, and (2) identify any needed improvements in the suspension and debarment process. We examined the FAR and the regulations of 24 agencies that have FAR supplements governing suspension and debarment procedures. We selected 6 defense and civilian agencies representing about 67 percent of fiscal year 2003 federal contract spending for in-depth review.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: 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.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: Federal government purchases of contracted goods and services have  grown to more than $300 billion annually. 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. The FAR provides flexibility to agencies in developing a  suspension and debarment process. While this flexibility enables agencies  to meet their individual needs, it also highlights the importance of  transparency into their processes to help determine whether suspension  and debarment actions are protecting the government’s interests.
Given the significant amount of federal dollars spent by agencies to  acquire goods and services, and the need to ensure that the government  only does business with responsible contractors, you asked us to (1)  describe the general guidance on the suspension and debarment process  and how selected agencies have implemented the process, and (2) identify  any needed improvements in the suspension and debarment process.
To conduct our work, we examined the FAR and the regulations of the 24  agencies that have issued supplements to the FAR governing suspension  and debarment procedures. From these 24 agencies, we selected 6 defense  and civilian agencies for in-depth review of policies and practices: the Air  Force, Army, Navy, and Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) within the  Department of Defense (DOD); the General Services Administration  (GSA); and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Together, these 6  agencies accounted for about 67 percent of fiscal year 2003 federal  contract spending, as reported in the Federal Procurement Data System  (FPDS). 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.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: 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. 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. 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.
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. EPLS also includes an  archive of expired exclusions. Agencies are required to report all excluded  parties by entering data directly into the database within 5 working days  after the exclusion becomes effective. The FAR includes a list of the  information to be included in EPLS, such as the contractor’s name and  address, contractor identification number, the cause of the action, the  period of the exclusion, and the name of the agency taking the action.
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).
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.
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. We noted, however, that there was a need for  timely access to a governmentwide list of excluded parties. We also  identified areas for improvement in the process and recommended  amendments to the FAR. The following recommendations have been  implemented: (1) that governmentwide exclusions be extended to  contractors proposed for debarment; (2) that the definition of affiliate, i.e.,  related firms or those under common control, include a description of  indicators of control, such as common management or ownership; (3) that  suspended and debarred contractors also be excluded from  subcontracting under government contracts; and (4) that the extent to  which orders placed under certain contractual arrangements—such as  multiple awards schedules, basic ordering agreements, and indefinite  quantity contracts—are covered by exclusions be clarified.
section_title: FAR Provides Governmentwide Policies, and Agencies Make Specific Exclusion Decisions
paragraphs: 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. Generally, legal proceedings must begin within 12 months  or the suspension terminates. To initiate a debarment, an agency must  have evidence of conviction or civil judgment for certain offenses, a  preponderance of evidence that the party has committed certain offenses,  such as serious failure to perform to the terms of a contract, or any other  cause of so serious or compelling a nature that it affects the contractor’s  present responsibility. 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.
The FAR allows agencies flexibility to supplement FAR provisions and  develop guidance based on agency needs. The 24 agencies we reviewed  had included suspension and debarment policies in FAR supplements; 21  had also adopted NCR; and 12 had developed additional guidance, such as  directives and policy memos to implement their suspension and  debarment processes (see table 1). The additional guidance generally  designates responsibilities for suspension and debarment procedures and  addresses intra-agency coordination.
Each of the six agencies we reviewed in depth—the Air Force, Army,  Navy, Defense Logistics Agency, EPA, and GSA—has included suspension  and debarment policies in FAR supplements, adopted NCR, and developed  guidance for implementing suspension and debarment procedures:    The Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS)  designates suspension and debarment officials in the various DOD  organizations—including the Air Force, Army, Navy, and Defense  Logistics Agency—and a process for waiving contractor exclusions for  compelling reasons. In addition, in September 1992, the Under  Secretary of Defense for Acquisition issued guidance stating that (1)  when appropriate, before action is taken on suspension, a contractor  should be informed that DOD has extremely serious concerns with the  contractor’s conduct, and the contractor should be allowed to provide  information on its behalf, and (2) DOD debarring officials should  coordinate fully within DOD, and in certain cases among civilian  agencies, to determine the possible effects of the suspensions and  debarments on other organizations as well as to receive additional  information that may affect the exclusion decision.
EPA’s Acquisition Regulation, a FAR supplement, designates the roles  of various officials and clarifies EPA’s suspension and debarment  procedures. An August 1993 memorandum of understanding provides  specific responsibilities for EPA’s Office of Acquisition Management  and Office of Grants and Debarment in the processing of suspension  and debarment actions. In addition, EPA has established guidance on  initiating a suspension or debarment action. EPA also included a  specific section in NCR addressing EPA’s statutory disqualifications  under the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts.
GSA also supplemented the FAR with a regulation that designates the  roles of various officials and clarifies suspension and debarment  procedures. The GSA Acquisition Manual contains similar language to  the FAR supplement. In addition, GSA’s Office of Inspector General  Operations Manual outlines responsibilities for investigating cases,  coordinating with law enforcement agencies, and making referrals to  GSA’s suspension and debarment officials. In November 2002, GSA  issued an internal order concerning the requirement for legal review of  suspension and debarment decisions.
Each of the agencies we reviewed established an organizational structure  that identifies the lead office, responsibilities, and staffing to manage their  suspension and debarment activities. (See app. IV for a summary of each  agency’s suspension and debarment organizational structure.) Table 2  shows specific actions reported by the six agencies we reviewed during  fiscal year 2004.
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. Under administrative agreements, contractors agree  to meet certain requirements and may continue to enter into contracts  with the government. Agency officials said that reaching administrative  agreements with contractors can serve the government’s interest by  improving contractor responsibility, ensuring compliance through  monitoring the requirements of the agreement, and maintaining  competition among contractors. Administrative agreements can be  negotiated at any point in the suspension and debarment process, such as  when a contractor independently acknowledges a problem, but the  agencies we reviewed in depth said these agreements are most commonly  negotiated as an alternative to debarment. These agreements generally  follow a consistent format, emphasize corporate ethics programs, and are  in effect for a period of 3 years. Table 3 summarizes the key contractor  requirements included in the agreements we reviewed.
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.  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. Of the six agencies we reviewed, only the Air Force and the Army  reported that compelling reason waivers had been issued over the past 2  years. The Air Force reported that three waivers had been granted—in  August and September 2003 and in August 2004—to continue contracting  with the Boeing Company for launch services for military space equipment  based on national security concerns and to mitigate program schedule and  cost risks. In fiscal year 2004, the Air Force issued one waiver for sole- source reasons, and the Army issued four waivers based on urgent need.
Suspension and debarment constitutes exclusion of all divisions or other  organizational elements of the contractor, unless the exclusion decision is  otherwise limited. Exclusions may extend to affiliates, if named in the  suspension or debarment notice and decision. Organizational entities of  excluded contractors that can demonstrate independence may be allowed  to receive government contracts.
section_title: Additional Reporting and Sharing of Information Could Improve the Effectiveness of the Process
paragraphs: 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.
subsections: section_title: Incomplete or Unreliable EPLS Data Make It Difficult to Identify Excluded Parties
paragraphs: The FAR requires agencies to enter various information on contractors  into EPLS, including contractors’ and grantees’ Data Universal Numbering  System (DUNS) number—a unique nine-digit identification number  assigned by Dun & Bradstreet, Inc. to identify unique business entities.  We found, however, that while the EPLS database has a field for entering  contractors’ DUNS numbers, it is not a required field in the database, and  the data appear to be routinely omitted from the database. For the 6  agencies we reviewed in depth, about 99 percent of records in the EPLS  database as of November 2004 did not have DUNS contractor  identification numbers.
To ensure that excluded contractors do not unintentionally receive new  contracts during the period of exclusion, the FAR and NCR require  contracting officers and awarding officials to consult EPLS and identify  any competing contractors that have been suspended or debarred.  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. Searching for partial matches  would fail to identify companies that have changed their names. According  to agency suspension and debarment officials, contracting officers have  overlooked excluded contractors when using EPLS, due in part to not  being able to match contractor names. Though agency officials could not  recall specific cases, they said that this difficulty in matching names is  more likely to occur in cases in which contractors have changed their  names.
We too had difficulty matching names using EPLS. For example, because  of the various ways a contractor’s name might be entered in the database  and because contractor names sometimes change over time, we could not  be assured that we identified all contractors that have been excluded more  than once. We also attempted to match contractors’ names in EPLS and  FPDS—the database containing government contracting actions—to  determine whether excluded contractors had received new contracts  during a period of exclusion. 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. 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.
section_title: ISDC Provides an Opportunity to Facilitate Sharing of Information on Administrative Agreements and Exclusion Waivers
paragraphs: The Interagency Suspension and Debarment Committee (ISDC) is  responsible for coordinating policy, practices, and information sharing on  various suspension and debarment issues. 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.
Similarly, greater sharing of information on compelling reason waivers  also would be helpful. We found that information on compelling reason  waivers was not readily available from most agencies we reviewed. To  obtain information on compelling reason waivers, we had to reconcile the  information we collected from the DOD agencies with information we  collected from GSA for those agencies. The FAR supplement for DOD  requires DOD to provide written notice of any compelling reason waiver  determination to GSA, 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.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Recommendations
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
paragraphs: We provided a draft of this report to DOD, EPA, GSA, and OMB for review  and comment. DOD provided written comments which are included in  appendix V. EPA provided technical comments on the draft, and we have  incorporated these comments into the report as appropriate. GSA and  OMB provided oral comments.
DOD generally concurred with our recommendations. In addition to  requiring the contractor identification numbers for all actions entered into  the system, DOD believes that the EPLS database should include a field for  the Contractor and Government Entity (CAGE) code, if available. DOD  stated that given the automated procurement system used by many DOD  offices, it is important to enable these offices to check for the CAGE code  of a prospective contractor in the EPLS database. DOD also provided  technical comments on the draft report, and we have revised the draft  accordingly.
GSA concurred with our recommendation that GSA modify the EPLS  database to require contractor identification numbers for all actions  entered into the system. GSA stated that it is in the process of competing  the EPLS application, and the identification number will be a required field  when the updated system becomes operational in fiscal year 2006. In  addition, the updated system will be required to interface with the Central  Contractor Registration System, which should improve the quality of  contractor data in EPLS. The new system also should have greater  capability to allow agencies to report information such as the reasons why  a party has been excluded.
OMB concurred with our recommendation that OMB require agencies to  collect and report data on administrative agreements and compelling  reason determinations to the Interagency Suspension and Debarment  Committee and make this information available to all suspension and  debarment officials.
As agreed with your offices, unless you release this report earlier, we will  not distribute it until 30 days from the date of this letter. At that time, we  will send copies of this report to the Secretary of Defense, the  Administrator of General Services, the Administrator of the Environmental  Protection Agency, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget,  and interested congressional committees. We will also make copies  available to others upon request. In addition, this report will be available  at no charge on GAO’s Web site at http://www.gao.gov.
If you have any questions about this report, please contact me at (202) 512- 4841 or woodsw@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of Congressional  Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this report.  Major contributors to this report were Amelia Shachoy, Assistant Director,  Marie Ahearn, Ken Graffam, Mehrunisa Qayyum, Emma Quach, Jeffrey  Rose, Karen Sloan, and Cordell Smith.
section_title: Appendix I: Scope and Methodology
paragraphs: We conducted our work at six agencies—General Services Administration  (GSA), Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and four DOD agencies— Air Force, Army, Defense Logistics Agency (DLA), and Navy. The DOD  agencies were selected on the basis of the dollar value of contracting  actions reported in the Federal Procurement Data System (FPDS) for  fiscal year 2003—-the year for which the most recent and complete data  were available at the time of our review. We selected GSA because of its  central role in federal procurement and in maintaining the Excluded  Parties List System (EPLS). We selected EPA because of its active role in  suspension and debarment, including its role in chairing the Interagency  Suspension and Debarment Committee (ISDC) and in implementing  systematic procedures for tracking the status of suspension and  debarment cases. Together, these agencies accounted for about 67 percent  of fiscal year 2003 federal contract spending, as reported in the FPDS. We  also reviewed literature and interviewed government and nongovernment  officials, academics, and private sector organizations with relevant  experience.
To describe the general guidance on the suspension and debarment  process and how selected agencies have implemented the process, we  examined the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), Nonprocurement  Common Rule (NCR), and the regulations and guidance of the 24 agencies  that have issued supplements to the FAR governing suspension and  debarment procedures. We analyzed documents and testimonial evidence  at the 6 selected agencies to determine how each agency (a) used  administrative agreements; (b) coordinated and shared suspension and  debarment information; and (c) collected data to monitor the suspension  and debarment process.
To identify any needed improvements in the suspension and debarment  process, we analyzed data from GSA’s EPLS as of November 18, 2004. This  analysis included comparing the EPLS and FPDS databases to identify any  suspended or debarred contractors that received a new contract during a  period of suspension or debarment. We compared 44,634 records for  excluded parties in EPLS with 1,006,919 contractors listed in FPDS at the  end of fiscal year 2003, the latest year for which complete data were  available at the time of our review.  Because EPLS records do not require  contractor identification numbers, we compared other identifiers, such as  name and address, to determine whether a contract action in FPDS was  for the issuance of a new contract during the period of exclusion. We also  analyzed the data for the length of time parties are excluded and to  determine the extent to which parties are excluded more than once. To  assess the reliability of EPLS data we (1) performed electronic testing of  the required data elements for obvious errors in accuracy and  completeness, (2) reviewed related documentation, and (3) interviewed  knowledgeable agency officials. We found the data to be insufficiently  reliable for determining whether excluded contractors receive new  contracts, for determining the termination dates of exclusions, or for  performing simple analyses such as the average length of exclusions or the  percentage of parties excluded more than one time. We also reviewed  other areas for improvements, such as agencies’ internal data reporting  and the role of the ISDC.
We conducted our work from August 2004 through June 2005 in  accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
section_title: Appendix II: Statutory Debarments
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Appendix III: Trends in Exclusions in EPLS for Selected Agencies
section_title: Appendix IV: Selected Agencies’ Suspension and Debarment Organizations
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Appendix V: Comments from the Department of Defense