The Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) establishes the policies and procedures governing suspension and debarment actions related to federal contracts. The Nonprocurement Common Rule (NCR) establishes the policies and procedures governing suspension and debarment for discretionary nonprocurement awards (i.e., grants, cooperative agreements, scholarships, or other assistance). The FAR and the NCR specify numerous causes for suspensions and debarments, including fraud, false statements, theft, bribery, tax evasion, and any other offense indicating a lack of business integrity. A suspension is a temporary exclusion pending the completion of an investigation or legal proceeding which generally may not last longer than 18 months, while a debarment is an exclusion for a reasonable, specified period depending on the seriousness of the cause, but generally should not exceed 3 years. A suspension or debarment under either the FAR or NCR has government-wide effect for all purposes, so that a party precluded from participating in federal contracts is also precluded from receiving grants, loans, and other assistance, and vice versa. OMB has the authority to issue guidelines for nonprocurement suspensions and debarments and the Office of Federal Procurement Policy within OMB provides overall direction for government-wide procurement policies, including those on suspensions and debarments under the FAR. ISDC, established in 1986, monitors the government- wide system of suspension and debarment. The ISDC consists of representatives from 24 federal agencies, as well as 18 independent agencies and government corporations. The Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 augmented and clarified certain ISDC functions to include providing assistance to help agencies achieve operational efficiencies in their suspension and debarment programs. The ISDC was also made responsible for coordinating lead- agency responsibility when multiple agencies have a potential interest in pursuing suspension and debarment of the same entity. In 2011, we made recommendations to improve agency and government- wide suspension and debarment efforts. We reviewed 10 agencies and found that the four agencies with the most procurement-related suspension and debarment cases shared common characteristics: a suspension and debarment program with dedicated staff, detailed policies and procedures, and practices that encourage an active referral process. Agencies are required to establish procedures for referring appropriate matters to their suspension and debarment official for consideration. The six agencies with few or no procurement-related suspensions or debarments for the period we reviewed—Commerce, HHS, Justice, State, Treasury, and DHS’s FEMA—did not have these characteristics regardless of each agency’s volume of contracting activity. To improve their suspension and debarment programs, we recommended these agencies take action to incorporate the characteristics associated with active programs. We also reported that government-wide efforts to oversee and coordinate suspensions and debarments faced a number of challenges. For example, we reported that the ISDC relies on agencies’ participation and resources to fulfill its missions. To improve suspension and debarment programs at all agencies and enhance government-wide oversight, we recommended that OMB issue government-wide guidance that (1) describes the elements of an active suspension and debarment program, and (2) emphasizes the importance of coordinating with the ISDC. We found that the Departments of Commerce, HHS, Justice, State, the Treasury, and DHS’s FEMA all took action since we made recommendations in 2011 to incorporate characteristics associated with active suspension and debarment programs.agencies have addressed staffing issues through actions such as defining roles and responsibilities, adding positions, and consolidating the suspension and debarment function into one office. The six agencies also have taken actions such as issuing formal policy and promulgating detailed guidance. Finally, the six agencies have engaged in practices that encourage an active referral process, including establishing positions to ensure cases are referred, developing case management tools that Since 2011, all six allow for referral tracking and case reporting, and establishing training programs. Table 1 summarizes the actions that agencies have taken since 2011. We found that all six agencies reported an increase in the number of suspension and debarment actions from fiscal year 2009 to 2013 as shown in table 2. The agencies generally experienced a notable increase starting in fiscal year 2011 when they began to take action to incorporate the characteristics associated with active suspension and debarment programs. Agency officials told us that the actions taken since 2011 to incorporate the characteristics associated with active suspension and debarments programs have resulted in an increased level of suspension and debarment activity at their respective agencies, though officials emphasized different factors. For example, officials from the Departments of Commerce, State, and the Treasury stated that improved coordination between the Office of the Inspector General and the Suspension and Debarment Official coupled with increased training and awareness resulted in more referrals and the processing of more actions. While the number of actions Treasury reported for fiscal years 2009 through 2013 has been modest, officials told us that 62 actions have been processed in the first 5 months of fiscal year 2014 and they expect continued increases in the number of referrals. Justice officials stated that one factor that may have contributed to an increased number of referrals and actions is the Attorney General’s January 2012 memorandum to all litigating authorities and the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, reminding them to consider whether the facts of a case could be used as a basis for an exclusion or debarment and to coordinate with agency suspension and debarment authorities. HHS officials noted that an increased number of actions have resulted in part from the Office of Inspector General providing additional resources for training investigators and auditors on how to make suspension and debarment referrals involving procurement and nonprocurement matters. Officials from DHS attributed an increase in the number of actions at FEMA and across DHS to having a centralized suspension and debarment office, a directive establishing common standards, increased staffing, and training. The number of suspension and debarment actions government-wide has increased in recent years, more than doubling from 1,836 in fiscal year 2009 to 4,812 in fiscal year 2013, as shown in figure 1. ISDC officials do not consider the overall number of suspensions and debarments as the only measure of success, and emphasized that increased suspension and debarment activity has been coupled with agencies’ increased capability to use suspension and debarment appropriately and adhere to the principles of fairness and due process as laid out in the governing regulations. According to ISDC officials, the programmatic improvements made by many agencies are due in part to increased management attention within individual agencies, guidance from OMB, and support from the ISDC. OMB and ISDC have taken a number of actions to strengthen government-wide suspension and debarment efforts. In response to GAO’s recommendations, on November 15, 2011, OMB directed agencies to take a number of actions to address program weaknesses and reinforce best practices in their suspension and debarment programs, including the following: Appoint a senior accountable official, if one has not already been designated, to be responsible for assessing the agency’s suspension and debarment program and the adequacy of available resources, ensuring that the agency maintains effective internal controls and tracking capabilities, and ensuring that the agency participates regularly on the ISDC. Review internal policies, procedures, and guidance to ensure that suspension and debarment are being considered and used effectively. ISDC reported in September 2012 that each of the 24 agencies said it had an accountable official in place responsible for suspension and debarment activities, including assessing the adequacy of available training and resources; taken steps to address resources, policies, or both—in some cases by dedicating greater staff resources to handle referrals and manage cases and in others by entering into agreements to be mentored by the managers of successful programs; and procedures to forward possible actions to the suspending and debarring official. The ISDC also has increased its efforts to coordinate government-wide suspension and debarment efforts by promoting best practices and coordinating mentoring and training activities. For example, the ISDC maintains an online library of documents aimed at promoting standardization and has efforts to help agencies develop their suspension and debarment programs to ensure appropriate attention to administrative due process in accordance with the governing regulations. ISDC officials cite robust participation in the ISDC, including agencies with mature suspension and debarment programs, which has enabled the ISDC to assist agencies in making program improvements and, in some cases, standing up programs where none existed before. The ISDC also conducts training for member agencies, including cosponsoring with the Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency an annual debarment workshop. Also, ISDC members provide instructors for the debarment training courses offered by the Federal Law Enforcement Training Centers.understanding of suspension and debarment and holds monthly meetings to discuss topics, including specific suspension and debarment actions and selected agencies’ suspension and debarment procedures and tracking tools. Finally, the ISDC undertakes outreach to promote The six agencies we reviewed reported that they highly value the functions performed by the ISDC as a focal point for government-wide suspension and debarment efforts. For example, Treasury officials told us that they designed their suspension and debarment program around the best practices identified by the ISDC, taking advantage of templates, guidance, and mentoring available through the committee. Officials from several agencies noted that the ISDC is instrumental in managing an informal process to help agencies coordinate lead agency responsibility when multiple agencies have a potential interest in pursuing suspension and debarment of the same entity. According to officials from the agencies we reviewed, the ISDC regularly distributes information on new potential cases reported by the agencies. The agencies take into consideration factors such as financial, regulatory, and investigative interests in determining which agency should take the lead in the case.