Opinion ID: 382661
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Sufficiency of Process Made Available to Old Dominion

Text: 63 Finally, the Government contends that, even if Old Dominion possessed a due process liberty right in this situation, the procedures afforded to ODDPI were sufficient to satisfy the requirements of due process. It is not disputed that Old Dominion received absolutely no notice of the charges against it before the determination was made that it lacked responsibility (due to a lack of integrity) and that contracts were denied on that basis. It is also undisputed that a number of conversations were conducted between the Government and Old Dominion between the time the determination was made and the contracts lost. The Government contends, however, that the suspension proceedings initiated after the series of events in question provided Old Dominion with ample due process protection. 64 In support of this position, the Government points to Horne Brothers, Inc. v. Laird, 463 F.2d 1268 (D.C. Cir. 1972). In that case, this court held that before the Government may suspend a Government contractor from all bidding, fundamental fairness requires that the bidder be given specific notice of the charges against him and, in the usual case, an opportunity to respond to those charges. 463 F.2d at 1271. The court added, however, that we may accept a temporary suspension for a short period, not to exceed one month, without any provision for according such opportunity to the contractor. Id. at 1270. Similarly, in Gonzalez v. Freeman, 334 F.2d 570 (D.C. Cir. 1964), this court noted that conceivably a summary debarment, in the nature of a temporary suspension, might be warranted for a reasonable period pending investigation; otherwise considerations of basic fairness require administrative regulations establishing standards for debarment and procedures which will include notice of specific charges, opportunity to present evidence and to cross-examine adverse witnesses, all culminating in administrative findings and conclusions based upon the record so made. 334 F.2d at 578-579. 65 It is plain that Horne Brothers and Gonzalez do not validate the Government conduct in this case. First of all, both of those cases dealt with formal Government action, and allowed a short period of delay for the imposition of procedures otherwise required. In Horne Brothers, the contractor had been formally suspended; in Gonzalez, the contractor had been formally debarred. In the present case no comparable decisive Government action was taken, although contracts were denied. Such denials could have continued indefinitely with absolutely no recourse for the contractor. In such a case, the Government cannot invoke suspension procedures after-the-fact and claim that those procedures are adequate. The injury complained of in this case is the loss of contracts before Old Dominion was ever suspended, not the loss of contracts after suspension but before suspension procedures were able to be implemented. 66 In addition, it is clear that in the present case subsequent procedures were inadequate to satisfy the requirements of due process. The suspension regulations do not provide for specific notice of the charges against the contractor. 25 A hearing may or may not occur. 26 In the present case, the record contains no information concerning the notice ultimately given to Old Dominion. It is clear, however, that a hearing has never been given, despite the fact that over one year has passed since Old Dominion was formally suspended. Addenda to appellant's brief, item 4. 27 The suspension proceedings, whether adequate or not in their own right, clearly provided no relief for the deprivations in this case. 67 We need not consider whether due process is satisfied in the situation where it is impossible for some reason for the Government to give notice to the contractor before adverse action is taken on a determination that the contractor lacks integrity, and subsequent notice with an opportunity to respond is in fact promptly given to the contractor. That is clearly not this case. Accordingly, we hold that subsequent procedures did not satisfy the requirements of due process in this case, and that a liberty right of Old Dominion was therefore violated. 28