Full text
Fiscal Year (FY) 2023 Interagency Suspension and Debarment
Committee (ISDC) Section 873 Report to Congress
In This Report: Who We Are
• Interagency body established by Executive Order 12549 consisting of
♦ Who We Are
Federal agencies that pool resources, such as experience and
♦ FY 2023 Summary Highlights
promising practices to provide support for Federal suspension and
♦ Federal Suspension, Debarment,
debarment programs
and Related Administrative
• Mission: To protect the Government’s business interests from
Activities: An Overview
potential harm posed by individuals or entities whose conduct
♦ Actions Consider Agency Missions,
indicates or constitutes cause for exclusion, such as a history of
Business Lines, and the Coordinated
poor performance or a serious or compelling lack of business
Governmentwide Needs
honesty or integrity
♦ FY 2023 Governmentwide
Activities and Accomplishments: • Committee work is implemented by volunteer agency representatives
Year in Review who share their time and talents to support ISDC efforts in addition to
♦ Common Misconceptions / FAQs their regular duties.
(Part 3) • For more information, see www.acquisition.gov/isdc-home.
FY 2023 Summary Highlights
• Agency Suspending and Debarring Officials (SDOs) primarily rely on referrals to initiate suspension and
debarment proceedings. Referrals to SDOs decreased approximately 3.6% from FY 2022 with agencies noting
continuing delays in court proceedings and other challenges. Total declinations of referrals remained low at
2.8% when compared to the number of actions executed.
• Total suspensions, proposed debarments, and debarments increased modestly from FY 2022 by 3%, with
suspensions and proposed debarments exceeding the Governmentwide average for FYs 2020-23 (the Pandemic
years) as the effects of the COVID-19 Pandemic continued to subside. This trend occurred despite significant
personnel changes and some agency reports of newly emerging types of actions and increasingly complex
actions received that required more time and resources to evaluate.
• COVID-19 fraud matters were among the newly emerging types of cases reported in FY 2023. COVID-related
suspensions, proposed debarments, and debarments increased from 13 in FYs 2021 and 2022 combined to over
230 in FY 2023.
• Based on agencies’ voluntary responses, parties contested and disclosed fewer matters to suspension and
debarment offices Governmentwide: the total number of proactive engagements by potential respondents
decreased significantly by approximately 42%; agencies also reported an overall decrease in post-notice
engagements by approximately 24% despite some agencies’ reported increases.
• Agencies reported a growing number of requests by Respondents for extended or stayed administrative
proceedings pending the resolution of parallel criminal proceedings and other concerns, such as movement
within correctional facilities. Where such requests for extension or stays of proceedings are granted, the
Government is properly protected because the exclusions remain in effect.
• While voluntary exclusions increased slightly, certain alternatives to exclusion, such as administrative
agreements and pre-notice letters, decreased by approximately 40% and 37% respectively, attributable in part to
diminished outreach by respondents.
• Notable FY 2023 accomplishments by the ISDC include: (1) working with the FAR Council to publish a
proposed rule that better aligns the procurement regulatory coverage with the nonprocurement coverage in Title
2 of the Code of Federal Regulations; (2) partnering with the Council of Inspectors General on Integrity and
Efficiency, and Pandemic Response Accountability Council to lead the bi-annual workshop on interagency
collaboration with a COVID-19 fraud focus; (3) supporting the U.S. delegations to the 2023 negotiations in the
Indo-Pacific Economic Framework for Prosperity; (4) working with the Department of Justice (DOJ) to
increase coordination, resulting in increased notification by DOJ of convictions to help SDOs identify and
assess matters impacting programmatic integrity and efficiency.
*SDOs are strategically Federal Suspension, Debarment, and Related Administrative
situated to consider and
coordinate agencies’ and
Activities: An Overview
Governmentwide needs,
missions, and business lines,
The Federal suspension and debarment (S&D) system is governed by the
such as: Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) at 48 C.F.R. Subpart 9.4 and the
Nonprocurement Common Rule (NCR) at 2 C.F.R. Part 180, to help ensure
◊ Providing for national security
and defense, including
the Government only conducts business with presently responsible parties.
responding to national These tools are designed to protect the Government’s business interests
emergencies and natural from potential harm posed by individuals or entities whose conduct
disasters; and indicate or constitute cause for exclusion, such as a history of poor
◊ Promoting the progress of performance or a serious or compelling lack of business honesty or
science and useful arts and integrity.
regulating commerce with
foreign nations and among the
The Government uses suspension and debarment procedures to exercise
states and with Tribes, business judgment in accordance with principles of fairness and due
including via resource process, through the actions of agencies’ Suspending and Debarring
management/stewardship. Officials (SDOs) and their offices. These procedures both afford parties
due process and equip Federal officials with the ability to exclude parties
from participating in certain transactions as needed to protect Government
operations and financial resources. In contrast with certain foreign
governments’ S&D systems, the United States’ S&D system is not
punitive; rather it is principled upon protection of the Government and
taxpayer funds against prospective business risk, including the mitigation
of fraud, waste, and abuse. Under the United States’ S&D system, if
sufficient corrective or remediating actions are taken, such as through an
administrative agreement, present responsibility may be demonstrated and
The color guard presents the subsequently, an excluded party’s eligibility to participate as a business
colors during a September 11
Pentagon Staff Memorial
partner or participant may be reinstated.
Observance in the courtyard of
the Pentagon in 2023.
Actions Consider Specific Agency Missions, Business
Photo Credit: Navy Petty Officer
1st Class Alexander Kubitza. Lines, and the Coordinated Governmentwide Needs
SDOs and corresponding S&D programs are strategically situated in-house
with expertise on the agency’s various mission, programs, and business lines.
This facilitates Federal suspension and debarment programs’ consideration of
the business risks posed by an entity or individual2 and promotes coordination
with impacted programs, such as agency procurement or nonprocurement
programs and activities. Agencies also assess and coordinate the need for and
impact of suspension and debarment actions Governmentwide through
An Army CH-47 Chinook
participation in the ISDC and through its internal Lead Agency Coordination
drops seawater over a Request (LACR) process.
perimeter surrounding the
wildfires in Lahaina, Maui,
on August 16, 2023. Members 1
For the definitions and counting conventions of suspensions, debarments, and related
of the Hawaii Army and Air
remedies, see Appendix 1.
National Guard and of the
2
Army (active duty and Agency SDOs consider S&D related actions against entities and individuals. When
reserves) helped authorities business entities are considered for SDO action, individuals are routinely and appropriately
establish immediate security subject to related SDO actions because of their participation or other involvement in the
and safety. misconduct: entities ultimately act through individuals. A significant portion of persons
Photo credit: U.S. Army subject to a debarment action were first convicted and afforded due process through the
National Guard Spc. Tonia criminal justice system by the time of administrative S&D action.
Ciancanelli.
2
Agency missions and
business lines (continued):
FY 2023 Governmentwide Activities and Accomplishments:
Year in Review
In FY 2023, agencies continued to receive and assess referrals of S&D matters
impacting programmatic integrity. Agency SDOs primarily rely upon
referrals received to initiate suspension and debarment related actions.
Overall, agencies reported the receipt of 3.6% fewer total referrals than in
Artist's rendition of the prior year. Total declinations of referred matters remained relatively
Geostationary Operational low in FY 2023 at 2.8%.3 Some S&D programs reported outreach efforts
Environmental Satellites to facilitate referrals, such as training personnel on indicators of fraud to
(GOES-R) orbiting Earth.
promote awareness and effectiveness. Agencies also reported the receipt
Photo credits: NOAA/NESDIS. of referrals from new sources and of complex matters. However,
Governmentwide, total referrals and declinations fell below their
corresponding averages for FYs 2018-23 as well as for FYs 2020-23 (the
Pandemic years).
Figure 1
A luminescent jellyfish - Order
Limnomedusae.
Photo credits: National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA) Okeanos Explorer
Program.
Lake McDonald at Glacier
National Park.
Photo credits: David Restivo/
National Park Service (NPS).
FY 2023 in context:
♦ Total referrals decreased
approximately 3.6% from
FY 2022, with agencies
noting varied ebbs and
flows of referrals and
declinations.
♦ Agencies noted new and
complex types of cases as
well as sources of referrals. 3
Because the receipt of referrals and issuance of declination of matters can cross fiscal
♦ Despite significant turnover years, the total referrals received and declined matters in a given fiscal year will not be an
in S&D programs and exact comparison.
decreases in many agencies’
total referrals received,
overall, agencies declined
fewer matters in FY 2023
than in FY 2022.
3
Agencies also reported their continued use of flexibilities adopted in response
to the COVID-19 Pandemic and noted continuing delays in court proceedings
FY 2023 in context
(continued): and other challenges. As the effects of the Pandemic continued to subside,
Governmentwide total actions in Figure 2 stabilized with a slight increase in
♦ Total debarments, FY 2023 of 3%, despite significant personnel changes. The FY 2023 total
suspensions, and proposed suspensions and proposed debarments exceeded averages for FYs 2020-23,
debarments slightly
the years spanning the Pandemic, thus, signaling the process of returning to
increased by 3% from FY
2022 in support of pre-COVID levels. The extent of agencies’ activities varied from FY 2022,
protecting agencies’ with at least one agency noting decreases in total suspensions, proposed
missions, supply chains, debarments, and debarments; four agencies reporting increases in all three
and business lines. types of actions; and several agencies reporting varied shifts in types of
♦ Potential or actual actions taken ranging from double to ten-fold, including one agency that
respondents’ outreach to increased its FY 2023 proposed debarment and debarment totals each by
agencies decreased in FY more than 150 actions. Such variation, when considered with an agency’s
2023: Total proactive
engagements by potential
alternatives to exclusion, reflect the agency’s case-by-case evaluation and
respondents decreased by application of S&D remedies.
approximately 42%. Post-
notice engagements by Figure 2
respondents decreased by
approximately 24%. In FY
2023, a smaller number of
agencies reported the receipt
of pre-notice engagements
than in FY 2022; however, a
minimally larger number of
agencies reported post-
notice engagements.
♦ The total number of
administrative agreements
decreased by 48% from FY
2022 in part due to the
decrease in the number of
proactive engagements by
contractors and government
participants.
Some agencies reported significant increases in requests by respondents for
extensions or stays of their administrative proceedings pending the
conclusion of parallel criminal proceedings, movement within correctional
facilities, or other concerns. Where such requests for extension or stays of
proceedings are granted, the Government is properly protected because the
exclusions remain in effect. However, flexibilities granted for respondents’
submissions contributed to delayed final determinations and actions. As
court proceedings started to return to pre-pandemic levels, agencies
reported a corresponding Governmentwide increase in actions based on
indictments, convictions, and civil judgments.
4
In contrast to the increased exclusions in FY 2023, agencies reported
significant Governmentwide decreases in the communications by
FY 2023 in context
respondents, both before and after agencies’ issuance of notices as compared
(continued):
with FY 2022. Proactive engagements occur when a potential respondent is the first
♦ Although the number of to initiate contact with S&D program officials before an SDO issues any notice.
negotiated voluntary The ISDC remains committed to encouraging individuals and entities to proactively
exclusion agreements reach out to SDOs. The ISDC maintains and updates the SDOs points of contact
increased minimally,
through the ISDC’s website. In FY 2023, some members of the ISDC even engaged
total pre-notice letters
decreased by 40% from FY in outreach through private bar panel discussions, such as on individual agency
2022. suspension and debarment programs’ coordination of remedies and proactive
engagement with SDOs.
♦ Agencies noted increased
requests by respondents for Based on voluntary responses for FY 2023, 9 agencies reported 37 potential
additional due process, such
as stayed S&D proceedings,
respondents proactively engaged with S&D offices, which is a decrease of
pending the resolution of approximately 42% from the reported FY 2022 total. The FY 2023 total also is
other parallel matters, significantly less than the FY 2021 total and approximates the FY 2020 reported
the grant of which likely sum. Only 7 agencies reported such engagements for each of FYs 2021, 2022, and
contributed to the 2023. For FY 2023, 19 agencies, on a voluntary basis, reported post-notice
decreased use of engagements or communications contesting suspension or debarment actions, by
alternatives to 318 respondents. The FY 2023 total represents an approximately 24% decrease from
exclusion. FY 2022 and a 25% decrease from FY 2021, despite some agencies reporting
♦ Agencies also reported that increased interactions. The total number of agencies reporting such interactions in
a greater number of S&D FY 2023 increased by one.
actions were based on In tandem with the decreased proactive and post-notice engagements, agencies
judicial filings, such as
convictions and civil
reported fewer negotiated administrative agreements4, which address SDO concerns
judgments, than in FY in lieu of suspension or debarment. In FY 2023, 10 agencies entered into 47
2022, indicating that S&D administrative agreements, which is a 37% decrease from the prior year’s reported
respondents are receiving total and a more than 70 percent drop from FY 2021. Comparing FYs 2022 and
due process through both 2023, five agencies issued administrative agreements in only one but not both fiscal
the judiciary and years as a result of interactions with respondents. Of the agencies with
administrative proceedings administrative agreements in FY 2023, five entered such agreements for each of
on the facts FYs 2021, 2022, and 2023.
constituting cause.
Voluntary exclusions are where respondents voluntarily agree to refrain from
♦ On a voluntary basis, 8 Federal opportunities in lieu of suspension and debarment. Seven agencies reported
agencies reported voluntary exclusions with 15 respondents in FY 2023. Comparing FYs 2022 and
issuing over 230 2023, six agencies that reported voluntary exclusions did not negotiate such
COVID-19 fraud agreements in both years; however, four agencies reported voluntary exclusions for
related S&D actions, each of FYs 2021 through 2023. For FY 2023, 13 agencies issued 97 pre-notice
signifying an letters or a decrease of approximately 40% from FY 2022. Of the agencies
approximately 17-fold reporting pre-notice letters, eight reported actions in FYs 2021 through 2023.
increase as compared
to the
Governmentwide
totals identified for
FYs 2021-22.
4
Administrative agreements typically include tailored provisions to improve the ethical
culture and corporate governance processes of a respondent, such as the use of independent
third-party monitors or the removal of individuals associated with a violation from positions
of responsibility within a company.
5
Figure 3
In FY 2023, agencies also reported increasingly complex and/or newly
emerging types of actions referred. For example, based on voluntary
responses, 8 agencies (some different from the previous year) reported
receipt of referrals related to COVID-19 fraud and the issuance of over 230
administrative actions. Those agencies voluntarily reporting did not decline
any referral associated with pandemic fraud. These actions represent a
substantial increase from the previous total of 13 COVID-19 fraud actions
voluntarily reported for FYs 2021-22 as well as a changing mix of agencies
receiving referrals and implementing actions across FYs 2021-23. Such
activities reflect the ongoing coordination of the ISDC and Federal law
enforcement communities in this and other emerging areas to steward
taxpayer resources as well as mitigate against fraud and further business
risks.
FY 2023 Governmentwide Activities and Accomplishments
During FY 2023, the ISDC6 continued to focus on four strategic objectives:
(1) promoting the fundamental fairness of the suspension and debarment
process;
(2) increasing transparency and consistency through training, engagement,
and outreach;
____________________________________________________________
6
Committee work is implemented by volunteer agency representatives who
share their time and talents to support ISDC efforts in addition to their regular
duties.
6
(3) enhancing Federal suspension and debarment practices, including
alternatives to exclusion, by identifying and developing resources
available to the ISDC community; and
(4) encouraging the development of more effective compliance and ethics
programs by Government contractors and nonprocurement participants
to address and balance business risks with opportunity costs and needs.
Notable examples of the ISDC leadership and members’ past and ongoing
efforts include:
• providing technical advice and support to the United States delegations
to the 2023 negotiations relating to the Indo-Pacific Economic
Framework for Prosperity;
• increasing coordination with DOJ, resulting in increased notification
(on a quarterly basis) by DOJ of convictions to help SDOs identify and
assess matters impacting programmatic integrity and efficiency;
• engaging in outreach through private bar panel discussions, such as on
individual agency suspension and debarment programs’ coordination of
remedies and proactive engagement with SDOs;
• continued support of member agencies by:
◊ providing instructors to train Federal practitioners;
◊ providing timely updates regarding S&D related legislative,
regulatory, and case law updates and developments as well as notable
Governmentwide trends or initiatives, such as revisions to the GSA
System for Award Management;
◊ co-hosting with the Council of Inspectors General on Integrity and
Efficiency (CIGIE) and the Pandemic Response Accountability
Council (PRAC) a bi-annual workshop on interagency collaboration,
with a COVID-19 fraud focus, for over 500 Government registrants;
◊ facilitating lead agency coordination and the implementation of
potential actions with the PRAC and DOJ; and
• continuing technical support of efforts to harmonize procurement and
nonprocurement suspension and debarment regulations; and
• continued support of guidance related to emerging trends, such as
COVID-19 fraud and foreign affiliation fraud matters, as well as
coordination reference requirements for research integrity and
disclosures.
Additional data regarding the FY 2023 activities are available in the enclosed
appendices. The ISDC looks forward to its continued work with agencies to
better protect taxpayer programs and operations from fraud, waste, and abuse
through effective Governmentwide suspension and debarment programs.
7
Appendix 1
Glossary and Counting Conventions
For consistency and clarity, the ISDC used the following in preparing the Appendices to this report.
Glossary
“Administrative Agreement” - also known as an administrative compliance agreement, refers to a document
that resolves an exclusion or potential exclusion matter. The election to enter into an administrative
agreement is solely within the discretion of the SDO and is used only if the administrative agreement
appropriately furthers the Government’s interest. Agreements may be entered into with any respondent,
whether an individual person or organization when it is appropriate to do so. While administrative
agreements vary according to the SDO’s concerns regarding each respondent, these agreements typically
mandate the implementation of several provisions to improve the ethical culture and corporate governance
processes of a respondent in a suspension or debarment-related proceeding. Agreements may also call for
the use of independent third-party monitors or the removal of individuals associated with a violation from
positions of responsibility within a company. Administrative agreements are made publicly available online
in the General Services Administration’s System for Award Management (SAM) under the
Responsibility/Qualification section.
“Agency Pre-Notice Letters”- includes show cause letters, requests for information, and similar types of
letters used to inform the recipient that the agency debarment program is reviewing matters for potential
SDO action, identify the alleged misconduct, and give the recipient an opportunity to respond prior to
formal SDO action. This is a discretionary tool employed when appropriate to the circumstances of the
matter under consideration and does not include show cause letters issued by contracting officers.
“Debarment” - an exclusion or ineligibility of an individual or entity from participating in new
procurements and nonprocurement transactions upon an SDO’s finding of a preponderance of the evidence
of cause in accordance with the agency’s regulations implementing and/or supplementing 2 C.F.R. §
180.800, et seq., or 48 C.F.R. § 9.406, et seq.
“Declination” - an SDO’s determination after receiving a referral that issuing a suspension or debarment
notice is not necessary to protect the Government’s interests. Placing a referral on hold in anticipation of
additional evidence for future action is not a declination.
“Proactive Engagements” - written communications or documented in-person or oral discussions and/or
meetings that occur when a potential respondent is the first to initiate contact with S&D program officials.
Proactive engagements are reported herein by the number of respondents and occur before an SDO issues a
notice.
“Post-Notice Engagements” - the contested suspension or debarment actions, counted and reported herein
by the number of respondents. A contest includes any written and/or oral submission by a respondent
challenging a notice of suspension, a notice of proposed debarment, or a debarment decision.
“Referral” - a written request prepared in accordance with agency procedures and guidelines, supported by
documentary evidence, presented to the SDO for issuance of a notice of suspension or notice of proposed
debarment as appropriate under FAR Subpart 9.4 and 2 C.F.R. Part 180.
Note: This definition of Referral is designed to eliminate potential variations due to differences in agency
tracking practices and organizational structures. For example, agency debarment programs organized as
coordination of fraud remedies divisions (responsible for the coordination of the full spectrum of fraud
remedies: criminal, civil, contractual, and administrative) may not have a common starting point for tracking
case referrals as agency programs exclusively performing suspension and debarment functions.
8
Appendix 1
Glossary and Counting Conventions (continued)
Glossary (continued)
“Suspension” - an exclusion or ineligibility of an individual or entity from participating in new procurements
and nonprocurement transactions upon an SDO’s finding of adequate evidence of cause and the immediate
need for action in accordance with the agency’s regulations implementing and/or supplementing 2 C.F.R.
§ 180.700 et seq. or 48 C.F.R. § 9.407 et seq.
“Voluntary Exclusion” - a term used under 2 C.F.R. Part 180 referring to the authority of an agency to enter
into a voluntary exclusion with a respondent in lieu of suspension or debarment. A voluntary exclusion, like a
debarment, carries the same Governmentwide reciprocal effect and, generally, bars the respondent from
participating in procurement and nonprocurement transactions with the Government. Agencies must enter all
voluntary exclusions in the General Services Administration’s System for Award Management (SAM).
Counting Conventions
Consistent with previous years’ Section 873 reports, the number of suspensions, proposed debarments, and
debarment actions are broken out as separate exclusion actions even if they relate to the same respondents.
With each of these exclusion actions, both FAR Subpart 9.4 and 2 C.F.R. Part 180 require an analysis
performed by program personnel involving separate procedural and evidentiary considerations. Furthermore,
a suspension may resolve without proceeding to a notice of proposed debarment, a notice of proposed
debarment may commence without a prior suspension action, and a proposed debarment may resolve without
an agency SDO imposing a debarment. Moreover, separate “referrals” are typically generated for suspensions
and proposed debarments. Finally, suspension and debarment actions trigger separate notice and other due
process requirements by the agency.
Agencies were instructed to count referrals or actions regarding individuals as one action per individual
regardless of the number of associated pseudonyms and AKAs (“also known as”) associated with the
individual. Businesses operating under different names or that have multiple DBAs (“doing business as”) are
counted separately as separate business entities or units for counting suspensions and debarments.
If one administrative agreement resolved potential suspension or debarment actions for multiple individuals
and/or entities, agencies are instructed to count administrative agreements for each individual and/or entity to
accurately reflect the legal obligations of each party.
The data in the appendices focus on the suspension and debarment activities of the 24 agencies and
departments subject to the CFO Act. These are the agencies and departments with the highest activity levels
in procurement and nonprocurement awards.
The report addresses the discretionary suspension and debarment actions taken under the Governmentwide
regulations at FAR Subpart 9.4 and 2 C.F.R. Part 180. The Report does not track statutory or other
nondiscretionary debarments outside of the scope of these regulations.
9
Appendix 2
Suspension and Debarment Actions in FY 2023
Proposed
Agency/Department Suspensions Debarments Debarments
Agency for International Development 10 12 15
Department of Agriculture 6 23 24
Department of Commerce 2 3 2
Department of Defense
Department of the Air Force 22 40 45
Department of the Army 11 123 80
Fourth Estate* 50 81 54
Department of the Navy 13 39 32
Department of Education 9 11 6
Department of Energy 7 6 6
Department of Health and Human Services 4 38 37
Department of Homeland Security 2 364 315
Department of Housing and Urban Development 24 16 22
Department of the Interior 1 6 13
Department of Justice 1 7 9
Department of Labor 12 61 88
Department of State 6 10 9
Department of Transportation 22 24 9
Department of the Treasury 38 38 53
Department of Veterans Affairs 8 6 12
AmeriCorps 8 5 5
Environmental Protection Agency 83 117 73
Export-Import Bank 18 18 0
General Services Administration 0 30 16
National Aeronautics and Space Administration 4 10 8
National Nuclear Security Administration 0 6 54
National Science Foundation 2 1 3
Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1 1 1
Office of Personnel Management 0 0 0
Small Business Administration 59 69 18
Social Security Administration 0 0 0
Total Actions 423 1165 1009
*The Department of Defense Fourth Estate includes other Defense subcomponents, such as the Defense Logistics
Agency, Defense Health Agency, and National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency.
10
Appendix 3
Other Actions Related to Suspension and Debarment in FY 2023
Show Voluntary
Agency/Department otice Referrals Declinations Agreements Exclusions
Letters
Agency for International 0 27 0 0 0
Development
Department of Agriculture 0 205 25 0 0
Department of Commerce 4 7 3 2 1
Department of Defense
Department of the Air 4 62 0 3 1
Force
Department of the Army 23 218 4 3 0
Fourth Estate* 2 139 0 7 0
Department of the Navy 26 271 0 11 0
Department of Education 0 19 0 0 0
Department of Energy 1 27 1 1 0
Department of Health and Human 1 19 1 0 4
Services
Department of Homeland Security 4 435 0 2 0
Department of Housing and Urban 0 85 0 3 1
Development
Department of the Interior 0 9 2 0 0
Department of Justice 0 8 0 0 0
Department of Labor 7 78 0 0 0
Department of State 3 16 0 0 0
Department of Transportation 1 62 0 5 2
Department of the Treasury 0 12 0 0 0
Department of Veterans Affairs 0 26 0 0 0
AmeriCorps - 15 0 0 0
Environmental Protection Agency 8 209 18 5 0
Export-Import Bank 3 22 2 1 0
General Services Administration 8 10 0 0 0
National Aeronautics and Space 1 12 0 1 4
Administration
National Nuclear Security 0 3 0 0 0
Administration
National Science Foundation 0 5 0 0 0
Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1 1 0 0 0
Office of Personnel Management 0 0 0 0 0
Small Business Administration 0 16 0 3 2
Social Security Administration 0 0 0 0 0
Total Actions 97 2018 56 47 15
*The Department of Defense Fourth Estate includes other Defense subcomponents, such as the Defense Logistics Agency,
Defense Health Agency, and National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency.
11
Common Misconceptions about Suspension and Debarment
Frequently Asked Questions (Part 3) (Page 1 of 2)
For Common Misconceptions Part 1, refer to: https://www.acquisition.gov/sites/default/files/
page_file_uploads/ISDC_FY_2020_Common_Misconceptions_about_Suspension_and_Debarment.pdf
For Common Misconceptions Part 2, refer to: https://www.acquisition.gov/sites/default/files/page_file_uploads/
Common_Misconceptions_Part_2_%28ISDC_Section_873_Joint_FY_2021-22_Report%29.pdf
How does the Government determine which agency Suspending and Debarring Officials (SDOs) issue
administrative suspension and debarment (S&D) related actions?
Upon the receipt of referrals from awarding officials, law enforcement officials, and others, including disclosures by
potential respondents and/or substantiated referrals from the general public, agencies considering S&D action will
coordinate within the Interagency Suspension and Debarment Committee (ISDC) to identify the SDO best situated to
implement administrative remedies to protect the Government against identified business risks and misconduct of
individuals and entities. This process is called lead agency coordination. On occasion, SDOs may act jointly given the
substantial interests of the agencies.
Can an Agency take suspension or debarment action against an individual?
Yes. An Agency may take a suspension against an individual when there is cause, adequate evidence, and
immediate need to protect the Government; and debarment when there is a preponderance of evidence of cause.
What should be provided to an SDO when requesting reconsideration of an exclusion?
Reconsideration requests must be based on more than mere assertions of present responsibility. A debarring official may
reduce or terminate an exclusion based on newly discovered material evidence, a reversal of a conviction or civil
judgment upon which a debarment was based, a bona fide change in ownership or management, an elimination of other
cause(s) for which an exclusion was imposed, or other reason(s) for which the debarring official finds appropriate.
Why do agencies separately count SDO actions in the Report to Congress such as suspensions, proposed
debarments, debarments, agreements, etc., when two or more actions address a common respondent?
Each action taken against a Respondent (irrespective of whether the Respondent is an individual or an entity) represents a
separate decision by an SDO, subject to different notice requirements and/or other due process or evidentiary standards,
which may have differing results. Unlike the report to Congress, which is bound by fiscal year, SDO actions are fluid and
may transpire across fiscal years. For example, a suspension of a particular party may occur in one year, followed by a
proposed debarment during the next year.
Do agencies separately count and report the exclusion of an individual’s alternate name or alias in SAM.gov as
multiple actions in the suspension and debarment reports to Congress?
No; agencies do not separately count and report the exclusion entries of an individual’s alternate names or alias as
multiple actions in its suspension and debarment reports to Congress. For example, where John Doe, also known as
Jeremy Doe, has been suspended and listed under both names in SAM.gov, the reporting agency only counts one
exclusion for the individual.
Aliases are identified in SAM.gov to inform awarding officials of an excluded party’s identity by listing all known
alternate name(s), to mitigate against the risks of an excluded party’s attempted circumvention of an exclusion. Where
some individuals incorporate or list themselves as legal entities, an SDO’s action and corresponding SAM.gov entries
may also identify the incorporated persona of the individual for the purpose of protecting against business risks by the
excluded individual. Exclusions of businesses are separately counted from exclusions of any individuals acting
through those entities.
Do the Governmentwide numbers reported in the suspension and debarment reports to Congress include
actions designated in SAM as prohibitions/restrictions?
No; this report is limited to addressing discretionary suspensions and debarments as well as other related
administrative remedies, such as voluntary exclusions and administrative agreements issued pursuant to 2 C.F.R. Part
180, as implemented by agencies, and 48 C.F.R. Subpart 9.4, as supplemented by agencies. This report to Congress
does not include actions designated in SAM as prohibitions/ restrictions. For example, some agencies are statutorily
required to impose restrictions or prohibitions, which result in parties being ineligible for fixed periods under limited
circumstances and limited in scope as required under laws, Executive Orders, or regulations. Those non-discretionary
actions are not covered by this report.
12
December 31, 2024
The Honorable Gary C. Peters
Chairman
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs
United States Senate
Washington, DC 20510
Dear Mr. Chairman:
The Interagency Suspension and Debarment Committee (ISDC) provides reports to Congress on
the activities and progress of the Federal suspension and debarment system, pursuant to Section
873 of the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year (FY)
2009 (Public Law 110-417). 1 This report describes the status of the Federal suspension and
0F
debarment and the related activities of each member agency during FY 2023. 2 1F
Suspension and debarment-related actions are administrative remedies designed to protect the
public interest from potential harm posed by individuals or entities whose conduct indicates or
constitutes cause for exclusion, such as serious poor performance, evidence of fraud, or other
indicia of a serious or compelling lack of business honesty or integrity. Agency Suspending and
Debarring Officials (SDOs) consider action against business entities and individuals alike, as
appropriate, to ensure that Federal contractors and participants of nonprocurement transactions
are presently responsible. In coordination with the implementation of other remedies, SDOs
promote the Government’s interests and present responsibility by excluding parties that engage
in serious misconduct and fail to demonstrate an appropriately remediated approach and
commitment to business honesty, integrity, and performance. As the purpose of suspension and
1
Established by Executive Order (E.O.) 12549, the ISDC is an unfunded interagency body, consisting chiefly of
representatives from executive branch organizations working together to improve and provide support for
suspension and debarment programs throughout the Government. The 24 agencies covered by the Chief Financial
Officers Act (CFO Act), as amended, are standing members of the ISDC. ISDC membership also includes
independent Federal agencies and corporations. ISDC member agencies are collectively responsible for helping to
ensure the integrity of nearly all Federal procurement and discretionary assistance, loan, and benefit
(nonprocurement) transactions. In conducting their work, ISDC is an interagency body that collaborates with the
federal law enforcement community legislative agencies, and other stakeholders.
2
In accordance with E.O. 12549, the ISDC is responsible for the discretionary suspension and debarment system,
which is governed by the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) at 48 C.F.R. Subpart 9.4 and the Nonprocurement
Common Rule (NCR) at 2 C.F.R. Part 180. The information collected for this report reflects activities related only to
use of the discretionary suspension and debarment remedy. However, the Federal database for listing exclusions,
System for Award Management (SAM), includes additional types of exclusions distinct in scope or application from
discretionary actions reported here. This report does not address prohibitions and restrictions mandated by, or
imposed as an automatic consequence of, violations of various statutes and/or regulatory compliance regimes, such
as agency-specific prohibitions and restrictions.
2
debarment is the protection of Government interests rather than punishment, SDOs are also
vested with an array of tools, such as alternate resolutions through which business entities and
individuals may demonstrate that, prior problematic conduct notwithstanding, a present risk does
not exist and corrective measures have been adopted to prevent any recurrence. SDOs are thus
equipped to exercise business judgment, make appropriate assessments, and encourage Federal
participants to implement solutions reducing risks to public programs, missions, and fisc.
This report addresses the ISDC’s strategic objectives and activities, outreach, and member
agencies’ reported discretionary implementation of suspension and debarment-related remedies.
During FY 2023, ISDC members collectively reported increases in total exclusions from the
prior year including a substantial increase in the number of actions related to COVID-19 fraud
referrals and other increasingly complex cases. Agencies reported fewer administrative
agreements, proactive engagements with respondents and responses following SDOs’ issuance of
notices, despite greater outreach efforts by ISDC members to explore alternatives to suspension
and debarment. Progress to improve the Federal suspension and debarment system included
advancements to launch a new lead agency coordination request portal and ongoing efforts to
better harmonize and align the FAR and NCR. Additional data regarding the FY 2023 activities
are enclosed in the attached appendices, summary highlights, and common misconceptions
document. For more information on the ISDC, please see its homepage at
https://www.acquisition.gov/isdc-home.
The ISDC looks forward to its continued work with agencies to better protect taxpayer programs
and operations from business risks through effective suspension and debarment programs.
Sincerely,
Jennifer L. Ward, Chair
ISDC
Monica Aquino-Thieman, Vice-Chair
ISDC
James S. Latoff, Vice-Chair
ISDC
Enclosures
Identical Letter Sent to: The Honorable Rand Paul, The Honorable James Comer, and The
Honorable Jamie Raskin