As we get ready to print the September issue of PSC’s quarterly magazine, Service Contractor, we couldn’t wait to share an exclusive article by two Air Force attorneys—Deputy General Counsel Steve Shaw and Associate General Counsel Todd Canni. The article explains why the Wartime Contracting Commission’s interim recommendations for governmentwide changes to the suspension and debarment system, which would make these discretionary actions automatic in some circumstances, should not be adopted. In debunking many myths about suspension and debarment perpetuated by the Wartime Contracting Commission’s interim recommendations, Shaw and Canni explain why alternatives to suspension and debarment are actually a more effective technique for getting results.
For example, where the Wartime Contracting Commission report says administrative agreements (AAs) offer no incentive for contractors to improve, Shaw and Canni explain why the opposite is actually true:
One important benefit AAs offer over debarment is that where [a suspension and debarment official (SDO)] debars a contractor, at the end of that pre-determined debarment period … the contractor is free to contract with the government without limitations. This is problematic because no assessment of the contractor’s present responsibility has been done and most contractors do not normally spend money improving their government-contracts related ethics and compliance structures when their government revenue streams are cut off. By contrast, at the end of the term of an AA, most contractors have implemented a host of ethics and compliance improvements. (emphasis added)
Shaw and Canni also explain that:
The agreement serves as the ‘carrot,’ by providing the contractor with an incentive to avoid debarment by improving its ethical culture, compliance and business processes, and the ‘stick,’ by identifying consequences for failure to do so, including debarment. Violation of the agreement, alone, generally provides a separate and independent cause for debarment. Additionally, to further protect the government’s interests during the term of the agreement, such AAs include certain controls to ensure compliance, such as quarterly reporting and, where appropriate, the use of an independent monitor to provide an independent verification tool for the SDO. In most cases, the AA is effective in improving the contractor, thereby providing the government with another responsible source for its needs.
Click here for an advanced look at their thoughts on how suspension and debarment should be properly used.
