 |
| What tool would you choose? |
There is an old cliché that says “If you have a hammer, everything is a nail.” That’s the view many take of how the government should apply the tools of suspension and debarment, which reentered the news Feb. 28 when the Wartime Contracting Commission held a hearing to discuss how the government applies these tools to protect its interests.
Unfortunately, some witnesses, and some members of Congress, appear to favor the use of suspension and debarment as blunt instruments to be used whenever a company or, presumably, an employee of a company, is indicted for any offense related to their work for the government. To them, the fact that someone is alleged to have violated the law is reason enough to bar them from future government work.
“Where’s the accountability?” they asked.
However, as administration witnesses pointed out, while that may seem logical, it is a wholly inaccurate reading of the purpose of suspension and debarment. Hence, I would ask a different question: “Did the companies take actions to prove they’re ‘presently responsible,’ correcting the problems that led to the wrongdoing?” Isn’t that what really matters?
As Joseph Billings and Nathanael Hartland, attorneys from Miles & Stockbridge explain in the latest edition of PSC's Service Contractor magazine (out this week), suspension and debarment are the equivalent of a death sentence for government contractors. If they were applied to firms without first considering whether the firms in question are “presently responsible,” the results could be dire.
