The ISDC Issues Annual Report on Federal Suspension and Debarment Activities and Trends
Client Alert | 1 min read | 04.19.22
On April 18, 2022, the Interagency Suspension and Debarment Committee (ISDC) issued its annual report to Congress on federal suspension and debarment activities for Fiscal Year (FY) 2020. During FY 2020, the ISDC continued to focus on promoting the fundamental fairness of the suspension and debarment process, increasing transparency and consistency, enhancing suspension and debarment practices and alternatives, and encouraging more effective compliance and ethics programs by government contractors and nonprocurement participants. The ISDC also formed a subcommittee to provide recommendations and assistance to the Federal Acquisition Regulatory (FAR) Counsel drafting team to better align suspension and debarment procedures in the FAR with the Nonprocurement Common Rule (NCR).
Despite the COVID-19 pandemic, the report notes that the number of debarments in FY 2020 increased from FY 2019. However, suspensions, proposed debarments, and referrals of new matters all decreased, which was a result of several factors, including delays in mail service, travel restrictions, and postponements in court proceedings. With the exception of pre-notice letters, the metrics also indicate that agencies relied more heavily on alternatives to suspension and debarment, such as administrative agreements, voluntary exclusions, post-notice engagements, and declinations. Notably, the agencies that executed alternatives to suspension and debarment varied from FY 2019, demonstrating that the government applies administrative remedies based on the particular facts presented in each case.
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 7 min read | 08.16.24
Over the past several years, federal courts have increasingly questioned the authority of administrative law judges (ALJs) to adjudicate alleged violations of certain labor and employment statutes. In the last several weeks, two U.S. district courts in Texas issued decisions halting unfair labor practice proceedings before the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) on the grounds that NLRB ALJs lack the constitutional authority to preside over such actions due to unconstitutional protections against their removal.[1] Similarly, the last year has seen several decisions by courts in the Fifth and Eleventh Circuits finding that ALJs, whose decisions are not reviewable by a Presidential appointee, lack constitutional authority under the Appointments Clause to adjudicate claims.[2] The trend illustrated by these decisions, combined with the Supreme Court’s decision in June to abandon the Chevron doctrine of extending deference to federal agency rule-making proceedings, portend significant changes in the way employers interact with federal agencies that enforce labor and employment law.
Client Alert | 2 min read | 08.15.24
Department of Defense Plans Increased Investment in Clean Energy
Client Alert | 7 min read | 08.15.24
