Statement of Jo Ann Harris on March 12, 1981 Concerning Federal Debarment and Suspension, Before the Senate Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management

• NCJ Number: 76838
• Author(s): J A Harris
• Date Published: 1981
• Length: 11 pages
• Corporate Author: US Dept of Justice
• Sale Source: National Institute of Justice/
• Publication Type: Legislative/Regulatory Material
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America

Annotation

An official from the Department of Justice's (DOJ's) Criminal Division testified before a Senate committee in 1981 on the effectiveness of existing debarment and suspension procedures in combating fraud in Government contracting.

Abstract

Although the assessment of suspension and debarment procedures falls outside the DOJ's expertise, observations based on experience with recent contract criminal fraud investigations and prosecutions may prove useful to the committee. The balanced and effective use of sound administrative remedies and legal sanctions is vital to the reduction of fraud and waste in government. DOJ has discovered many cases where agencies have not aggressively pursued the suspension and debarment remedy, thereby undercutting the criminal investigation. At the same time, when DOJ has decided to decline prosecution for reasons not related to the responsibility of the contractor, agencies have refused to suspend or disbar. Agencies do not always proceed adminstratively when a criminal action is pending because the prosecutor may feel that an administrative hearing can prejudice the criminal case, and the principles of grand jury secrecy can prohibit DOJ from sharing information with the affected agency. However, both witnesses and juries may question the seriousness of an investigation when the agency fails to suspend a contractor. DOJ now emphasizes that each case must be examined closely to determine if administrative and criminal processes can proceed together without prejudice to the Unites States. The best approach is for the prosecutor and the suspending agency to review the evidence together, agree on it, and make complete disclosure to the contractor. Also discussed are the feasibility of a certificate requiring contractors to indentify previous involvement with administrative or criminal sanctions, a government wide suspension and disbarment procedure, due process requirements, and the preindictment suspension of Midwest Engines and Transco Security.