Home > Vol. 81 > Issue 81:2 > Is “Protection” Always in the Best Interests of the Government?: An Argument to Narrow the Scope of Suspension and Debarment

Is “Protection” Always in the Best Interests of the Government?: An Argument to Narrow the Scope of Suspension and Debarment

Yuri Weigel · March 2013
81 GEO. WASH. L. REV. 627 (2013)

The federal government spent over $550 billion procuring goods, services, and construction from the private sector last year. To keep these taxpayer dollars from going to inscrutable contractors, the government uses the remedies of suspension and debarment to ensure that only “responsible” parties perform government contracts. The current regulations, however, are too broad and permit agencies to suspend and debar individuals and companies that do not have an established connection to government contracting. In the face of political pressures to increase suspension and debarment actions, these overbroad regulations invite misuse. Not only do actions against such individuals and companies violate the purposes of the suspension and debarment regulations—protecting the government and acting in the public interest—they are inefficient and waste valuable taxpayer resources. Narrowing the scope of suspension and debarment regulations so that agencies may take actions only against those individuals and companies that currently contract, or have previously contracted, with the government ensures suspension and debarment programs are efficiently employing their limited resources with an aim toward protecting the government, not generally policing contractor behavior.

You may also like
A Comprehensive Approach to Stateless Income
“Yes We Scan”: Using SEC Disclosures to Compel and Standardize Tech Companies’ Reports on Government Requests for User Data
Enhancing Responsiveness and Alleviating Gridlock: Pragmatic Steps to Balance Campaign Finance Law in Light of the Supreme Court’s Jurisprudence
LAWS unto Themselves: Controlling the Development and Use of Lethal Autonomous Weapons Systems