Proposed bill seeks to rein in fraud, abuse.

• Author: Bradel, Ryan C.
• Position: Ethics Corner

* Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., chair of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform in February issued a "discussion draft" of newly proposed legislation entitled the Stop Unworthy Spending Act, or SUSPEND Act, aimed at reforming the federal suspension and debarment system.

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

It took several months for the draft to generate much discussion but it seems that the far-reaching consequences of this proposed legislation have finally registered. Recent weeks have seen a Hurry of discourse among industry, government suspension and debarment officials and other stakeholders.

The act seeks to consolidate and unify the federal government's suspension and debarment function--now managed by individual offices in more than 40 different agencies--into a single board of civilian suspension and debarment under the General Services Administration, and to enact other measures to strengthen the program.

Issa said his bill was designed to ensure "zero tolerance for fraudsters, criminals or tax cheats receiving taxpayer money through grants or contracts" and claimed that the bill would give the government a faster, more effective response to contractor fraud.

The suspension and debarment regime polices government procurement to protect the taxpayer from any contractor that is either unethical or not "responsible." A suspension or debarment effectively represents a decision that the risk of doing business with a certain company or individual is too great. It is solely a protective measure, not a punitive measure. Indeed, if used to "punish" beyond what is minimally necessary to "protect," these governmental sanctions are misused and can be corrected by court action.

The federal government's suspension and debarment regime today is rather atomized. The law vests responsibility for investigating potential wrongdoing and rendering decisions with each individual agency. Each agency is allowed to develop its own rules and procedures for actions, subject to a few minor baselines such as affording the contractor the opportunity to be heard and the right to appear with counsel. The 40-plus different federal agencies have separate procedures, as well as distinct cultures that determine how aggressively investigations are pursued and the measures that are used to mitigate for those companies/individuals that are permitted to return as rehabilitated contractors.

The growing perception among many in Congress and the executive branch is that...