In 2011, we made recommendations to improve agency and government- wide suspension and debarment efforts. We reviewed 10 agencies and  found that the four agencies with the most procurement-related  suspension and debarment cases shared common characteristics: a  suspension and debarment program with dedicated staff, detailed policies  and procedures, and practices that encourage an active referral  process. Agencies Took Action to Incorporate Characteristics Associated with Active Suspension and Debarment Programs

We found that the Departments of Commerce, HHS, Justice, State, the  Treasury, and DHS’s FEMA all took action since we made  recommendations in 2011 to incorporate characteristics associated with  active suspension and debarment programs.agencies have addressed staffing issues through actions such as defining  roles and responsibilities, adding positions, and consolidating the  suspension and debarment function into one office. The six agencies also  have taken actions such as issuing formal policy and promulgating  detailed guidance. Finally, the six agencies have engaged in practices  that encourage an active referral process, including establishing positions  to ensure cases are referred, developing case management tools that   Since 2011, all six  allow for referral tracking and case reporting, and establishing training  programs. Table 1 summarizes the actions that agencies have taken  since 2011. The agencies generally experienced a notable increase  starting in fiscal year 2011 when they began to take action to incorporate  the characteristics associated with active suspension and debarment  programs. Suspension and Debarment Programs Have Received Attention Government-wide

The number of suspension and debarment actions government-wide has  increased in recent years, more than doubling from 1,836 in fiscal year  2009 to 4,812 in fiscal year 2013, as shown in figure 1. ISDC officials do  not consider the overall number of suspensions and debarments as the  only measure of success, and emphasized that increased suspension  and debarment activity has been coupled with agencies’ increased  capability to use suspension and debarment appropriately and adhere to  the principles of fairness and due process as laid out in the governing  regulations. OMB and ISDC have taken a number of actions to strengthen  government-wide suspension and debarment efforts. In response to  GAO’s recommendations, on November 15, 2011, OMB directed  agencies to take a number of actions to address program weaknesses  and reinforce best practices in their suspension and debarment programs,  including the following:
Appoint a senior accountable official, if one has not already been  designated, to be responsible for assessing the agency’s suspension  and debarment program and the adequacy of available resources,  ensuring that the agency maintains effective internal controls and  tracking capabilities, and ensuring that the agency participates  regularly on the ISDC. ISDC reported in September 2012 that each of the 24 agencies said it  had an accountable official in place responsible for suspension and  debarment activities, including assessing the adequacy of available  training and resources;  taken steps to address resources, policies, or both—in some cases by  dedicating greater staff resources to handle referrals and manage  cases and in others by entering into agreements to be mentored by  the managers of successful programs; and procedures to forward possible actions to the suspending and  debarring official. The ISDC also has increased its efforts to coordinate government-wide  suspension and debarment efforts by promoting best practices and  coordinating mentoring and training activities. Officials from  several agencies noted that the ISDC is instrumental in managing an  informal process to help agencies coordinate lead agency responsibility  when multiple agencies have a potential interest in pursuing suspension  and debarment of the same entity. Agency Comments

We provided a draft of this report to OMB and the Departments of  Commerce, Health and Human Services, Justice, Homeland Security,  State, the Treasury, and Veterans Affairs for review and comment. Further, OMB  credits the work of the Interagency Suspension and Debarment  Committee in helping to make many of the achievements possible.
Why GAO Did This Study

To protect the government's interests, agencies can use suspension and debarment to exclude individuals, contractors, and grantees from receiving future contracts, grants, and other federal assistance due to various types of misconduct. In 2011, GAO reviewed ten agencies and found that agencies issuing the most procurement related suspensions and debarments shared common characteristics: dedicated staff, detailed policies and procedures, and an active referral process. GAO recommended that six agencies—the Departments of Commerce, Health and Human Services, Justice, State, the Treasury, and the Federal Emergency Management Agency—incorporate those characteristics, and that OMB issue guidance to improve oversight and government-wide suspension and debarment efforts.
GAO was asked to review actions taken to implement the 2011 recommendations. This report examines (1) actions taken by the six agencies to incorporate characteristics of active suspension and debarment programs; (2) changes in the level of suspension and debarment activity; and (3) actions taken to improve oversight and government-wide efforts. To do so, GAO reviewed suspension and debarment programs, interviewed agency officials, verified the accuracy of agency data, and reviewed government-wide efforts.
GAO is not making any new recommendations in this report. OMB commented that it is pleased with the progress that agencies have made and with the work of the ISDC.The other agencies did not provide substantive comments.

What GAO Found

The six agencies GAO reviewed all took action to incorporate characteristics associated with active suspension and debarment programs. Since GAO made recommendations to do so in 2011, the agencies have addressed staffing issues through actions such as defining roles and responsibilities, adding positions, and consolidating suspension and debarment functions. The agencies also have issued formal policies and promulgated detailed guidance. Finally, the agencies have engaged in practices that encourage an active referral process, such as establishing positions to ensure cases are referred for possible action, and developing case management tools.
The number of suspension and debarment actions government-wide has more than doubled from 1,836 in fiscal year 2009 to 4,812 in fiscal year 2013. The number of suspension and debarment actions for the six agencies increased from 19 in fiscal year 2009 to 271 in fiscal year 2013 (see table below). The six agencies generally experienced a notable increase starting in fiscal year 2011 when the agencies began to take action to incorporate the characteristics associated with active suspension and debarment programs.
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the Interagency Suspension and Debarment Committee (ISDC) have taken action to strengthen government-wide suspension and debarment efforts. In November 2011, OMB directed agencies to address weaknesses and reinforce best practices in their suspension and debarment programs. The ISDC reported to Congress in September 2012 that, per OMB direction, the 24 standing member agencies of the ISDC had
an accountable official in place responsible for suspension and debarment;
taken steps to address resources, policies, or both; and
procedures to forward matters to the suspension and debarment official for possible action.
The ISDC has promoted best practices, coordinated mentoring and training, and helped coordinate lead agency responsibility when multiple agencies have an interest in pursuing suspension and debarment of the same entity. Reported increases in the number of suspension or debarment actions suggest that its efforts have been effective. ISDC officials emphasized that increased activity has been coupled with an increased capability to use suspension and debarment appropriately while adhering to the principles of fairness and due process.