The prohibited behavior could involve, for example,  fraudulently receiving payments under federal health care programs or  violating export control regulations. Contracting officers are responsible  for checking EPLS to ensure that they do not award contracts to these  firms or individuals. Several civilian departments and agencies had few or no such cases. For fiscal years 2006 through 2010, about 4,600 cases—about 16 percent  of all cases in EPLS—involved suspension and debarment actions taken  at the discretion of agencies against firms and individuals based on any of  the numerous causes specified in either the FAR or NCR, such as fraud,  theft, or bribery or history of failure to perform on government contracts or  transactions. Such cases generally result in exclusion from all federal  contracts, grants, and benefits. During this same time period, about 84 percent—or about 24,000 of the  approximately 29,000 total cases reported in EPLS—were other  exclusions based on a determination that the parties had violated certain  statutes or regulations. Agencies with Few or No Procurement-Related Suspension and Debarment Cases Lacked the Traits Common among Agencies with More Active Programs

The remaining six agencies we studied—HHS, FEMA, Commerce,  Justice, State, and Treasury—do not have the characteristics common to  the four agencies with the most suspension and debarment cases. Based  on our review of agency documents and interviews with agency officials,  none of these six agencies had dedicated suspension and debarment  staff, detailed policies and guidance other than those to implement the  FAR, or practices that encourage an active referral process. OMB assigned  responsibility for governmentwide coordination to ISDC; however, ISDC  relies on agencies’ voluntary participation in its processes and member  agencies’ limited resources to fulfill its mission. More  recently, the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal  Year 2009 strengthened the committee’s role by specifying functions  ISDC was to perform, including  resolve lead agency responsibility and coordinate actions among  interested agencies with respect to suspension or debarment  proceedings, report to Congress annually on agency suspension and debarment  activities and accomplishments as well as agency participation in the  committee’s work, recommend to OMB committee-approved changes to the government  suspension and debarment system and its rules, and   encourage and assist agencies in cooperating to achieve operational  efficiencies in the governmentwide suspension and debarment  system. Likewise, in part because it could not compel agencies to respond to its  inquiries, ISDC took almost 2 years to submit its required annual report to  Congress on agencies’ suspension and debarment activities. These officials also noted that their limited resources to devote to  committee responsibilities further delayed the report. In addition, to improve suspension and debarment programs at all  agencies and enhance governmentwide oversight, we recommend that  the Administrator of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy issue  governmentwide guidance that (1) describes the elements of an active  suspension and debarment program, and (2) emphasizes the importance  of cooperating with ISDC in terms of    helping to resolve lead agency issues,    providing required reporting information in a timely manner, and    designating existing resources as needed to enable the committee  to function effectively. Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

To determine the nature and extent of governmentwide suspensions and  debarments, we analyzed data for fiscal years 2006 through 2010 from  the web-based Excluded Parties List System (EPLS) managed by the  General Services Administration. We selected a mix of  these agencies, including the Defense Logistics Agency, the Department  of the Navy, the General Services Administration, and the Department of  Homeland Security’s (DHS) U.S. Immigration and Customs  Enforcement—all of which had relatively more cases involving federal  procurement than other agencies—and the Departments of Commerce,  Health and Human Services, Justice, State, and the Treasury, and DHS’s  Federal Emergency Management Agency—all of which had relatively few  or no exclusions involving federal procurements. To identify governmentwide efforts to oversee and coordinate the use of  suspension and debarment, we met with officials from the Office of  Management and Budget, which provides overall direction of  governmentwide procurement policies; the Interagency Suspension and  Debarment Committee; CIGIE’s Suspension and Debarment Working  Group; and the General Services Administration, which manages and  maintains the governmentwide EPLS. Develop detailed implementing guidance. 3.
Why GAO Did This Study

The federal government spent more than $535 billion on contracted goods and services in fiscal year 2010. One tool for ensuring that agencies are only awarding contracts to responsible sources is the use of suspensions and debarments--actions taken by agencies to exclude firms or individuals from receiving federal contracts or assistance based on various types of misconduct. This report analyzed (1) the nature and extent of governmentwide exclusions reported in the Excluded Parties List System (EPLS) maintained by the General Services Administration; (2) the relationship, if any, between practices at various agencies and the level of suspensions and debarments under federal acquisition regulations; and (3) governmentwide efforts to oversee and coordinate the use of suspensions and debarments across federal agencies. GAO reviewed EPLS data and suspension and debarment programs at 10 federal agencies, including those with relatively more suspensions and debarments and those with few or none to identify differences between the two groups.

What GAO Found

Suspensions and debarments made up about 16 percent of exclusions in EPLS for fiscal years 2006 through 2010. These are discretionary exclusions taken by agencies based on causes specified in regulations for acquisitions or grants and assistance, including fraud, bribery, or a history of failure to perform on government contracts. The remaining 84 percent were exclusions based on violations of statutes or other regulations, including health care fraud or illegal exports. In these cases, agencies are generally required to exclude the party from participating in specified government transactions or activities. More than half of the governmentwide suspensions and debarments were based on acquisition regulations. Several agencies did not report any such cases. The four agencies GAO reviewed with the most suspensions and debarments based on acquisition regulations shared certain characteristics that were not present at agencies with relatively few or no such cases. These agencies had staff dedicated to the suspension and debarment program, detailed implementing guidance, and practices that encourage an active referral process. The six agencies without such characteristics had virtually no suspensions or debarments, regardless of the dollar level of their contract obligations. For example, the Department of Health and Human Services, the civilian agency among those GAO reviewed with the highest amount of contract obligations, had no suspensions and debarments based on acquisition regulations. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement had considerably less in contract obligations, but was one of the top four agencies of those GAO reviewed. The interagency committee responsible for governmentwide oversight and coordination of suspensions and debarments faces challenges as it relies on voluntary agency participation and only the limited resources of member agencies to fulfill its mission. For example, the committee took almost 2 years to submit a required annual report to Congress on agencies' suspension and debarment activities because agencies had been slow in providing needed information and it had limited resources to devote to the report.

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that the six agencies it examined that did not have the characteristics associated with active suspension and debarment programs incorporate those characteristics, and that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) improve its governmentwide efforts and enhance governmentwide oversight. Five of the six agencies and OMB generally concurred with the recommendations. The Department of Justice believes its existing guidelines are sufficient, but GAO does not agree.