C.F.R. » Title 2 » CHAPTER I—OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET GOVERNMENT-WIDE GUIDANCE FOR FEDERAL FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE › PART 180—OMB GUIDELINES TO AGENCIES ON GOVERNMENT-WIDE DEBARMENT AND SUSPENSION (NONPROCUREMENT) › Subpart A—General

2 C.F.R. § 180.125

What is the purpose of the nonprocurement debarment and suspension system?

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) To protect the public interest, the Federal Government ensures the integrity of Federal programs by conducting business only with responsible persons.

(b) A Federal agency uses the nonprocurement debarment and suspension system to exclude persons who are not presently responsible from Federal programs.

(c) An exclusion is a serious action that a Federal agency may take only to protect the public interest. A Federal agency may not exclude a person or commodity for the purposes of punishment.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 2020–2025 · leading case: Weaver v. Russell (D.D.C. 2020).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Weaver v. Russell (D.D.C. 2020). · cites it 3× “” 2 C.F.R. § 180.125 (a). Agencies use “the nonprocurement debarment and suspension system to exclude from Federal programs persons who are not presently responsible.”
Frech v. U.S. Dep't of Health & Human Servs. (D.D.C. 2025). · cites it 3× “” 2 C.F.R. § 180.125 (b) (2024). An agency may debar a person for “[a]ny .”
Pate v. Fed. High. Admin. (D.D.C. 2020). “See 2 C.F.R. § 180.125 (b). Accordingly, the formal nexus between the FHWA suspension and Figg’s pre-existing contractual arrangements, either state or federal, is unclear.”
Figueroa v. Dep't of Health & Human Servs. (M.D. Fla. 2025). “”); 2 C.F.R. § 180.125 (stating that the purpose of the debarment and suspension system is to “protect the public interest” and that agencies may not exclude individuals “for the purposes of punishment”).”
SIMFA Rose Pharm. Specialty, Inc. v. Garland (S.D. Fla. 2025). “1992); then citing 2 C.F.R. § 180.125 )). The DEA’s rationale for the ISO is that Plaintiff’s actions were “inconsistent with the public interest” and to allow Plaintiff’s continued registration would result in “an imminent danger to the public health or safety.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.