48 C.F.R. § 9.402

9.402 Policy.

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

(a) Agencies shall solicit offers from, award contracts to, and consent to subcontracts with responsible contractors only. Debarment and suspension are discretionary actions that, taken in accordance with this subpart, are appropriate means to effectuate this policy.

(b) The serious nature of debarment and suspension requires that these remedies be imposed only in the public interest for the Government's protection and not for purposes of punishment. Agencies shall impose debarment or suspension to protect the Government's interest and only for the causes and in accordance with the procedures in this subpart.

(d) When more than one agency has an interest in the debarment or suspension of a contractor, the Interagency Suspension and Debarment Committee, established under Executive Order 12549, and authorized by section 873 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Pub. L. 110-417) (31 U.S.C. 6101 note), shall resolve the lead agency issue and coordinate such resolution among all interested agencies prior to the initiation of any suspension, debarment, or related administrative action by any agency.

(e) Agencies shall establish appropriate procedures to implement the policies and procedures of this subpart.

[48 FR 42142, Sept. 19, 1983, as amended at 54 FR 19814, May 8, 1989; 74 FR 31565, July 1, 2009; 79 FR 24199, Apr. 29, 2014; 90 FR 511, Jan. 3, 2025]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 30 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1986–2024 · leading case: James C. Caiola v. William H. Carroll, 851 F.2d 395 (D.C. Cir. 1988).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

James C. Caiola v. William H. Carroll, 851 F.2d 395 (D.C. Cir. 1988). · cites it 2× “” See 48 C.F.R. 9.402(a). The FAR stresses that debarment is a sanction to “be imposed only in the public interest for the Government’s protection and not for purposes of punishment.”

Shane Meat Co., Inc. & H. Ronald Shane v. United States Dep't of Def. & Def. Logistics Agency, 800 F.2d 334 (3rd Cir. 1986). · cites it 3× “See 48 C.F.R. § 9.402 (b)(1984). A debarment determination is necessarily a discretionary action, see 48 C.”

Friedler v. Gen. Servs. Admin., 271 F. Supp. 3d 40 (D.D.C. 2017). “1988) (quoting 48 C.F.R. § 9.402 (a)). Title 48, Chapter 1 of the Code of Federal Regulations, which is known.”

United States v. George Glymph, D/B/A Specifications & Standards, Inc., 96 F.3d 722 (4th Cir. 1996). “48 C.F.R. § 9.402 . Here, the debarment serves the important nonpunitive goals of preventing the further dissipation of public funds and protecting DOD programs — including, potentially, protecting public safety — by preventing the supply of substandard or defective parts.”

John F. Robinson, Tr. for the Francis E. Heydt Co. v. Richard Cheney, Sec'y, U.S. Dep't of Def., 876 F.2d 152 (D.C. Cir. 1989). “” 48 C.F.R. § 9.402 (b). Under the FAR, an agency may debar a contractor that has been convicted of, or is the subject of a civil judgment for, (1) fraud in connection with obtaining, attempting to obtain, or performing a government contract; (2) a violation of federal or state…”

Imco, Inc. v. United States, 97 F.3d 1422 (Fed. Cir. 1996). “See 48 C.F.R. § 9.402 (b) (1995) (debarments are not to be used “for purposes of punishment”).”

Med Trends, Inc. v. United States, 101 Fed. Cl. 638 (Fed. Cl. 2011). “See 48 C.F.R. § 9.402 (b) (2010). Plaintiff then explains that its suspension by the SBA was imposed in response to the indictment of a former employee of MED Trends who was terminated in September 2010.”

United States v. Fred L. Hatfield, Sr., D/B/A Hvac Constr. Co., Inc., 108 F.3d 67 (4th Cir. 1997). “See 48 C.F.R. § 9.402 (b). There can be little doubt that debarment was designed to be a civil proceeding.”

Lion Raisins, Inc. v. United States, 64 Fed. Cl. 536 (Fed. Cl. 2005). “As agencies are required to do business only with responsible contractors, 48 C.F.R. § 9.402 (2005), suspension and debarment sanctions serve as methods to enforce the USDA’s regulations covering contracts.”

Delta Rocky Mountain Petroleum, Inc. v. United States Dep't of Def., 726 F. Supp. 278 (D. Colo. 1989). “48 C.F.R. § 9.402 (b). The test for whether debarment is warranted is the present responsibility of the contractor.”

James A. Merritt & Sons v. Marsh, 791 F.2d 328 (4th Cir. 1986). “” 48 C.F.R. 9.402(b). In this case the public interest and the potential harm to the government coincide.”

James Merritt & Sons v. Marsh, 791 F.2d 328 (4th Cir. 1986). “" 48 C.F.R. 9.402(b). In this case the public interest and the potential harm to the government coincide.”

Show all 30 citing cases →

— 48 C.F.R. § 9.402(a) — 2 cases

James C. Caiola v. William H. Carroll, 851 F.2d 395 (D.C. Cir. 1988). “” See 48 C.F.R. 9.402(a). The FAR stresses that debarment is a sanction to “be imposed only in the public interest for the Government’s protection and not for purposes of punishment.”

Novicki v. Cook, 743 F. Supp. 11 (D.D.C. 1990).

— 48 C.F.R. § 9.402(b) — 4 cases

James A. Merritt & Sons v. Marsh, 791 F.2d 328 (4th Cir. 1986). “” 48 C.F.R. 9.402(b). In this case the public interest and the potential harm to the government coincide.”

James Merritt & Sons v. Marsh, 791 F.2d 328 (4th Cir. 1986). “" 48 C.F.R. 9.402(b). In this case the public interest and the potential harm to the government coincide.”

Frequency Elec. v. US Dept Air Force (4th Cir. 1998).

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.