48 C.F.R. § 9.405

9.405 Effect of listing.

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

(a) Contractors debarred, suspended, proposed for debarment, or voluntarily excluded, are excluded from receiving contracts, and agencies shall not solicit offers from, award contracts to, or consent to subcontracts with these contractors, unless the agency head determines that there is a compelling reason for such action (see 9.405-1(a)(2), 9.405-2, 9.406-1(d), 9.407-1(d), and 26.505(e)). Contractors debarred, suspended, proposed for debarment, or voluntarily excluded, are also excluded from conducting business with the Government as agents or representatives of other contractors.

(b) Contractors and other entities that have an active exclusion record in SAM because they have been declared ineligible on the basis of statutory or other regulatory procedures are excluded from receiving contracts, and if applicable, subcontracts, under the conditions and for the period set forth in the statute or regulation. Agencies shall not solicit offers from, award contracts to, or consent to subcontracts with these contractors under those conditions and for that period.

(c) Agencies shall not enter into, renew, or extend contracts with contractors that have been declared ineligible pursuant to 22 U.S.C. 2593e.

(d) Contractors debarred, suspended, proposed for debarment, or voluntarily excluded, are excluded from acting as individual sureties (see part 28).

(e)(1) After the opening of bids or receipt of proposals or quotes, the contracting officer shall review the exclusion records in SAM.

(2) Bids received from any listed contractor in response to an invitation for bids shall be entered on the abstract of bids, and rejected unless the agency head determines in writing that there is a compelling reason to consider the bid.

(3) Proposals, quotations, or offers received from any listed contractor shall not be evaluated for award or included in the competitive range, nor shall discussions be conducted with a listed offeror during a period of ineligibility, unless the agency head determines, in writing, that there is a compelling reason to do so. If the period of ineligibility expires or is terminated prior to award, the contracting officer may, but is not required to, consider such proposals, quotations, or offers.

(4) Immediately prior to award, the contracting officer shall again review the exclusion records in SAM to ensure that no award is made to a listed contractor.

[48 FR 42142, Sept. 19, 1983, as amended at 52 FR 9038, Mar. 20, 1987; 54 FR 19814, May 8, 1989; 54 FR 48982, Nov. 28, 1989; 55 FR 21707, May 25, 1990; 56 FR 29127, June 25, 1991; 59 FR 67033, Dec. 28, 1994; 60 FR 33065, June 26, 1995; 65 FR 16286, Mar. 27, 2000; 68 FR 69251, Dec. 11, 2003; 69 FR 76349, Dec. 20, 2004; 78 FR 37678, June 21, 2013; 83 FR 28148, June 15, 2018; 83 FR 48696, Sept. 26, 2018; 85 FR 67621, Oct. 23, 2020; 86 FR 3678, Jan. 14, 2021; 89 FR 30237, Apr. 22, 2024; 90 FR 512, Jan. 3, 2025]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 15 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1984–2025 · leading case: Med Trends, Inc. v. United States

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Med Trends, Inc. v. United States (2011) uscfc · cites it 4× “” 48 C.F.R. § 9.405 (a). The FAR further states that any contractors placed on the EPLS “on the basis of statutory or other regulatory procedures are excluded from re *646 ceiving contracts, and if applicable, subcontracts, under the conditions and for the period set forth in…”

Commercial Drapery Contractors, Inc. v. United States (1998) cadc “48 C.F.R. § 9.405 -l(a) states that “agencies may continue contracts .”

Imco, Inc. v. United States (1996) cafc · cites it 2× “Because the proposed debarment rendered it ineligible to receive the contract, 48 C.F.R. § 9.405 (a), (d)(4) (1995) (firms proposed for debarment are precluded from receiving government contracts), the SBA suspended proceedings concerning IMCO’s entitlement to a certificate of…”

Public Warehousing Co. K.S.C. v. Defense Supply Center Philadelphia (2007) dcd “In that case, the Court of Federal Claims considered only whether an agency decision to debar a contractor pursuant to the debarment regulation, 48 C.F.R. § 9.405 , was within its jurisdiction, and concluded that it was not.”

Medina Construction, Ltd. v. United States (1999) uscfc “As a result of the debarment Medina claims to have “been damaged in their business, property and reputation [in an amount] estimated to be at least one million dollars.”

Lasmer Industries, Inc. v. Am General, LLC (2010) ohsd · cites it 2× “48 C.F.R. § 9.405 (a). On September 15, 2005, the DLA debarred Lasmer and various officers of the company from government contracting for a period of three years for unsatisfactory performance on one or more government contracts pursuant to 48 C.”

Francis E. Heydt Company v. United States of America, and Richard Cheney, Secretary of Defense, United States Department (1991) ca10 “1 Based on this information, DPSC notified the Company on September 30, 1987, of its Proposed Debarment or exclusion from conducting business with the government under 48 C.F.R. § 9.405 . 2 Subsequently, on November 2, 1987, a DPSC contracting officer recommended terminating…”

Hickey v. Chadick (2009) ohsd · cites it 2× “48 C.F.R. § 9.405 (a). These contractors are listed on the General Services Administration’s Excluded Parties List System or “EPLS”.”

Caddell Construction Company v. United States (2016) uscfc “” 48 C.F.R. § 9.405 (2013). FAR 9.405-2 restricts a prime contractor from subcontracting work to contractors that are debarred, suspended, or proposed for debarment "unless the agency head states in writing the compelling reasons for this approval action.”

Ali v. United States (1996) cand “” 48 C.F.R. §§ 9.405 (a), 9.405(d). The General Services Administration (“GSA”) compiles and maintains a current list of all contractors debarred, suspended, proposed for debarment, or declared ineligible by agencies.”

Robert Thorne v. Dos (2020) ca9 “200 ; 48 C.F.R. § 9.405 ; 29 C.F.R. § 503.24 ; 2 C.”

IFONE NEDA Internet Service, Inc. v. Army & Air Force Exchange Service (2021) txsd “Federal regulations define the effects of debarment as follows: Contractors debarred, suspended, or proposed for debarment are excluded from receiving contracts, and agencies shall not solicit offers from, award contracts to, or consent to subcontracts with these contractors,…”

Show all 15 citing cases →

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.