(a) The fraudulent, criminal, or other seriously improper conduct of any officer, director, shareholder, partner, employee, or other individual associated with a contractor may be imputed to the contractor when the conduct occurred in connection with the individual's performance of duties for or on behalf of the contractor, or with the contractor's knowledge, approval, or acquiescence. The contractor's acceptance of the benefits derived from the conduct shall be evidence of such knowledge, approval, or acquiescence.
(b) The fraudulent, criminal, or other seriously improper conduct of a contractor may be imputed to any officer, director, shareholder, partner, employee, or other individual associated with the contractor who participated in, knew of, or had reason to know of the contractor's conduct.
(c) The fraudulent, criminal, or other seriously improper conduct of one contractor participating in a joint venture or similar arrangement may be imputed to other participating contractors if the conduct occurred for or on behalf of the joint venture or similar arrangement, or with the knowledge, approval, or acquiescence of these contractors. Acceptance of the benefits derived from the conduct shall be evidence of such knowledge, approval, or acquiescence.
Notes of Decisions
James C. Caiola v. William H. Carroll, 851 F.2d 395 (D.C. Cir. 1988).
“48 C.F.R. 9.406-5(b) (emphasis added). James Caiola, Elsa DeAngelis, and Edward Lodge opposed their proposed debar-ments, and submitted evidence that none of them had any knowledge of Murdock Webbing’s practices of submitting false testing reports to the government.”
Alf v. Donley, 666 F. Supp. 2d 60 (D.D.C. 2009).
“” 48 C.F.R. § 9.406-5 (b). 6 . The plaintiff posits that "[i]f this court finds that the debarment was arbitrary and capricious, then the court should also enjoin enforcement of the Administrative Agreement and the Voting Trust Agreement, which have no justification independent…”
Ali v. United States, 932 F. Supp. 1206 (N.D. Cal. 1996).
“48 C.F.R. § 9.406-5 (b). A contractor that is debarred or proposed for debarment is generally “excluded from receiving contracts, and agencies shall not solicit offers from, award contracts to, or consent to subcontracts with these contractors, unless the acquiring agency’s head…”
Int'l Exports, Inc. v. Hagel (D.D.C. 2017).
“” (quoting 48 C.F.R. § 9.406-5 (a))); see also id. at 675 (“Samir Itani’s conviction, which led to this action, involved deliberate fabrication of 9 inflated and false invoices.”
Int'l Exports, Inc. v. Mattis, 265 F. Supp. 3d 35 (D.C. Cir. 2017).
“” (quoting 48 C.F.R. § 9.406-5 (a))); see also id. at 675 (“Samir0Itani’s conviction, which -led to this action, involved deliberate fabrication of inflated and false invoices.”
Alf v. Donley (D.D.C. 2009).
“” 48 C.F.R. § 9.406-5 (b). 11 individual to be debarred under the “reason to know” prong of FAR 9.”
— 48 C.F.R. § 9.406-5(b) — 1 case
James C. Caiola v. William H. Carroll, 851 F.2d 395 (D.C. Cir. 1988).
“48 C.F.R. 9.406-5(b) (emphasis added). James Caiola, Elsa DeAngelis, and Edward Lodge opposed their proposed debar-ments, and submitted evidence that none of them had any knowledge of Murdock Webbing’s practices of submitting false testing reports to the government.”
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.