C.F.R. » Title 48 » CHAPTER 1—FEDERAL ACQUISITION REGULATION › SUBCHAPTER B—ACQUISITION PLANNING › PART 9—CONTRACTOR QUALIFICATIONS › Subpart 9.4—Debarment, Suspension, and Ineligibility

48 C.F.R. § 9.407

9.407 Suspension.

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1988–2025 · leading case: Com. Drapery Contractors, Inc. v. United States, 133 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 1998).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Com. Drapery Contractors, Inc. v. United States, 133 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 1998). · cites it 4× “See 48 C.F.R. § 9.407 -l(c) (“The suspending official may extend the suspension decision to include any affiliates of the contractor.”
Agility Def. & Gov't Servs., Inc. v. U.S. Dep't of Def., 739 F.3d 586 (11th Cir. 2013). “48 C.F.R. § 9.407 -l(c). Second, the parallel provision governing debarment likewise permits an affiliate to be debarred solely based on its status as an affiliate.”
United States of Am., Ex Rel. Leocadio Barajas v. United States v. Northrop Corp., 258 F.3d 1004 (9th Cir. 2001). “See 48 C.F.R. § 9.407 . In February 1990, Northrop pled guilty to making false statements regarding the testing of the FDTs, and paid $17 million in fines and penalties to the government.”
Com. Drapery Contractors, Inc. v. United States, 967 F. Supp. 1 (D.D.C. 1997). · cites it 2× “48 C.F.R. § 9.407-2 (b). Under 48 C.F.R. § 9.”
Kirkpatrick v. White, 351 F. Supp. 2d 1261 (N.D. Ala. 2004). · cites it 2× “48 C.F.R. §§ 9.407 -l(a) & (b) & 9.407-2(a)(l).”
JDL Constr., Inc. v. United States, 14 Cl. Ct. 825 (Ct. Cl. 1988). · cites it 2× “See generally 48 CFR Section 9.407. Also as a result of the indictment, the SBA informed the contracting officer for the Mather IFB on May 5, 1988, that the award of the contract could proceed.”
Lion Raisins, Inc. v. United States, 64 Fed. Cl. 536 (Fed. Cl. 2005). “Suspension of a contractor is employed when "immediate action is necessary to protect the Government’s interest[J” 48 C.F.R. § 9.407 — 1(b)(1), and is for a temporary period.”
United States Ex Rel. Barajas v. Northrop Corp., 65 F. Supp. 2d 1097 (C.D. Cal. 1999). “On July 10, 1989, based upon the indictment and in accordance with 48 C.F.R. § 9.407 of the Federal Acquisition Regulations, the Air Force suspended Northrop’s Precision Products Division from doing business with the government.”
Matter of Search of Bldg. T Etc., 684 F. Supp. 1491 (E.D. Mo. 1988). “48 C.F.R. § 9.407 . The Court feels strongly that this type of suspension would clearly constitute irreparable harm to a company in Emerson's line of business.”
Allen v. United States (Fed. Cl. 2018). · cites it 2× “29510 ; 48 C.F.R. § 9.407 - 3(c)11; SDDC Regulation No.”
Joanne Mistler v. Lockheed Martin Corp.. (Mass. App. Ct. 2025). “" 48 C.F.R. § 9.407 - 2(a)(10). 13 The panelists are listed in order of seniority.”
Coleman Am. Moving Servs., Inc. v. Weinberger, 716 F. Supp. 1405 (M.D. Ala. 1989). · cites it 2× “See 48 C.F.R. § 9.407 -l(d). By letter dated March 25, Hansen suspended each of the indicted companies and individuals and Admiral Van from “future contracting with any agency in the executive branch of the United States 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.