49 C.F.R. § 26.107

What enforcement actions apply to firms participating in the DBE program?

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

(a) If you are a firm that does not meet the eligibility criteria of subpart D of this part and that attempts to participate in a DOT-assisted program as a DBE on the basis of false, fraudulent, or deceitful statements or representations or under circumstances indicating a serious lack of business integrity or honesty, the Department may initiate suspension or debarment proceedings against you under 2 CFR parts 180 and 1200.

(b) If you are a firm that, in order to meet DBE contract goals or other DBE program requirements, uses or attempts to use, on the basis of false, fraudulent or deceitful statements or representations or under circumstances indicating a serious lack of business integrity or honesty, another firm that does not meet the eligibility criteria of subpart D of this part, the Department may initiate suspension or debarment proceedings against you under 2 CFR parts 180 and 1200.

(c) In a suspension or debarment proceeding brought under paragraph (a) or (b) of this section, the concerned operating administration may consider the fact that a purported DBE has been certified by a recipient. Such certification does not preclude the Department from determining that the purported DBE, or another firm that has used or attempted to use it to meet DBE goals, should be suspended or debarred.

(d) The Department may take enforcement action under 49 CFR Part 31, Program Fraud and Civil Remedies, against any participant in the DBE program whose conduct is subject to such action under 49 CFR part 31.

(e) The Department may refer to the Department of Justice, for prosecution under 18 U.S.C. 1001 or other applicable provisions of law, any person who makes a false or fraudulent statement in connection with participation of a DBE in any DOT-assisted program or otherwise violates applicable Federal statutes.

[64 FR 5126, Feb. 2, 1999, as amended at 76 FR 5101, Jan. 28, 2011]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 2 cases, 2008–2020 · leading case: United States v. Juan Carlos Bazantes, 978 F.3d 1227 (11th Cir. 2020).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

United States v. Juan Carlos Bazantes, 978 F.3d 1227 (11th Cir. 2020). “49 C.F.R. § 26.107 (e); see also id. § 26.”

Amos v. Dist. of Columbia, 589 F. Supp. 2d 48 (D.D.C. 2008). “See 49 C.F.R. § 26.107 . Thus, because Mr. Amos had a reasonable basis to believe that fraud was illegal, his disclosures were “protected disclosure[s]” within the meaning of the WPA.”

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.