AMI News

Every compliance professional should be familiar with the concept of present responsibility. Jay Rosen discusses the term and its place in suspensions and debarments.

Present responsibility has become sort of a buzzword. It’s the underlying basis for action involving excluding a party from the federal marketplace through suspension or department.

Unfortunately, the phrase itself is not defined anywhere in the regulatory structure. This means its determination comes down to the discretion of the federal officials who have been empowered to exercise the suspension and debarment authority.

Yet even with this lack of a statutory or regulator definition, there are some common factors and guidelines out there that can help the compliance community understand some of the elements of suspension and debarment as they relate to this issue.

Jay Rosen, “Mr. Monitor,” continues a series on suspension and debarment, discussing where these actions meet with FCPA enforcement.

Debarment may be based on actions so serious or compelling that it affects the present responsibility of the contractor or subcontractor. There is some fairly broad language as to what the basis for a suspension and debarment can be. This means that in the context of anti-corruption laws, it can be the basis of a suspension or debarment.

Jay Rosen, “Mr. Monitor,” explores the similarities between suspensions and debarments, as well as how the actions differ. As far as likenesses go, consider both actions the kiss of death for federal contractors.

Recalling that the GSA website states, “The Suspension and Debarment process protects the federal government from fraud, waste and abuse by using a number of tools to avoid doing business with non-responsible contractors. Suspensions, proposals for debarment and debarments are the most widely known tools as these actions are visible to the public.

A suspension is used when there is an immediate need. It is a temporary measure; there is a 12-month limit, which can be extended for another six months. A debarment is for a specific term, but generally not longer than three years.

Jay Rosen, “Mr. Monitor,” of Affiliated Monitors, continues his running series on monitorships with a sub-series on the tools the government uses to guard against fraud, waste and abuse.

The General Services Administration website states, “the suspension and debarment process protects the federal government from fraud, waste and abuse by using a number of tools to avoid doing business with non-responsible contractors. Suspensions, proposals for debarment and debarments are the most widely known tools, as these actions are visible to the public.”

Suspension and debarment are not civil or criminal matters resulting in a penalty being imposed on a party; instead, they are an administrative matter.

Jay Rosen concludes his exploration on issues in working with monitors by considering how lawyers can engage monitors – most typically when their clients are under investigation for some regulatory issue, such as an FCPA enforcement action.

The biggest mistake outside counsel can make is waiting too long before bringing on an independent monitor.

AMI’s experience is that if you wait until after the conclusion of a matter, you have lost valuable time and potentially cost yourself money in the form of higher fines and penalties. The government expects compliance shortcomings to be remediated during the pendency of an investigation.

A monitorship can even begin before self-reporting to the government. This is because a company should want to find the problem before it voluntarily reports the problem to the government; the company could receive credit for having done so.

Jay Rosen discusses the various ways regulators at all levels – federal, state and local – use monitors, as well as how monitors can be used outside the regulatory context in areas as diverse as M&As, business ventures, IP and licensing.

Most compliance practitioners are aware of the role monitors play in the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) enforcement arena. However, the use of independent monitors is much broader than simply in criminal or civil enforcement actions involving a deferred prosecution agreement, non-prosecution agreement, corporate integrity agreement or other form of resolution.

Federal agencies use monitors for a wide variety
of roles to ensure compliance with agreements.