The ISDC Issues Annual Report on Federal Suspension and Debarment Activities and Trends
Client Alert | 1 min read | 04.19.22
On April 18, 2022, the Interagency Suspension and Debarment Committee (ISDC) issued its annual report to Congress on federal suspension and debarment activities for Fiscal Year (FY) 2020. During FY 2020, the ISDC continued to focus on promoting the fundamental fairness of the suspension and debarment process, increasing transparency and consistency, enhancing suspension and debarment practices and alternatives, and encouraging more effective compliance and ethics programs by government contractors and nonprocurement participants. The ISDC also formed a subcommittee to provide recommendations and assistance to the Federal Acquisition Regulatory (FAR) Counsel drafting team to better align suspension and debarment procedures in the FAR with the Nonprocurement Common Rule (NCR).
Despite the COVID-19 pandemic, the report notes that the number of debarments in FY 2020 increased from FY 2019. However, suspensions, proposed debarments, and referrals of new matters all decreased, which was a result of several factors, including delays in mail service, travel restrictions, and postponements in court proceedings. With the exception of pre-notice letters, the metrics also indicate that agencies relied more heavily on alternatives to suspension and debarment, such as administrative agreements, voluntary exclusions, post-notice engagements, and declinations. Notably, the agencies that executed alternatives to suspension and debarment varied from FY 2019, demonstrating that the government applies administrative remedies based on the particular facts presented in each case.
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 3 min read | 06.03.26
Important EU Court Judgment Clarifies Rules on Interest Due in Cartel Damages Cases
In a judgment that will have direct and immediate consequences, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has clarified that for all competition damages actions brought after 26 December 2014, interest runs from the date on which the harm occurred. The ruling addressed two important questions: (1) whether national provisions implementing Article 3(2) of the EU Damages Directive — which requires interest to run from the date harm occurred —apply to cases in which the harm preceded the adoption of those provisions; and (2) how the date of harm should be determined in cartel cases involving the purchase of goods at inflated prices.
Client Alert | 2 min read | 06.02.26
SBA OHA Confirms That the Submission Date for a Proposal with Pricing Controls Size Determination
Client Alert | 5 min read | 06.01.26
California Court Upholds Insurer’s Duty to Defend After Covered Claim Is Dismissed
Client Alert | 2 min read | 05.29.26
California Assembly Passes AB 1776, Sending Major Antitrust Bill to the Senate




