Terminations, Suspensions, and Debarment

With good reason, contractors would prefer not dealing with issues involving terminations, suspensions, and debarment.  Unfortunately, terminations—particularly the unique “terminations for convenience”—are quite prevalent in the government contracting arena and often involve complicated legal and financial issues that companies are unable to effectively understand and resolve without the assistance of experienced professionals.  In addition, while few contractors are ever subject to formal disciplinary procedures and penalties, it is absolutely essential for contractors to engage legal counsel when they are suspended or proposed for debarment.  After all, these penalties—if upheld and applied—will result in ongoing and permanent damage to a contractor’s business and reputation.

Centre Law has effectively counseled contractors regarding terminations, suspensions, and debarments.  A representative list of Centre’s representations regarding these matters is found below.

• As a result of Centre’s persistent representation, the Department of Defense dismissed a debarment proceeding against our client and removed the company and its principals from the Excluded Parties List, allowing the company to resume its pursuit and performance of federal government contracts.

• We successfully convinced a Maryland state agency to convert our client’s termination for default to a termination for convenience in exchange for a modest settlement amount; our client avoided litigation and the potential to owe damages of more than $9 million.

• After our client was subject to multiple ASBCA appeals and proposed for debarment, Centre facilitated a no-cost settlement agreement with the Defense Logistics Agency; following execution of the agreement, the company and its principals were removed from the Excluded Parties List and were able to continue performing government contracts.

• Following a long and contentious dispute with the State Department over the merits of a possible default termination involving our client, we convinced the Department to issue a termination for convenience and allow our client to submit a termination settlement proposal for costs incurred prior to the date of termination.