Key Comparative Elements: U.S. and European Debarment Systems History: The U.S. federal debarment system grew organically out of contractor qualification decisions by a contracting official – as Art. 57 of EU Directive 2014/24/EU now suggests. Risk Mitigation – Not Punishment: As a result, the U.S. discretionary debarment system is broadly one of risk assessment and mitigation (reputational and performance risks, primarily), and not a system for punishment.  FAR 9.402(b), 48 CFR 9.402(b). Senior Decisionmaker in Procurement Function: As a system of risk management grounded in procurement, it is important to keep the debarment function closely tied into the procurement function, at a high level; decisionmakers outside the procurement function can't effectively assess performance risk, but contracting officials at a low level of government often can't effectively assess reputational risk to the government.  Exchanging Data on Risk: To make the risk assessment work well, it is important to have accessible sources of data on contractors, and effective means of sharing that data.  The U.S. government is still working all that out (see, e.g., www.sam.gov), and the United States can learn from what the Europeans are doing as they establish, for example, Europe-wide systems for contractor certification. Risk Mitigation Through Compliance: Since risk management is the essence of our debarment function, risk mitigation efforts -- through corporate compliance ("self-cleaning") measures, for example, or monitoring -- are critically important. E.g., FAR 9.4 Christopher Yukins, cyukins@law.gwu.edu – www.publicprocurementinternational.com

Sanctions System Overview