1. of XX ©2015 PubKLearning. All rights reserved.1 Professor Christopher R. Yukins George Washington University Law School Washington, DC Comparing Causes for Debarment/Exclusion United States Conviction of a crime or civil fraud Poor contract performance Other serious misconduct showing the contractor is not responsible World Bank Misconduct, as narrowly defined by Anti-Corruption, Guidelines, and Consultant and Procurement Guidelines: fraud, corruption, collusion, coercion and obstruction Mandatory: Corruption, fraud, money laundering Non-Mandatory: Bankruptcy Bankruptcy Convicted re: professional conduct Convicted re: professional conduct Grave professional misconduct Grave professional misconduct Social security / taxes Social security / taxes European Union

2. of XX ©2015 PubKLearning. All rights reserved.2 Professor Christopher R. Yukins George Washington University Law School Washington, DC Responsibility (Qualification) Only On a case-by-case basis In U.S. – done by contracting officer Allowed by new EU Directives Adjudicative Debarment for “Bad Acts” E.g., World Bank Court-Ordered Debarment, After Judicial Proceedings Discretionary Debarment – U.S. Federal Based on “present responsibility”: focus on present status Debarment is a cross- government “meta- qualification” determination Performance Risk Reputation Risk Four Paradigms

3. of XX Professor Christopher R. Yukins George Washington University Law School Washington, DC ©2015 PubKLearning. All rights reserved.3 Cross- Debarment Automatic cross- debarment? If not, how should authorities cooperate? UNCITRAL Should UNCITRAL draft a model debarment provision? Fraud Should debarment be broadly extended to performance failures? Emerging Issues