{
  "id": "RL30715",
  "type": "CRS Report",
  "typeId": "REPORTS",
  "number": "RL30715",
  "active": false,
  "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
  "versions": [
    {
      "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
      "id": 100226,
      "date": "2002-11-06",
      "retrieved": "2016-05-24T20:02:46.481941",
      "title": "The Contractor Responsibility Regulation: Needed Clarification or a Potential Blacklist?",
      "summary": "This report analyzes the controversy, for the most part now concluded, surrounding a Clinton\nAdministration revision of the Federal Acquisition Regulation to clarify the meaning and application\nof a statutory requirement that federal contracting officers must determine that a prospective\ncontractor has \"a satisfactory record of integrity and business ethics.\" The new rule issued in the\nClinton Administration's final days, instructed contracting officers to consider compliance with a\nwide range of tax, employment, environmental, antitrust, and consumer protection laws in deciding\nwhether a contractor is \"responsible,\" and thus eligible for a contract award. \n  During a drafting and comment period lasting more than 2 years, the proposed rule came under\nunprecedentedly heavy criticism from business and contracting groups, academic institutions, and \ntwo federal agencies. They said the proposed regulation was unnecessary and could lead to a\n\"blacklist\" of contractors who run afoul of myriad federal laws in the normal course of business. \nThe Clinton Administration, supported by environmental, union, civil rights, and consumer\nwatchdog groups, defended the proposal as needed to clarify the application of existing law and\nweed out contractors who may discredit the government. \n  One of the reasons the rule was so controversial was that it offered (to proponents) or\n threatened\n(to opponents) an opportunity to affect the behavior of contractors outside the realm of competition\nfor government contracts. Labor, environmental, and corporate watchdog groups believed it would\nprovide a positive incentive to improve business ethics and promote voluntary compliance with a\nbroad range of tax, environmental, labor, civil rights, and consumer laws. Business groups, however,\nwarned that it would upset a delicate balance in regulatory and litigation arenas, by adding the threat\nof federal contract losses to current penalties arising from common disputes with government,\nemployees, and watchdog organizations.\n  On December 20, 2000, the contractor responsibility regulation was published as a final rule\nto become effective January 19, 2001. Business and contracting groups voiced their objections to\nthe incoming Bush Administration. On January 31, 2001, the Civilian Agency Acquisition Council\nauthorized agencies to use an unusual \"class deviation\" procedure to suspend application of the rule.\nOn April 3, 2001, the Bush Administration took more definitive action to stay the Clinton\nAdministration's rule for 270 days. Exactly 268 days later, on December 27, 2001, the rule was\nrevoked in its entirety in a new rule-making procedure.\n  Representative Albert Wynn introduced  H.R. 4081  on March 20, 2002. The bill \nwould put the provisions of the contractor responsibility rule into legislation. No action was taken\non the bill. Nevertheless, GSA barred both Enron and Arthur Andersen, LLP from federal contracts\nby invoking the underlying statutory provision.\n  This report is no longer being maintained but remains available to Congress as a record of the\ncontroversy.",
      "type": "CRS Report",
      "typeId": "REPORTS",
      "active": false,
      "formats": [
        {
          "format": "PDF",
          "encoding": null,
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/RL30715",
          "sha1": "ca92742689b3e71fa54c38f241d95a21eba2ac5d",
          "filename": "files/20021106_RL30715_ca92742689b3e71fa54c38f241d95a21eba2ac5d.pdf",
          "images": null
        },
        {
          "format": "HTML",
          "filename": "files/20021106_RL30715_ca92742689b3e71fa54c38f241d95a21eba2ac5d.html"
        }
      ],
      "topics": []
    }
  ],
  "topics": [
    "American Law",
    "Economic Policy"
  ]
}