FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT: Reece Rushing, 202-234-8494 April 4, 2001 Say you are the government. You are considering two contractors, equal in every way except that one has repeatedly violated environmental laws. Common sense says you contract with the law-abiding company. But then, you wouldn’t be the Bush administration. On April 3, the administration published notice in the Federal Register announcing that it intends to suspend and eventually repeal a rule that promotes greater accountability for federal contractors – to make sure they comply with important public protections. Specifically, the rule instructs government contracting officers to look at a bidding company’s compliance with the law (including tax laws, labor laws, employment laws, environmental laws, antitrust laws and consumer protection laws) before awarding taxpayer dollars. Contracting officers need to take greater care in distributing federal dollars than they have in the past. According to the General Accounting Office, 80 firms that violated the National Labor Relations Act received more than $23 billion in contracts in Fiscal Year 1993. In FY 1994, $38 billion was awarded to 261 federal contractors that were cited by OSHA for 5,121 violations, many of which were both serious and willful. “A more careful examination of a prospective contractor's record and an up-front determination on compliance with the law would help ensure that taxpayer money is spent responsibly,” said Gary D. Bass, executive director of OMB Watch, as well as chairman of Citizens for Sensible Safeguards, a broad-based coalition of hundreds of public interest organizations. “It seems clear, however, that the administration is less concerned about its obligations to taxpayers – who the president claims to care so much about – and more concerned about the powerful corporate interests that made repeal of this rule a top priority. “Of course, this is not a complete surprise. Since his first day in office, President Bush has been waging war on health, safety, consumer, and environmental protections. From ergonomics standards and safe drinking water to medical privacy and global warming to drilling and mining on public lands, this president has made clear that he stands with corporate interests, no matter the price.” As for the contractor responsibility rule, which was completed at the end of the Clinton administration after years of work, the business lobby has dishonestly argued that it amounts to “blacklisting” – that companies could be barred from receiving federal contracts with no due process. “This argument is completely hollow,” Bass said. “It serves to distort the debate, because they know they can’t win on the merits. Each determination under the rule is made on a case-by-case basis for the contract in question, and does not constitute ‘debarment’ for all federal contracts. In other words, a company that is denied one contract on the basis of its legal track record is still eligible to be considered for another federal contract. This rule does not create a blacklist, however much the opponents insist it does.” As for due process, the claims here are equally dubious. The rule requires contracting officers to coordinate adverse determinations with agency legal counsel, to notify bidders if they are found non-responsible, and to provide the basis for that determination. If a company disagrees with that determination, the Federal Acquisition Regulation already provides for an appeal process (as directed in Executive Order 12979, Agency Procurement Protests). Moreover, the rule also makes clear that in making a judgement, contracting officers should give the greatest weight to convictions or civil judgments rendered against the prospective contractor in the preceding three years. In its Federal Register notice announcing its intent to repeal the rule, the Bush administration ignored industry’s cries of blacklisting, and instead argued in vague terms that it would be impossible to implement and too burdensome on industry. Again, these are not serious arguments – particularly when considered next to the benefits of ensuring the government doesn’t contract with chronic lawbreakers. To facilitate implementation, the rule requires bidding companies to disclose whether they have been found liable for violating the law within the preceding three years. This minimal disclosure requirement – which is the only “burden” placed on industry under the rule – makes it easy for a government contracting officer to make the necessary determination. Implementation is not the real issue. “The common arguments used against the contractor responsibility rule seek to dodge the core question: Should we consider a company’s compliance with the law in awarding taxpayer dollars?”, Bass said. “Common sense says yes. The business lobby and its allies in the Bush administration clearly believe the answer is no. They just don’t want to have to defend that position. I can’t say I blame them.”