Report of the Commission on Government ... - Bayhdolecentral

68
sion proceeding have not been considered
necessary for ano<strong>the</strong>r, although <strong>the</strong> nature <strong>of</strong>
<strong>the</strong> <strong>of</strong>fense and <strong>the</strong> penalty may be similar or
even <strong>the</strong> same.
It is now established that debarment and
suspension actions are judicially reviewable,
but it is still unclear what kind <strong>of</strong> administrative
proceeding is essential to satisfy due process
requirements. The fundamental question
is to what extent a number <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> elements
<strong>of</strong> a trial-type hearing-notice, appointment
<strong>of</strong> hearing examiner, subpoena, evidence, crossexamination,
to mention several-are required
for debarment and suspension hearings.
Part G
Clearly, <strong>the</strong> lack <strong>of</strong> uniformity and <strong>the</strong> substantial
questions regarding due process dictate
a thorough, expert policy review <strong>of</strong>
debarment and suspension proceedings, and
<strong>the</strong> enactment <strong>of</strong> legislative changes if necessary.
Bearing in mind <strong>the</strong> caution <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> court
in Gonzales v. Freeman that to <strong>the</strong> debarment
power <strong>the</strong>re attaches an obligation to deal
with uniform fairness to all," such a review
should have as its goal published, uniform,
expeditious, and fair rules. The proposed Office
<strong>of</strong> Federal Procurement Policy would appear
to be well suited for this task.
32 834 F.2d 570, 580 (D.G. Cir. 1964).