Outcome: Proposed debarment terminated. Client’s eligibility for federal contracting preserved.

The National Security Law Firm successfully secured the termination of debarment proceedings against a federal contractor facing allegations of false labor charging under an Army contract. After a detailed written submission addressing both the factual record and the governing Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) standards, the Army’s Suspension and Debarment Official (SDO) closed the case and declined to proceed with debarment.

These cases are exceptionally difficult to win. Debarment actions are discretionary, carry a low evidentiary threshold, and often rely heavily on internal corporate investigations and adverse referrals. Once initiated, most proposed debarments proceed to final exclusion. This outcome reflects a rare and meaningful reversal.

The Allegations: False Time Reporting and Integrity Concerns

The client, a senior engineer working on a sensitive Army program, received a Notice of Proposed Debarment alleging that he falsely reported approximately 352 hours of labor over a five-month period. The referral relied primarily on:

  • Badge access data

  • Computer usage analytics

  • Coworker statements

  • An internal corporate investigation

  • A subsequent disclosure to the Department of Defense Office of Inspector General

Based on this information, the government alleged willful misconduct, lack of integrity, and present non-responsibility under FAR Subpart 9.4.

A debarment under these circumstances would have effectively ended the client’s ability to work as a federal contractor, with cascading consequences for future employment, security clearance eligibility, and professional reputation.

The Defense Strategy: Context, Credibility, and Present Responsibility

National Security Law Firm approached the case with a whole-person, process-focused strategy, rather than treating it as a narrow timekeeping dispute.

The response addressed three core failures in the referral.

1. Incomplete and Misleading Data Interpretation

The government’s allegations relied on badge and computer analytics that did not account for the actual nature of the client’s assigned duties.

During the relevant period, the client was performing hands-on integration, testing, and maintenance work from a mobile, on-site laboratory vehicle that:

  • Had no badge reader

  • Had no network connectivity

  • Was intentionally isolated for security reasons

Much of the client’s work also involved physical documentation review, annotation, and analysis using printed materials, as well as a secondary government-issued laptop that was not connected to the primary network monitored by investigators.

The submission demonstrated that the absence of digital footprints did not equate to absence of work. Rather, it reflected the limitations of the investigative tools used.

2. Discriminatory Workplace Context Ignored by the Investigation

The response established that the investigation relied heavily on statements from coworkers and supervisors who had previously engaged in harassing and discriminatory conduct toward the client based on sexual orientation and gender expression.

As a result of this hostile environment, the client often worked in alternative on-site locations to remain productive and safe. That context was never meaningfully considered by the internal investigation, yet it directly explained why coworkers claimed they “did not see” the client working.

Ignoring that context led to erroneous inferences about engagement, presence, and professionalism.

3. FAR Mitigation and Present Responsibility Analysis

Even assuming arguendo that concerns existed, the submission walked through the applicable FAR 9.406-1 mitigation factors, including:

  • Full cooperation with investigations

  • Absence of any prior history of misconduct

  • Willingness to implement remedial measures

  • Lack of harm to the government

  • Strong post-incident employment record

  • Overwhelming character and professional references

The response emphasized that debarment is not punitive, but protective, and that the record did not support a finding that the client posed any present risk to the government.

The Result: Debarment Proceedings Terminated

After reviewing the submission, the Army’s Procurement Fraud Division notified counsel that:

“The debarment proceedings against [your client] have been terminated.”

The Suspension and Debarment Official declined to proceed further, preserving the client’s eligibility to contract with the federal government and effectively closing the matter.

Why This Case Matters

This outcome is significant for several reasons:

  • Debarment cases are notoriously difficult to defeat, especially when based on internal corporate investigations.

  • The decision reinforces that analytics without context are not determinative.

  • It underscores that present responsibility must be evaluated holistically, not mechanically.

  • It demonstrates that discriminatory workplace dynamics cannot be ignored when assessing credibility and intent.

  • It shows that well-documented mitigation and remediation matter, even at the proposed debarment stage.

Our Role

This case was handled by National Security Law Firm, with representation led by Katie Quintana, whose background includes serving as an Administrative Judge adjudicating security clearance and suitability matters. That adjudicative perspective was central to framing the case in terms decision-makers recognize and respect.

Facing a Debarment or Responsibility Determination?

If you are a federal contractor, employee, or professional facing:

  • Proposed debarment or suspension

  • Allegations of false labor charging

  • Adverse referrals tied to internal investigations

  • Integrity or present responsibility determinations

early intervention matters. These cases are won or lost on context, credibility, and strategy, not just raw data.

National Security Law Firm: It’s Our Turn to Fight for You.