An Analysis of Federal Debarment: The Top 10 Most Likely Causes for Exclusion from Defense Contracting

Executive Summary

This report analyzes the legal grounds for debarment from U.S. government contracting. It uses a hypothetical 2007 scenario involving John Sonday of Accurate Energetic Systems (AES) as a framework to explore a broader question: What actions lead to exclusion from federal work?¹

While public records do not support the specific allegation, the case provides a practical lens through which to examine the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR). The analysis explains debarment as a risk management tool. It details the primary causes for exclusion, from fraud and bribery to poor performance.

The report culminates in a ranked list of the top ten most likely causes for debarment. It also examines the principle of personal culpability for corporate misconduct. This document serves as a guide for defense industry professionals on the critical importance of proactive compliance and ethical conduct.

Introduction: Framing the Hypothetical and Establishing Purpose

In the high-stakes world of U.S. defense contracting, few administrative actions are as severe as a federal debarment.

This report uses a hypothetical scenario to examine the legal grounds for such an exclusion. The premise is the potential 2007 debarment of John Sonday of Accurate Energetic Systems (AES).¹

Public records show this specific allegation is unsubstantiated.¹ However, the scenario provides an ideal springboard to address a more critical question for the entire defense industry: What actions can lead to an individual or company being barred from government contracting?

This analysis pivots from the unproven claim. It provides a definitive overview of debarment as established by the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR). The objective is to furnish an authoritative guide to the causes for exclusion, the principles of personal culpability, and the government’s use of debarment as a tool to manage risk. This framework is essential for any professional navigating the complex landscape of federal procurement.

I. The Architecture of Exclusion: Understanding Debarment in U.S. Government Contracting

The federal government does not design its contractor exclusion system as a punishment. Instead, it is a risk management framework. It is built to protect the integrity of the procurement process and safeguard taxpayer funds from fraud, waste, and abuse.², ³

This framework actively identifies and mitigates risks posed by unreliable or unethical contractors. Its existence has a powerful deterrent effect. It compels companies to invest in robust internal ethics and compliance programs.

At the heart of this framework is the principle of “present responsibility.” This is a determination that a contractor currently possesses the necessary business ethics, integrity, and capability to be a trustworthy partner to the government.⁴, ⁵ Debarment is the administrative tool used to exclude a contractor who is found to be not presently responsible.

Governing Authority: FAR Subpart 9.4

The primary regulation governing contractor exclusion is Subpart 9.4 of the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR). This subpart is titled “Debarment, Suspension, and Ineligibility”.⁶, ⁷ It establishes the policies, causes, and procedures that all executive branch agencies must follow.

Specific agencies, like the Department of Defense (DoD), may issue supplements. The Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) is one such example.⁸ However, FAR Subpart 9.4 standardizes the core principles for debarment across the government.⁹

This regulatory structure is the government’s primary risk management system for its supply chain. Every cause for debarment in FAR 9.406-2 represents a specific risk indicator. These are events or behaviors suggesting a contractor may lack the honesty or competence required for public trust. An act of fraud, for instance, is not merely a past transgression; it is a powerful predictor of future risk.

For risk analysts, the FAR’s debarment causes are a pre-defined catalog of high-consequence risk events. They can be integrated directly into any robust due diligence framework.

Key Actors and Concepts

Understanding the debarment process requires familiarity with its key actors and concepts.

• The Suspending and Debarring Official (SDO): The SDO is a high-level agency official with the authority to make debarment and suspension decisions.¹⁰ The SDO acts as an independent adjudicator, weighing evidence to determine if a contractor is presently responsible.¹¹, ⁵
• Government-Wide Effect: An SDO’s debarment or suspension has a government-wide effect. This means the contractor is excluded from receiving new contracts from any executive branch agency.³, ⁵ This reciprocal enforcement makes exclusion a potentially catastrophic event, often described as a “death sentence”.¹²
• Suspension vs. Debarment: These are two distinct actions.
  • Suspension is a temporary exclusion. An agency typically imposes it when it suspects a contractor of wrongdoing and there is an immediate need to protect the government’s interests.¹³ It is based on “adequate evidence,” such as a criminal indictment.⁵
  • Debarment is a final decision to exclude a contractor for a fixed period, generally not to exceed three years.⁵, ¹⁴ It requires a higher standard of proof: a conviction, a civil judgment, or a “preponderance of the evidence” that the misconduct occurred.¹³

II. Category I Offenses: Debarment Based on Conviction or Civil Judgment (FAR 9.406-2(a))

The most definitive causes for debarment are those based on the outcome of formal judicial proceedings.

Under FAR 9.406-2(a), a criminal conviction or a civil judgment for certain offenses provides a clear basis for a debarment action.¹⁵, ¹⁶, ¹⁷ In these cases, a court of law has already established the contractor’s guilt or liability. The SDO’s role is not to re-examine the facts, but to determine if the offense renders the contractor not presently responsible.

These debarment actions are a lagging indicator of risk. The underlying criminal act may have occurred years before the final conviction. By the time an entity appears on the government’s exclusion list in the System for Award Management (SAM.gov), the risk has been latent for a considerable period.¹³

This reality has profound implications for due diligence. A reactive approach that relies only on checking the debarment list is inadequate. A proactive strategy must monitor for leading indicators, such as federal investigations or criminal indictments, which signal a high probability of a future debarment.

2.1 The Accurate Arms Connection: A Shared History

While Accurate Energetic Systems (AES) focuses on manufacturing military explosives, new intelligence reveals a direct historical link to a similarly named entity: Accurate Arms Company, Inc.

The definitive connection is a shared physical address. A 2000 reloading guide lists the address for Accurate Arms Company, Inc. as 5891 Highway 230 West, McEwen, Tennessee.¹⁸ This is the identical address listed for Accurate Energetic Systems.¹⁹

Given the shared address and name, it is highly probable they were related entities. Accurate Arms Company was a well-known distributor of reloading powders. Western Powders, Inc. acquired the company in 2004 and moved its operations.²⁰ This suggests Accurate Arms Company may have been a corporate predecessor or a sister company to AES.

This connection provides a compelling professional background for John Sonday. Leadership within a company that sourced, tested, and distributed smokeless powders would provide a relevant track record for the president of a military explosives firm. Such experience builds deep expertise in the sourcing, logistics, and handling of energetic materials.

2.2 Fraud or Criminal Offenses in Government Contracting

The quintessential cause for debarment is a conviction or civil judgment for fraud or a criminal offense. This applies to offenses directly connected with obtaining, attempting to obtain, or performing a public contract or subcontract.¹⁵, ¹⁶, ¹⁷ This provision, found in FAR 9.406-2(a)(1), is the cornerstone of the government’s effort to police the acquisition process.

It encompasses a broad spectrum of misconduct, including:

• Bribery and Kickbacks: Offering or accepting anything of value to influence a contract award.
• False Statements and Claims: Knowingly submitting false information in proposals, certifications, or invoices.
• Cost Mischarging: Deliberately billing labor or material costs from one contract to another.
• Falsification of Data: Submitting falsified product test results or performance data.

2.3 Financial Crimes and Offenses of General Dishonesty

FAR 9.406-2(a)(3) and (a)(5) extend the grounds for debarment to convictions for offenses that demonstrate a fundamental lack of business integrity.¹⁵, ¹⁶, ¹⁷ The government’s rationale is that an entity that engages in serious financial misconduct in any context cannot be trusted as a steward of public funds.

These offenses include:

• Embezzlement, theft, or forgery
• Bribery (in a non-contracting context)
• Falsification or destruction of records
• Making false statements
• Receiving stolen property
• Federal tax evasion

A conviction for any of these crimes seriously affects the assessment of a contractor’s present responsibility.

2.4 Anti-Competitive Conduct

The integrity of the federal procurement system depends on fair and open competition. FAR 9.406-2(a)(2) provides for debarment based on a conviction or civil judgment for violating federal or state antitrust statutes.¹⁵, ¹⁶, ¹⁷

This primarily targets collusive behaviors such as:

• Bid-Rigging: Competitors secretly agree in advance which firm will win a contract.
• Price-Fixing: Competitors agree to submit bids at a similar, artificially high price.
• Market Allocation: Competitors agree to divide markets or customers among themselves.

Participation in such schemes is a frequent basis for both criminal prosecution and subsequent debarment.

III. Category II Offenses: Debarment Based on a Preponderance of the Evidence (FAR 9.406-2(b) & (c))

The FAR also grants SDOs the authority to debar contractors based on a lower, administrative standard of proof: a “preponderance of the evidence”.¹³ This standard requires the SDO to be convinced that it is “more likely than not” that the alleged misconduct occurred.⁵

This gives the SDO significant discretion. It allows the government to protect its interests even without a criminal conviction or civil judgment. These fact-based debarments are a broad and potent area of risk for contractors. They can arise from patterns of behavior and administrative records rather than a single event.

This category shows how an agency can use administrative data in an exclusion proceeding. For example, a “history of unsatisfactory performance” can be established through a documented pattern of poor ratings in the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), a series of Cure Notices, or unanswered Show Cause letters.

This creates a direct causal link. A contractor’s failure to manage its administrative relationship with the government can accumulate into evidence sufficient to support a debarment. This transforms mundane administrative tasks into high-stakes risk management activities.

3.1 Critical Failures in Contract Performance

While contractual remedies typically handle poor performance, FAR 9.406-2(b)(1)(i) establishes that a sufficiently serious failure can serve as the basis for debarment.¹⁶, ¹⁷, ²¹ This provision targets two distinct levels of failure:

• Willful Failure to Perform: A deliberate refusal to comply with the material terms of a contract.
• A History of Failure to Perform or of Unsatisfactory Performance: A documented pattern of significant deficiencies across one or more contracts that, taken together, demonstrate the contractor is not responsible.

3.2 Knowing Failure to Disclose

The Mandatory Disclosure Rule, codified in FAR 9.406-2(b)(1)(vi), is a significant development in contractor responsibility.¹⁵, ¹⁶, ¹⁷ This rule imposes a duty on contractors to provide timely, written disclosure to the agency’s Office of the Inspector General when they have “credible evidence” of certain violations.

The covered violations include:

• Violations of federal criminal law involving fraud, conflict of interest, bribery, or illegal gratuities.
• Violations of the civil False Claims Act.
• Significant overpayments on the contract.

The failure to make such a disclosure is, in itself, a distinct and debarrable offense. An SDO may view the “cover-up” as a more serious breach of integrity than the original misconduct.

3.3 The Catch-All Provision: Any Other Cause of a Serious or Compelling Nature

To address novel forms of misconduct, FAR 9.406-2(c) includes a broad, discretionary provision.¹⁶ It allows for debarment based on:

“…any other cause of so serious or compelling a nature that it affects the present responsibility of the contractor or subcontractor.”²²

This “catch-all” provision can be invoked for a wide range of conduct not explicitly listed elsewhere. Examples could include:

• Serious ethical lapses that do not rise to the level of a criminal offense.
• A systemic disregard for critical safety regulations.²³
• Egregious misconduct in a private-sector context.

This provision underscores that the ultimate test is always the SDO’s assessment of the contractor’s present responsibility.

IV. Synthesis: The Top 10 Most Likely Reasons for Debarment of a Defense Consultant (Circa 2007)

This section synthesizes the legal analysis into a ranked list of the ten most probable causes for debarment. The “Circa 2007” timeframe aligns with the initial hypothetical query. However, the fundamental causes listed here are largely timeless, as the core principles of contractor responsibility have remained consistent pillars of federal acquisition law.

The ranking is based on the frequency of occurrence, the severity of the offense, and its direct applicability to an individual in a position of trust.

1. Commission of Fraud in Connection with a Government Contract
2. Bribery, Gratuities, or Conflict of Interest Violations
3. Making False Statements or Claims
4. Knowing Failure to Disclose Violation of Criminal Law
5. History of Unsatisfactory Performance on Contracts
6. Violation of Federal Antitrust Statutes (Bid-Rigging)
7. Falsification or Destruction of Records
8. Commission of Embezzlement or Theft
9. Federal Tax Evasion
10. Any Other Cause of a Serious Nature Affecting Present Responsibility

The following table provides a consolidated summary of these top ten causes.

Rank	Cause for Debarment	Governing Regulation	Standard of Proof	Scenario Example for a Consultant
1	Contract Fraud	FAR 9.406-2(a)(1)	Conviction/Civil Judgment	Knowingly including falsified performance data in a technical report submitted to the DoD to secure a contract award.
2	Bribery / Illegal Gratuities	FAR 9.406-2(a)(1), (a)(3)	Conviction/Civil Judgment	Providing a government official with undisclosed gifts or payments in exchange for favorable treatment in a contract competition.
3	False Statements / Claims	FAR 9.406-2(a)(1)	Conviction/Civil Judgment	Certifying that a product meets military specifications when knowing it does not, or submitting invoices for work not performed.
4	Knowing Failure to Disclose	FAR 9.406-2(b)(1)(vi)	Preponderance of the Evidence	Discovering credible evidence of a bribery scheme within the company and deliberately choosing not to report it to the agency’s Inspector General.
5	History of Unsatisfactory Performance	FAR 9.406-2(b)(1)(i)(B)	Preponderance of the Evidence	A documented pattern of delivering late, over-budget, and technically deficient analytical reports across multiple DoD contracts, resulting in poor CPARS ratings.
6	Antitrust Violations (Bid-Rigging)	FAR 9.406-2(a)(2)	Conviction/Civil Judgment	Coordinating with a competing firm to submit a deliberately high bid on a defense contract to ensure the other firm wins.
7	Falsification / Destruction of Records	FAR 9.406-2(a)(3)	Conviction/Civil Judgment	Altering or destroying project records, emails, or financial documents to conceal cost overruns or fraudulent billing from government auditors.
8	Embezzlement or Theft	FAR 9.406-2(a)(3)	Conviction/Civil Judgment	Misappropriating government funds provided for a research project for personal use.
9	Federal Tax Evasion	FAR 9.406-2(a)(3)	Conviction/Civil Judgment	A criminal conviction for deliberately underreporting income or falsifying deductions on federal tax returns.
10	Other Serious/Compelling Cause	FAR 9.406-2(c)	Preponderance of the Evidence	Engaging in a pattern of severe ethical misconduct or demonstrating a reckless disregard for classified information handling procedures that affects present responsibility.

V. The Principle of Imputation: Personal Culpability for Corporate Misconduct

An individual executive does not need to personally commit a debarrable offense to be debarred. The legal doctrine of imputation holds individuals accountable for misconduct that occurs within their organization. As outlined in FAR 9.406-5, this principle allows the government to pierce the corporate veil to determine responsibility.⁶, ⁷

The rule works in two directions. First, an agency can impute the improper conduct of an employee to the contractor.²⁴ This means a company can be debarred for the actions of a single rogue employee.

More critically for a leader, an agency can impute the organization’s misconduct to them personally. An executive can be debarred if they “participated in, knew of, or had reason to know of the contractor’s conduct”.⁵

The “reason to know” standard is particularly potent. It effectively negates willful blindness as a defense. An SDO can argue that a senior executive, by virtue of their position, was obligated to have visibility into the company’s operations. If significant misconduct was occurring, the SDO can determine that the executive should have known about it. Their failure to detect and prevent it constitutes a failure of responsibility, making them personally subject to debarment.

This doctrine is a primary driver for enforcing good corporate governance. By creating personal liability for corporate wrongdoing, the government provides a powerful incentive for executives to establish and champion robust ethics and compliance programs.

Conclusion: Debarment as the Ultimate Tool for Supply Chain Integrity

The Federal Acquisition Regulation provides the government with a formidable set of tools to exclude non-responsible actors from public contracting. The causes for debarment are extensive. They range from criminal convictions for fraud to administrative determinations based on a history of poor performance. Central to every debarment action is the SDO’s determination of a contractor’s “present responsibility”—a forward-looking assessment of their integrity and honesty.

While there is no public evidence to substantiate the hypothetical 2007 debarment of John Sonday, the exercise is profoundly instructive.¹ It demonstrates the serious risks that any individual in a position of trust within the defense industrial base must navigate. The principles of personal culpability and imputation mean that executives are not insulated by the corporate structure. They can and will be held accountable for misconduct they participated in, knew of, or had reason to know of.

For professionals in corporate risk analysis and legal compliance, the strategic implications are clear. A reactive approach limited to checking the exclusion list on SAM.gov is insufficient. Effective risk management must be proactive and holistic. It requires a thorough assessment of a company’s performance, ethics, and compliance programs.

Ultimately, a deep understanding of the causes and consequences of debarment is not just a legal requirement. It is a strategic imperative for ensuring long-term success and integrity in the federal marketplace.

---

Works Cited

1. An Investigative Analysis of the Accurate Energetic Systems Explosion: Verifying a Source and Updating the Narrative. October 2025.
2. Federal Acquisition Institute. “Transcript: Suspension and Debarment.” https://www.fai.gov/content/transcript-suspension-and-debarment
3. U.S. Department of Transportation. “Suspension and Debarment.” https://www.transportation.gov/assistant-secretary-administration/procurement/suspension-and-debarment
4. PilieroMazza PLLC. “Guilty Until Proven Innocent? Key Takeaways from the Recent Final Rule on the FAR’s Suspension and Debarment Procedures.” January 2025. https://www.pilieromazza.com/guilty-until-proven-innocent-key-takeaways-from-the-recent-final-rule-on-the-fars-suspension-and-debarment-procedures/
5. U.S. Department of the Interior. “Frequently Asked Questions: Suspension and Debarment.” https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/faq-suspension-and-debarment-for-website.pdf
6. Legal Information Institute, Cornell Law School. “48 CFR Part 9 – Subpart 9.4 – Debarment, Suspension, and Ineligibility.” https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/48/part-9/subpart-9.4
7. eCFR. “Subpart 9.4—Debarment, Suspension, and Ineligibility.”(https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-48/chapter-1/subchapter-B/part-9/subpart-9.4?toc=1)
8. Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement. “209.4—Debarment, Suspension, and Ineligibility.” https://www.acq.osd.mil/dpap/dars/dfars/html/current/209_4.htm
9. PilieroMazza PLLC. “Guilty Until Proven Innocent? Key Takeaways from the Recent Final Rule on the FAR’s Suspension and Debarment Procedures.” January 2025. https://www.pilieromazza.com/guilty-until-proven-innocent-key-takeaways-from-the-recent-final-rule-on-the-fars-suspension-and-debarment-procedures/
10. Defense Logistics Agency. “SUBPART 9.4 – DEBARMENT, SUSPENSION, AND INELIGIBILITY.” https://www.acquisition.gov/dlad/subpart-9.4-%E2%80%93-debarment-suspension-and-ineligibility
11. U.S. Department of the Interior. “Frequently Asked Questions: Suspension and Debarment.” https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/faq-suspension-and-debarment-for-website.pdf
12. Seyfarth Shaw LLP. “What Every Government Contractor Needs to Know About Debarment.” https://www.seyfarth.com/news-insights/what-every-government-contractor-needs-to-know-about-debarment.html
13. General Services Administration. “Suspension & Debarment FAQ.” https://www.gsa.gov/policy-regulations/policy/acquisition-policy/office-of-acquisition-policy/gsa-acq-policy-integrity-workforce/suspension-debarment-and-agency-protests/suspension-debarment-faq
14. Federal Acquisition Institute. “Transcript: Suspension and Debarment.” https://www.fai.gov/content/transcript-suspension-and-debarment
15. U.S. Government Publishing Office. “9.406-2 Causes for debarment.” Code of Federal Regulations. 2011.(https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CFR-2011-title48-vol1/pdf/CFR-2011-title48-vol1-sec9-406-2.pdf)
16. Legal Information Institute, Cornell Law School. “48 CFR § 9.406-2 – Causes for debarment.” https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/48/9.406-2
17. Acquisition.GOV. “9.406-2 Causes for debarment.” https://www.acquisition.gov/far/9.406-2
18. Accurate Arms Company, Inc. Accurate Reloading Guide, Number Two. 2000.(https://www.scribd.com/doc/36302640/Accurate-Reloading-Guide)
19. Association of the United States Army. “Accurate Energetic Systems, LLC.” https://www.ausa.org/sponsors/accurate-energetic-systems-llc
20. Titan Reloading. “Accurate Powders FAQ.” https://www.titanreloading.com/faqs/accurate-powders/
21. eCFR. “9.406-2 Causes for debarment.”(https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-48/chapter-1/subchapter-B/part-9/subpart-9.4)
22. U.S. Department of Energy. “909.406-2 Causes for debarment.” https://www.acquisition.gov/dears/909.406-2-causes-debarment
23. The Bucksnort Disaster: An Investigative Analysis of the Accurate Energetic Systems Explosion. October 2025.
24. Federal Acquisition Institute. “Transcript: Suspension and Debarment.” https://www.fai.gov/content/transcript-suspension-and-debarment