Representative Debarment Cases

THE CASES LISTED ON THIS PAGE DO NOT REPRESENT THE ENTIRE UNIVERSE OF CASES HANDLED BY MCADOO GORDON & ASSOCIATES, P.C. THE FIRM DOES NOT GUARANTEE OR PREDICT A SIMILAR RESULT IN ANY FUTURE CASE IT UNDERTAKES. CASE RESULTS DEPEND UPON A VARIETY OF FACTORS, WHICH ARE UNIQUE TO EACH INDIVIDUAL CASE. THE CASES DO SHOW THE WAY MCADOO GORDON & ASSOCIATES PREPARES AND PRESENTS CASES ON BEHALF OF OUR CLIENTS.

McAdoo Gordon & Associates represents clients being proposed for debarment from government contracts by various government agencies. We regularly represent both individuals and corporate clients who contract with the government. The firm's recent successful debarment cases include those involving:

Allegations of improper billing will often lead an agency to propose debarment. McAdoo Gordon & Associates represented an individual proposed for debarment from government contracts based on allegations that the individual failed to work over 200 hours that were charged to the government customer. We presented evidence that the client was working off-site or home on authorized sick leave during these hours. As a result, the government decided not to debar the individual.

McAdoo Gordon & Associates represented another individual who was proposed for debarment based on allegations that he billed significantly more hours than he actually worked. We presented evidence to the proposing agency that the discrepancy in the billing was the result of a billing dispute between the prime and subcontractor, and was not due to any misconduct by our client. The government did not debar our client.

Giving parties an unfair advantage in bidding on government contracts can also lead to a proposed debarment. McAdoo Gordon & Associates represented an individual proposed for debarment from government contracts based on allegations that the individual gave an overseas contractor an unfair competitive advantage in competing for a contract and that the individual had unfair and inappropriate contact with an employee of the contractor. The firm presented evidence that the award was not a competitive one and that the employee of the contractor was a long-standing family friend of the individual. As a result, the government decided not to debar the individual.