was 19. Project costs relating to the remaining five students must be returned. (3) Ineligible beneficiaries. Same as the example in paragraph (2), except that only 15 percent of the children were identified as gifted or talented. On the basis of the low percentage of these children and other evidence, the authorized Departmental official finds that the project as a whole did not address their special educational needs and was outside the purpose of the statute. Result: The LEA must return its entire award. The difference between the required percentage of gifted and talented children and the percentage actually enrolled is so substantial that, if consistent with other evidence, the official may reasonably conclude the entire grant was misused. (4) Ineligible beneficiaries. Same as the example in paragraph (2), except that 60 percent of the children were identified as gifted or talented, and it is not clear whether the project was designed or implemented to meet the special educational needs of these children. Result: If it is determined that the project was designed and implemented to serve their special educational needs, the LEA must return 25 percent of the project costs. A project that included 60 target children would meet the requirement that 80 percent of the children served be gifted and talented if it included no more than 15 other children. Thus, while the LEA provided authorized services, only 75 percent of the beneficiaries were authorized to participate in the project (60 target children and 15 others). If the authorized Departmental official, after examining all the relevant facts, determines that the project was not designed and implemented to serve the special educational needs of gifted or talented students, the LEA must return its entire award because it did not provide services authorized by the statute. (5) Unauthorized activities. An LEA uses ten percent of its grant under a Federal program that authorizes activities only to meet the special educational needs of educationally deprived children to pay for health services that are available to all children in the LEA. All the children who use the Federally funded health services happen to be educationally deprived, and thus eligible to receive program services. Result: Recovery of ten percent of the grant-all program funds spent for the health services. Although the children were eligible to receive program services, the health services were unrelated to a special educational need and, therefore, not authorized by law. (6) Set-aside requirement. A State uses 22 percent of its grant for one fiscal year under a Federal adult education program to provide programs of equivalency to a certificate of graduation from a secondary school. The adult education program statute restricts those programs to no more than 20 percent of the State's grant. Result: Two percent of the State's grant must be returned. Although all 22 percent of the funds supported adult education, the State had no authority to spend more than 20 percent on secondary school equivalency programs. (7) Set-aside requirement. A State uses eight percent of its basic State grant under a Federal vocational education program to pay for the excess cost of vocational education services and activities for handicapped individuals. The program statute requires a State to use ten percent of its basic State grant for this purpose. Result: The State must return two percent of its basic State grant, regardless of how it was used. Because the State was required to spend that two percent on services and activities for handicapped individuals and did not do so, it diverted those funds from their intended purposes, and the Federal interest was harmed to that extent. (8) Excess cost requirement. An LEA uses funds reserved for the disadvantaged under a Federal vocational education program to pay for the cost of the same vocational education services it provides to non-disadvantaged individuals. The program statute requires that funds reserved for the disadvantaged must be used to pay only for the supplemental or additional costs of vocational education services that are not provided to other individuals and that are required for disadvantaged individuals to participate in vocational education. Result: All the funds spent on the disadvantaged must be returned. Although the funds were spent to serve the disadvantaged, the funds were available to pay for only the supplemental or additional costs of providing services to the disadvantaged. (9) Maintenance-of-effort requirement. An LEA participates in a Federal program in fiscal year 1988 that requires it to maintain its expenditures from non-Federal sources for program purposes to receive its full allotment. The program statute requires that non-Federal funds expended in the first preceding fiscal year must be at least 90 percent of non-Federal funds expended in the second preceding fiscal year and provides for a reduction in grant amount proportional to the shortfall in expenditures. No waiver of the requirement is authorized. In fiscal year 1986 the LEA spent $100,000 from non-Federal sources for program purposes; in fiscal year 1987, only $87,000. Result: The LEA must return 1/30 of its fiscal year 1988 grant-the amount of its grant that equals the proportion of its shortfall ($3,000) to the required level of expenditures ($90,000). If, instead, the statute made maintenance of expenditures a clear condition of the LEA's eligibility to receive funds and did not provide for a proportional reduction in the grant award, the LEA would be required to return its entire grant. (10) Supplanting_prohibition. An LEA uses funds under a Federal drug education program to provide drug abuse prevention counseling to students in the eighth grade. The LEA is required to provide that same counseling under State law. Funds under the Federal program statute are subject to a supplement-not-supplant requirement. Result: All the funds used to provide the required counseling to the eighth-grade students must be returned. The Federal funds did not increase the total amount of spending for program purposes because the counseling would have been provided with nonFederal funds if the Federal funds were not available. (11) Matching requirement. A State receives an allotment of $90,000 for fiscal year 1988 under a Federal adult education program. It expends its full allotment and $8,000 from its own resources for adult education. Under the Federal statute, the Federal share of expenditures for the State's program is 90 percent. Result: The State must return the unmatched Federal funds, or $18,000. Expenditure of a $90,000 Federal allotment required $10,000 in matching State expenditures, $2,000 more than the State's actual expenditures. At a ratio of one State dollar for every nine Federal dollars, $18,000 in Federal funds were unmatched. (12) Application requirements. In order to receive funds under a Federal program that supports a wide range of activities designed to improve the quality of elementary and secondary education, an LEA submits an application to its State educational agency (SEA) for a subgrant to carry out schoollevel basic skills development programs. The LEA submits its application after conducting an assessment of the needs of its students in consultation with parents, teachers, community leaders, and interested members of the general public. The Federal program statute requires the application and consultation processes. The SEA reviews the LEA's application, determines that the proposed programs are sound and the application is in compliance with Federal law, and approves the application. After the LEA receives the subgrant, it unilaterally decides to use 20 percent of the funds for gifted and talented elementary school students-an authorized activity under the Federal statute. However, the LEA does not consult with interested parties and does not amend its application. Result: 20 percent of the LEA's subgrant must be returned. The LEA had no legal authority to use Federal funds for programs or activities other than those described in its approved application, and its actions with respect to 20 percent of the subgrant not only impaired the integrity of the application process, but caused signifi cant harm to other Federal interests associated with the program as follows: the required planning process was circumvented because the LEA did not consult with the specified local interests; program accountability was impaired because neither the SEA nor the various local interests that were to be consulted had an opportunity to review and comment on the merits of the gifted and talented program activities, and the LEA never had to justify those activities to them; and fiscal accountability was impaired because the SEA and those various local interests were, in effect, misled by the LEA's unamended application regarding the expenditure of Federal funds. (13) Harmless violation. Under a Federal program, a grantee is required to establish a 15-member advisory council of affected teachers, school administrators, parents, and students to assist in program design, monitoring, and evaluation. Although the law requires at least three student members of the council, a grantee's council contains only two. The project is carried out, and no damage to the project attributable to the lack of a third student member can be identified. Result: No financial recovery is required, although the grantee must take other appropriate steps to come into compliance with the law. The grantee's violation has not measurably harmed a Federal interest associated with the program. (Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1221e-3(a)(1), 1234(f)(1), 1234b(a), 3474(a)) 85.615 Grounds for suspension of payments, suspension or termination of grants, or suspension or debarment. 85.620 Effect of violation. 85.625 Exception provisions. AUTHORITY: E.O. 12549; Sec. 5151-5160 of the Drug-Free Workplace Act of 1988 (Pub. L. 100-690, Title V, Subtitle D 41 U.S.C. 701 et seq); 20 U.S.C. 3474, 1221e-3(a)(1). SOURCE: 53 FR 19191 and 19204, May 26, 1988, unless otherwise noted. Subpart A-General 885.100 Purpose. (a) Executive Order (E.O.) 12549 provides that, to the extent permitted by law, Executive departments and agencies shall participate in a governmentwide system for nonprocurement debarment and suspension. A person who is debarred or suspended shall be excluded from Federal financial and nonfinancial assistance and benefits under Federal programs and activities. Except as provided in § 85.200, Debarment or Suspension, § 85.201, Treatment of Title IV, HEA participation, and § 85.215, Exception provision, debarment or suspension of a participant in a program by one agency shall have governmentwide effect. (b) These regulations implement section 3 of Executive Order 12549 and the guidelines promulgated by the Office of Management and Budget under section 6 of the Executive Order by: (1) Prescribing the programs and activities that are covered by the governmentwide system; (2) Prescribing the governmentwide criteria and governmentwide minimum due process procedures that each agency shall use; (3) Providing for the listing of debarred and suspended participants, participants declared ineligible (see definition of "ineligible" in § 85.105(i)), and participants who have voluntarily excluded themselves from participation in covered transactions (4) Setting forth the consequences of a debarment, suspension, determination of ineligibility, or voluntary exclusion; and (5) Offering such other guidance as necessary for the effective implementation and administration of the governmentwide system. (c) Although these regulations cover the listing of ineligible participants and the effect of such listing, they do not prescribe policies and procedures governing declarations of ineligibility. (Authority: E.O. 12549; 20 U.S.C. 1082(a)(1) and (h)(1), 1094(c)(1)(D), 3474) [53 FR 19191 and 19204, May 26, 1988, as amended at 53 FR 19191, May 26, 1988] 885.105 Definitions. (a) Adequate evidence. Information sufficient to support the reasonable belief that a particular act or omission has occurred. (b) Affiliate. Persons are affiliates of each another if, directly or indirectly, either one controls or has the power to control the other, or, a third person controls or has the power to control both. Indicia of control include, but are not limited to: interlocking management or ownership, identity of interests among family members, shared facilities and equipment, common use of employees, or a business entity organized following the suspension or debarment of a person which has the same or similar management, ownership, or principal employees as the suspended, debarred, ineligible, or voluntarily excluded person. (c) Agency. Any executive department, military department or defense agency or other agency of the executive branch, excluding the independent regulatory agencies. (d) Civil judgment. The disposition of a civil action by any court of competent jurisdiction, whether entered by verdict, decision, settlement, stipulation, or otherwise creating a civil liability for the wrongful acts complained of; or a final determination of liability under the Program Fraud Civil Remedies Act of 1988 (31 U.S.C. 3801-12). (e) Conviction. A judgment of conviction of a criminal offense by any court of competent jurisdiction, whether entered upon a verdict or a plea, including a plea of nolo contendere. (f) Debarment. An action taken by a debarring official in accordance with these regulations to exclude a person from participating in covered transactions. A person so excluded is "debarred." (g) Debarring official. An official authorized to impose debarment. The debarring official is either: (1) The agency head, or (2) An official designated by the agency head. (h) Indictment. Indictment for a criminal offense. An information or other filing by competent authority charging a criminal offense shall be given the same effect as an indictment. (i) Ineligible. Excluded from participation in Federal nonprocurement programs pursuant to a determination of ineligibility under statutory, executive order, or regulatory authority, other than Executive Order 12549 and its agency implementing regulations; for exemple, excluded pursuant to the Davis-Bacon Act and its implementing regulations, the equal employment opportunity acts and executive orders, or the environmental protection acts and executive orders. A person is ineligible where the determination of ineligibility affects such person's eligibility to participate in more than one covered transaction. (j) Legal proceedings. Any criminal proceeding or any civil judicial proceeding to which the Federal Government or a State of local government or is quasi-governmental authority party. The term includes appeals from such proceedings. a (k) Nonprocurement List. The portion of the List of Parties Excluded from Federal Procurement or Nonprocurement Programs complied, maintained and distributed by the General Services Administration (GSA) containing the names and other information about persons who have been debarred, suspended, or voluntarily excluded under Executive Order 12549 and these regulations, and those who have been determined to be ineligible. (1) Notice. A written communication served in person or sent by certified mail, return receipt requested, or its equivalent, to the last known address of a party, its identified counsel, its agent for service of process, or any partner, officer, director, owner, or joint venturer of the party. Notice, if undeliverable, shall be considered to have been received by the addressee five days after being properly sent to the last address known by the agency. (m) Participant. Any person who submits a proposal for, enters into, or reasonably may be expected to enter into a covered transaction. This term also includes any person who acts on behalf of or is authorized to commit a participant in a covered transaction as an agent or representative of another participant. (n) Person. Any individual, corporation, partnership, association, unit of government or legal entity, however organized, except: foreign governments or foreign governmental entities, public international organizations, foreign government owned (in whole or in part) or controlled entities, and entities consisting wholly or partially of foreign governments or foreign governmental entities. (0) Preponderance of the evidence. Proof by information that, compared with that opposing it, leads to the conclusion that the fact at issue is more probably true than not. (p) Principal. Officer, director, owner, partner, key employee, or other person within a participant with primary management or supervisory responsibilities; or a person who has a critical influence on or substantive control over a covered transaction, whether or not employed by the participant. Persons who have a critical influence on or substantive control over a covered transaction are: (1) Principal investigators. (q) Proposal. A solicited or unsolicited bid, application, request, invitation to consider or similar communication by or on behalf of a person seeking to participate or to receive a benefit, directly or indirectly, in or under a covered transaction. (r) Respondent. A person against whom a debarment or suspension action has been initiated. (s) State. Any of the States of the United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, any territory or possession of the United States, or any agency of a State, exclusive of institutions of higher education, hospitals, and units of local government. A State instrumentality will be considered part of the State government if it has a written determination from a State government that such State considers that instrumentality to be an agency of the State government. (t) Suspending official. An official authorized to impose suspension. The suspending official is either: (1) The agency head, or (2) An official designated by the agency head. (u) Suspension. An action taken by a suspending official in accordance with these regulations that immediately excludes a person from participating in covered transactions for a temporary period, pending completion of an investigation and such legal, debarment, or Program Fraud Civil Remedies Act proceedings as may ensue. A person so excluded is "suspended." (v) Voluntary exclusion or voluntarily excluded. A status of nonparticipation or limited participation in covered transactions assumed by a person pursuant to the terms of a settlement. (w) ED. The U.S. Department of Education. (Authority: E.O. 12549; 20 U.S.C. 3474) [53 FR 19191 and 19204, May 26, 1988, as amended at 53 FR 19192, May 26, 1988] § 85.110 Coverage. (a) These regulations apply to all persons who have participated, are currently participating or may reasonably be expected to participate in transactions under Federal nonprocurement programs. For purposes of these regulations such transactions will be referred to as "covered transactions." (1) Covered transaction. For purposes of these regulations, a covered transaction is a primary covered transaction or a lower tier covered transaction. Covered transactions at any tier need not involve the transfer of Federal funds. transaction. (i) Primary covered Except as noted in paragraph (a)(2) of this section, a primary covered transaction is any nonprocurement transaction between an agency and a person, regardless of type, including: grants, cooperative agreements, scholarships, fellowships, contracts of assistance, loans, loan guarantees, subsidies, insurance, payments for specified use, donation agreements and any other nonprocurement transactions between a Federal agency and a person. Primary covered transactions also include those transactions specially designated by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development in such agency's regulations governing debarment and suspension. |