Us Vs Hatfield Case Study

United States v. Fred L. Hatfield, Sr., d/b/a/ HVAC Construction Co., Inc.

Facts: Since 1990, Fred L. Hatfield, Sr. who did business as HVAC Construction Company with the government made false statements to the government and was formally charged. Accusations were for fraudulent misrepresentation by stating that he had never had a government contract terminated for default, making fraudulent certifications for payment to his subcontractors and presenting a false subcontractor invoice. His conduct was also the basis for earlier debarment from government contracting. In July 1994, the Army debarred Hatfield and his companies from all government contracting for a period of 26 months which cost Hatfield and his company $1,147,227 in attorney’s fees, lost profits, and out-of-pocket expenses. Hatfield filed a motion to dismiss the indictment at the district court based on violating the Double Jeopardy Clause which the court denied, and an appeal followed at the U.S. Court of Appeals.
Issue: Can Hatfield be prosecuted criminally for the same fraudulent conduct that led to the debarment?

Rule: FAR 9.402(b) states that debarment is “…imposed only in the public interest for the Government’s protection and not for purposes of punishment.” i.e. debarment is civil and remedial. …show more content…
A contractor can be debarred for a variety of reasons such as commissioning of fraud, embezzlement, theft, forgery, bribery, falsification of records or making false statements. The purpose of debarring a contractor is to protect the government’s interest by restricting only responsible contractors to work with the government; and not for purposes of punishment. Debarment is a civil protective remedy with informal procedures where the proof demanded is by a preponderance of the evidence if not based on a conviction or

Show More

Related Documents: Us Vs Hatfield Case Study

The Role Of Attractiveness In Persuasio Essay