## Facts

- Sameena Inc. (doing business as Samtech Research) supplied computer workstations to government agencies; Sameena Ali served as president, and Mirza Ali performed bookkeeping functions.
- Mirza Ali and a related company had previously been debarred by a federal agency for three years based on misconduct connected to a government procurement.
- Samtech submitted a proposal in response to an Air Force solicitation and certified that neither it nor its principals were debarred or proposed for debarment.
- During bid evaluation, the Air Force reviewed bank records and found Mirza Ali listed as a vice president on signature cards with authority to withdraw funds.
- The Air Force concluded the certification was false because it viewed Mirza Ali as a Samtech “principal,” disqualified Samtech’s bid, and issued notices proposing debarment (and, for Mirza Ali, an extension of debarment).
- Appellants submitted materials disputing Mirza Ali’s status as a “principal,” asserting the vice-president designation was mistaken and that his bank authority was limited to bookkeeping-related tasks.
- Appellants requested an evidentiary hearing under 48 C.F.R. § 9.406-3(b)(2) to resolve disputed facts about Mirza Ali’s role.
- The Air Force denied a hearing, determined Mirza Ali was a principal, and imposed a 15-year debarment on Sameena Inc./Samtech, Sameena Ali, and Mirza Ali.
- Appellants sued, bringing APA challenges to the debarment and civil-rights and common-law tort claims against individual Air Force officials; the district court dismissed the individual-capacity claims and granted summary judgment for the Air Force on the APA claims.

## Issues

1. Whether the Air Force violated due process and 48 C.F.R. § 9.406-3(b)(2) by denying an evidentiary hearing after appellants raised a genuine dispute of material fact about Mirza Ali’s status as a “principal” and the alleged falsity of the certification.
2. Whether dismissal of the civil-rights conspiracy and common-law tort claims against individual Air Force officials was proper.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit affirmed dismissal of the civil-rights and tort claims against the individual defendants.
- The Ninth Circuit reversed summary judgment for the Air Force on the APA claims.
- The court held that, because appellants raised a genuine dispute of material fact material to debarment, the Air Force was required to provide an evidentiary hearing under 48 C.F.R. § 9.406-3(b)(2).
- The denial of that hearing violated appellants’ procedural due process rights.

## Legal Principles

- Debarment is a serious government sanction with severe economic consequences; procedural due process requires notice and a meaningful opportunity to be heard before exclusion from federal contracting.
- Under 48 C.F.R. § 9.406-3(b)(2), when a contractor’s response to a proposed debarment raises a genuine dispute over facts material to debarment, the debarring official must provide an opportunity for an evidentiary (oral) hearing, including presentation of witnesses and cross-examination.
- A factual dispute is “material” when it bears directly on the grounds for debarment (e.g., whether a person is a corporate “principal” and whether a certification was false).
- When the regulation’s hearing trigger is met, resolving disputed facts on paper and imposing debarment without the required hearing violates the FAR and procedural due process.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit required the Air Force to provide a FAR-mandated evidentiary hearing where appellants presented evidence creating a genuine dispute of material fact central to the debarment decision, while leaving intact the dismissal of claims against individual officials.


Sameena Inc. v. United States Air Force, 147 F.3d 1148 (9th Cir. 1998)