## Facts

- Fred L. Hatfield, Sr., through HVAC Construction Company, performed federal contracting work, including for the Department of the Army.
- Beginning in or about September 1990, Hatfield allegedly made false statements in connection with seeking and performing government contracts, including misrepresenting that he had not had a contract terminated for default.
- The government alleged Hatfield submitted false certifications for payment stating that work was performed and subcontractors were paid, and on one occasion presented a false subcontractor invoice.
- In July 1994, the Army administratively debarred Hatfield and his companies from all government contracting for 26 months based on the alleged fraudulent conduct.
- Hatfield asserted the debarment caused over $1.1 million in losses (including attorney’s fees, lost profits, and expenses), while the government estimated direct losses of up to about $60,000.
- After the debarment, a federal grand jury returned a 12-count indictment charging false and fraudulent statements and related fraudulent conduct based largely on the same core events.
- Hatfield moved to dismiss the indictment, arguing the debarment was “punishment” and a subsequent prosecution would violate the Fifth Amendment Double Jeopardy Clause.
- The district court denied the motion, and Hatfield filed an interlocutory appeal.

## Issues

1. Whether an administrative debarment from government contracting constitutes “punishment” for Double Jeopardy purposes, thereby barring a later criminal prosecution based on the same underlying conduct.

## Decision

- The Fourth Circuit affirmed the denial of Hatfield’s motion to dismiss and remanded for further proceedings on the indictment.
- The court held that debarment is a civil, remedial sanction intended to protect the government, not a criminal punishment.
- The court rejected Hatfield’s reliance on disproportionality analysis drawn from monetary-penalty cases, concluding that debarment is a non-monetary regulatory exclusion whose economic impact is a collateral consequence.
- The court found the 26-month duration was not so excessive as to transform the debarment into a punitive measure.

## Legal Principles

- The Double Jeopardy Clause bars multiple criminal punishments for the same offense, but does not bar a criminal prosecution following a civil, remedial administrative action.
- Government-contractor debarment is primarily a prospective regulatory measure focused on the contractor’s present responsibility and the government’s need to protect procurement integrity.
- The severity of collateral economic consequences does not, by itself, convert a civil regulatory sanction into criminal punishment.
- Disproportionality analysis developed for fixed monetary civil penalties is not controlling where the sanction is a non-monetary exclusion serving remedial governmental objectives.

## Conclusion

Administrative debarment from federal contracting, imposed to protect the government from nonresponsible contractors, is a civil and remedial action and therefore does not preclude a subsequent criminal prosecution for the same alleged fraud under the Double Jeopardy Clause.


United States v. Hatfield, 108 F.3d 67 (4th Cir. 1997)