In the Matter of the Debarment of 	) July 22, 1985
 				    	)
 PAUL E. JAQUISH, JR. 			)
 PRESA, INC. 				)
 49 Singing Wood Lane 			)
 				    	)
 at 					)
 				    	)
 Orinda, CA 94563-1210 			) P.S. Docket No. 19/124
 
 APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT:		Kenneth C. Nagel, Esq.
 		       			Pillsbury, Nagel & Atcheson
 					155 Montgomery Street
 					San Francisco, CA 94104-4180

 APPEARANCE FOR POSTAL SERVICE:		Norman D. Menegat, Esq.
					Law Department
					United States Postal Service
					Washington, DC 20260-1121


 Cohen, James A.  

Subsequent to the issuance of the Postal Service Decision on Motion for Reconsideration, counsel for the Postal Service notified the Judicial Officer by letter dated June 21, l985, that Respondent and PRESA, Inc. had been suspended from agency contracting pending completion of the debarment proceeding. The letter was prompted by the Postal Service Decision on Motion for Reconsideration which considered the period of debarment and referred to the fact that Respondent had not been suspended during the pendency of the debarment proceeding. Since neither party had previously notified the Judicial Officer of the suspension, the initial Postal Service Decision and Postal Service Decision on Motion for Reconsideration were issued without the benefit of such information.

In his letter, Postal Service counsel stated that Respondent did not appeal the suspension or either of the extensions and that even if the period of suspension is considered along with the period of debarment, Respondent's total exclusion from Postal Service contracting is less than three years, and reasonable under the circumstances. Respondent was afforded the opportunity to file a response to the Postal Service submission, which he did by letter dated July l0, l985. In this letter, Respondent characterized the Postal Service submission as "unwarranted and unsolicited", and asserted that the submission demonstrates that the agency's objective in this proceeding is punitive rather than protective. Respondent also asserted that the Postal Service Decision on Motion for Reconsideration has the impact of imposing a five year exclusion on doing business with the agency.

Based on the unrebutted statements contained in the Postal Service's June 21, l985 letter, it is found that Respondent and PRESA, Inc. were suspended from agency contracting from June 6, l984 through January 21, l985 and from April 5, l985 until commencement of the debarment period on April l2, l985. The total period of this suspension was 236 days. The total period of exclusion from Postal Service contracting, which includes both the period of suspension and the debarment period from April l2, l985 through April 23, l987, is less than three years.

In the Postal Service Decision on Motion for Reconsideration, it was concluded that "Respondent's contention that the effective debarment would be more than five years is not persuasive since he was not suspended from Postal Service contracting pending issuance of the April l2, l985, debarment decision" (PSD on Motion for Recon. at p. 6). Reevaluation of the debarment period is warranted in view of the recently disclosed information regarding Respondent's and PRESA, Inc.'s suspension. This information was clearly relevant to the period of Respondent's exclusion from contracting and should have been made a matter of record early in the proceeding.

Respondent's objection to and criticism of the Postal Service letter advising of the suspension is puzzling. Despite the contention that this letter shows a punitive motivation, it is obvious that any impact of the newly disclosed information would be to Respondent's advantage. The Postal Service acted properly, even though belatedly, in presenting this information and correcting the record.

After reviewing the June l2, l985 letter, Respondent's July l0, l985, letter, and the evidence of record, it is concluded that the debarment period is justified under the "present responsibility" standard, even when considering the 236 days of suspension. The total period of exclusion when the suspension and debarment are combined is under three years, which falls within the general guidelines set forth in § 1-604.2 of the Postal Contracting Manual.

Accordingly, the Postal Service Decision on Motion for Reconsideration is amended to incorporate this new conclusion but is otherwise affirmed.