I missed this earlier but FAR case 2026-001 requires agencies to provide redacted copies of technical evaluations and source selection decisions documents when a protest occurs at the agency level.

This is from the summary of part 33 changes published in the Federal Register. I personally think this is a great improvement. Why should an offeror need to resort to protesting at GAO or the COFC just to understand the agencies selection process? In reality, this information should be part of the regular debriefing process if the unsuccessful offeror seeks it. If you conduct a proper acquisition, be confident and be open.

For protesters that elect an independent review by an official at a level above the contracting officer, this rule proposes to allow the disclosure of a redacted copy of the agency's final technical evaluation of the protester's proposal and a redacted copy of the source selection decision, see FAR 33.104-4(a)(5)(ii)(B). The disclosure of this information is available for any type of procurement ( e.g., FAR part 8, 12, 15). Additionally, this rule proposes to allow the protester to raise additional protest grounds, within a reasonable time set by the independent review official. These changes are intended to provide fuller disclosure, to build confidence in agency protests, and resolve more protests at the agency level (see FAR 33.104-4(a)(5)(ii)(C)).

Contracting officers had better learn the art of persuasive explanation.

The idea is right minded but redaction will create its own nightmare. By experience, albeit dated, the dance with the Freedom of Information officials of an agency will create delays and quite possibly further conflict when redaction is not appropriately applied.

A "time will tell" regulatory change.

FOIA wouldn’t apply. Agencies have discretion to voluntarily release information on their own. Plus, the documents aren’t being requested by a company; the government is providing in accordance with the FAR. But redaction is important to avoid release of trade secrets or proprietary information. That type information could be embedded in describing strengths and weaknesses as an example

I just found out that similar guidance pertaining to debriefs is found in the Practitioners Album. Great way to avoid a protest.

When debriefings are requested, consider sharing redacted decision and evaluation documents—already discoverable in protests—to improve transparency.

7 hours ago, formerfed said:

FOIA wouldn’t apply.

Okay but is there a citation that one can depend on? It would appear that RFO 24.2 might be in direct conflict with your statement wherein agencies shall determine application of FOIA. As it went with the FAR and now the RFO one size does not fit all, ergo FAR supplements. By example the DLAD FAR supplement at 1.691 (understanding that it does not address FOIA per say).

This said redaction is a slippery slope is it not? Who will decide the redaction process (such as DLAD in a legal review) and what I will call it's hygiene? As I noted the FOIA folks did not always get it right in my book. Now per your suggestion we have folks who will redact without possible knowledge of the slippery slope it creates. Line out of document with a Sharpie does not give adequate consideration to say the underlying meta data of the final evaluation where disclosure of something that should have redacted was in fact not.

And to clarify my concern about redaction originally voiced. I am in no way saying the government should not be as transparent as possible. I am concerned that without the clarification that I am attempting your post could be interpreted that providing of a redacted final evaluation and source selection decision is required and that such effort could be done by a level higher than the CO in a hands off fashion.

I don’t see redacting evaluation and source selection documents generally as a concern to contracting staffs. But if they include discussions of proposal strengths and weaknesses that might contain offeror trade secrets, proprietary information, or detailed cost/pricing information, then advice of legal counsel or FOIA experts might be needed. None of this is required of course. But I see it as just good practices.