Torres Advanced Enterprise Solutions, LLC v. United States
17-868
| Fed. Cl. | Oct 2, 2017Background
- Torres Advanced Enterprise Solutions filed a postaward bid protest challenging the State Department’s award of a local guard services contract to G4S Joint Venture and sought a preliminary injunction and supplementation of the administrative record.
- The court denied the preliminary injunction and motion to supplement in a July 31, 2017 Opinion and Order, which was filed under seal pending redaction disputes under a protective order.
- The protective order defined "protected information" to include source selection information, proprietary information, and confidential information; parties filed sealed administrative records and proposed competing redactions.
- Torres proposed broad redactions (chiefly nonpublic CPARS past-performance materials, proposal contents, prices, and certain declarations); the Government and G4S proposed narrower redactions (proposal contents, prices, and price-related discussion items).
- The core legal question was whether the parties met the heavy/compelling-justification standard to overcome the presumption of public access to judicial records and permit redaction of the court’s opinion and sealed filings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether CPARS/past-performance material in the opinion should be redacted | Torres: CPARS and performance correspondence are source-selection information; disclosure would give competitors an unfair advantage | Gov/G4S: Protective order protects certain information but CPARS-related details here do not show specific competitive harm | Held: Denied. Torres failed to show specific, compelling competitive harm; public access presumption prevails for these materials |
| Whether proposal contents and price information should be redacted | Torres: Proposal details, evaluated prices, and price discussions are competitively sensitive and should be withheld | Gov/G4S: Agree these proposal and price items are protected and should be redacted | Held: Granted in part. The court will redact proposal text, initial/final evaluated prices, the IGPE, and price-related discussion items as protected |
| Whether the contracting officer’s analysis on G4S responsibility should be redacted | Torres: sought broad protection of source-selection-type material (included this analysis) | Gov/G4S: Did not seek redaction of the responsibility analysis; argued it is general and non-sensitive | Held: Not redacted. The analysis contains general statements and no proprietary proposal detail, so no compelling justification to redact |
| Whether certain declaration material (email contents, investigation details, Torres’ post-2010 success rate) should be redacted | Torres: Claimed the protective order covers these disclosures and sought their redaction | Gov/G4S: Opposed redaction or did not assert competitive harm for these items | Held: Not redacted. Torres failed to identify how disclosure would cause competitive harm; some material was already summarized in the public opinion |
Key Cases Cited
- Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, 435 U.S. 589 (establishes presumption of public access to judicial records and discretionary limit)
- In re Violation of Rule 28(d), 635 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir.) (strong presumption of access; overbroad confidentiality markings can render public filings incomprehensible and are improper)
- AmerGen Energy Co. v. United States, 115 Fed. Cl. 132 (compelling justification required to overcome public-access presumption for judicial materials)
- Pratt & Whitney Canada Inc. v. United States, 14 Cl. Ct. 268 (party seeking to restrict access bears heavy burden)
- Poliquin v. Garden Way, Inc., 989 F.2d 527 (only most compelling showing justifies limiting disclosure of trial testimony/documents)