Legal Review JA Redactions TETSS.pdf

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

U.S. ARMY MISSION AND INSTALLATION CONTRACTING COMMAND

418TH CONTRACTING SUPPORT BRIGADE

36000 DARNELL LOOP

FORT HOOD, TX 76544-5095

Attorney Client Privileged Communication. Exempt from disclosure and discovery. This memorandum contains work-product or information protected under the attorney-client privilege, both of which are protected from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C.§ 552. Do not release outside the U.S. Army without the consent of the originator's office. FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY.

CCMI-CHD 29 October 2026

MEMORANDUM FOR Contracting Officer, Mission and Installation Contracting Command-Fort Hood (MICC-Fort Hood) Fort Hood, Texas 76544

SUBJECT: Legal Review of Proposed Redactions to Justification Review Document, FAR Part 6, Other than Full and Open Competition, Contract #W91151-26-D-A009, U.S. Army Operation Evaluation Command (OEC), Air and Missile Defense Test Directorate (AMDTD), Fort Bliss, Texas and Fires Support Test Directorate (FSTD), Fort Sill, Oklahoma, Cost-Plus-Fixed-Fee (CPFF) Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite- Quantity (IDIQ)

1. BLUF. I have reviewed the Justification Review Document, in conjunction with statutory, regulatory and policy guidance and find there is no legal objection to the redactions presented.

2. References.

a. 5 U.S.C. §552a, Records maintained on individuals.

b. 41 U.S.C. §2102, Prohibitions on disclosing and obtaining procurement information.

c. RFO Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 3.104-4, Disclosure, protection, and marking of contractor bid or proposal information and source selection information.

d. RFO FAR 24.203, Policy.

e. MICC Deskbook (2025) Section 6.305, Availability of the Justification.

f. MICC Deskbook (2025), Section 5101.602-2-90, Legal Coordination.

3. Background. On 26 October, Ms. Lucy Bonner, Contract Specialist, on behalf of the contracting officer, MICC-Fort Hood, requested a legal review of the subject document to the 418th Contract Support Brigade Legal Tea via electronic communication. The document was reviewed on 28 October 2026 and 29 October 2026 and returned to Ms. Bonner for corrections via email. On (Date), the corrected version was returned. In accordance with MICC Deskbook, Sections 6.305 and 5101.602-2-90, the redactions have been reviewed and are legally sufficient.

CCMI-CHD

SUBJECT: Legal Review of Proposed Redactions to Justification Review Document, FAR Part 6, Other than Full and Open Competition, Contract #W91151-26-D-A009, OEC, AMDTD Fort Bliss, Texas, FSTD Fort Sill, Oklahoma, CPFF, IDIQ memorandum contains work-product or information protected under the attorney-client privilege, both of which are protected from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C.§ 552. Do not release outside the U.S. Army without the consent of the originator's office. FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY.

4. Discussion.

a. At issue is determining whether the redactions on the submitted document are legally sufficient. Per the MICC Deskbook, Section 6.305, contracting officers must carefully screen all documents limiting competition for contractor proprietary data and remove all such data, references, and citations as are necessary to protect the proprietary data prior to posting. Specifically, the MICC Deskbook requires that contracting officers redact all names, except that of the Approving Official, electronic signature data, and the Common Access Card code number from public view before posting.

b. Pursuant to RFO FAR 3.104-4, except as specifically provided for, no person or other entity may disclose contractor bid or proposal information or source selection information to any person other than a person authorized, in accordance with applicable agency regulations or procedures, by the agency head or the contracting officer to receive such information. This particular regulation further provides that contractor bid or proposal information and source selection information must be protected from unauthorized disclosure in accordance with RFO FAR 14.303, RFO FAR 15.108, applicable law, and agency regulations.

c. Lastly, RFO FAR Part 24 discusses the protection of individual privacy and outlines the policies and procedure that apply requirements of the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. §552a). The Privacy Act prohibits agencies from disclosing information contained in a system of records without the written consent of the individual to whom the record pertains unless such disclosure fits within one of the 12 exemptions. See 5 U.S.C. §552a). The Privacy Act prohibits agencies from disclosing information contained in a system of records without the written consent of the individual to whom the record pertains unless such disclosure fits within one of the 12 exemptions. See 5 U.S.C. §552a(b) (1-12). The exemptions include disclosures based on a need-to-know basis, disclosure mandated by court order, and disclosure in response to a Freedom of Information Act request. Further, RFO FAR 24.203, specifically addresses additional exemptions to public disclosure of certain records. These exemptions include matters relating to classified information, to trade secrets and confidential commercial or financial information, to interagency or intra-agency memoranda, or to personal and medical information pertaining to an individual. Other exemptions include agency personnel practices and law enforcement. In sum, the aforementioned matters listed are not subject to disclosure and must be redacted from the document at issue.

d. Consistent with the regulatory guidance provided, the contracting officer has

CCMI-CHD

SUBJECT: Legal Review – Legal Review – Determinations & Findings (D&F), Solicitation No. W9115123R0024 memorandum contains work-product or information protected under the attorney-client privilege, both of which are protected from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C.§ 552. Do not release outside the U.S. Army without the consent of the originator's office. FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY.

properly redacted the document. As submitted, the document appears to be in compliance, and the above listed legal rationale sets forth the basis for said redactions. Of note, should the contractor identify other items to be redacted, the undersigned recommends that we discuss the issue to determine if an amended version should be submitted.

5. Conclusion. Consistent with the statutory and regulatory guidance, and IAW the MICC Deskbook, Sections 6.305 and 5101.602-2-90, the redactions have been reviewed and are legally sufficient.

6. The point of contact for this memorandum is the undersigned at 254-553-9506 or via email at patrick.j.williams150.mil@army.mil.

PATRICK WILLIAMS

CPT, JA

Deputy Command Judge Advocate