Report of the Advisory Panel on Streamlining and Codifying Acquisition Regulations

Volume 3 of 3 | January 2019

Streamlining and Improving Compliance Volume 3

Recommendation 69: Provide as part of a debriefing, in all procurements where 

a debriefing is required, a redacted source selection decision document and 

the technical evaluation of the vendor receiving the debriefing. 

Problem

Despite the Office of Management and Budget’s (OMB’s) Myth-busting 3 memo, which explains how 

meaningful debriefings can mitigate the risk of protest, many DoD contracting agencies do not consider 

debriefings as a means of avoiding protests.1 This perception results in debriefings that many industry 

and private bar stakeholders described as adversarial, incomplete, and insufficient for informing 

unsuccessful offerors of the government’s rationale for making an award. The presumption across 

much of DoD appears to be that the more information that is provided at a debriefing, the more likely a 

disappointed offeror will use the information to file a protest. 

Background

The Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 created the requirement for debriefings.2 Debriefings 

are currently required under FAR Part 15 for competitive negotiated procurements and FAR 16.5 for all 

task or delivery orders valued in excess of $5.5 million.

3 Section 818 of the FY 2018 NDAA expanded 

the requirement for a written or oral debriefing to all DoD contract awards and task or delivery orders 

valued at or above $10 million. 4

The Section 809 Panel found, similar to what was presented in the RAND report, that the quality and 

timeliness of debriefings varies across DoD. Even the debriefings that complied with FAR 15.505 often 

provided insufficient information for bidders to determine if their proposals had been properly 

evaluated.5 Some are provided promptly on request and are complete in terms of explaining to offerors

why they lost, or why they won a contract award. Many in industry, and the private Bar, report that 

timely and complete debriefings provide them with the information they need to improve future 

proposals. Debriefings also help companies determine if the government followed its procedures and 

the governing laws and regulations in making the award determination so they can decide whether to 

file a protest.

In Section 818 of the FY 2018 NDAA, Congress also created the requirement for DoD to provide a 

redacted source selection decision document as part of debriefings for all contract awards in excess of 

$100 million, and, when requested by nontraditional or small businesses, for all contract awards in 

excess of $10 million.6

 

1 OMB Memorandum, “Myth-busting 3”: Further Improving Industry Communication with Effective Debriefings, January 5, 2017, accessed 

November 7, 2018, https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/omb/procurement/memo/mythbusting_3_further_improving_industry_communications_with_effectiv....pdf. 2 Section 1014 of the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994, Pub. L. No. 103-355 (1994). The requirement for DoD is now codified 

in 10 U.S.C. §§ 2305(b)(5) and (b)(6). 3 See Postaward Debriefing of Offerors, FAR 15.506. Section 818(a)(2) of FY 2018 NDAA, Pub. L. No. 115-91 (2017). 4 Section 818 of FY 2018 NDAA, Pub. L. No. 115-91 (2017). 5 Mark V. Arena et al., Assessing Bid Protests of U.S. Department of Defense Procurements, RAND Corporation, December 2017, 22, 

accessed November 9, 2018, https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RR2300/RR2356/RAND_RR2356.pdf. 6 Section 818(a)(1) of FY 2018 NDAA, Pub. L. No. 115-91 (2017). 
Report of the Advisory Panel on Streamlining and Codifying Acquisition Regulations

Volume 3 of 3 | January 2019

Streamlining and Improving Compliance Volume 3

Discussion

In some cases, industry and the private Bar report that they file protests so they can get the information 

they need to understand why they lost the contract award. Based on the small number of protests that 

are actually filed, RAND’s finding that “[t]he bottom line is that too little information or debriefings 

that are evasive or adversarial will lead to a bid protest in most cases,” may be a bit of hyperbole.7

Corporate counsel informed the Section 809 Panel that in many cases bid and proposal teams within 

companies that find themselves on the losing end of an award decision often lobby corporate 

leadership to file a protest, especially when the company was the incumbent. The fullness of the 

debriefing was often a critical element of the decision-making process. An evasive or confrontational 

debriefing only reinforced the bid and proposal team’s assumption that the government made the 

wrong decision or could not adequately support its decision. Yet in the reportedly rare case in which 

DoD provided a redacted source selection decision document or other meaningful information, the 

corporate counsel was able to explain to senior leadership within the company why it lost a potential 

contract and that a protest would be a waste of time and resources. 

It appears that the fear of protests drives the debriefing to be less complete, as opposed to more 

complete, and agency counsel may end up controlling the actual debriefing. Often times the presence 

of counsel at a debriefing can send the wrong message to the various parties. Contracting officers 

reportedly have a tendency to become adversarial if corporate or outside counsel accompany a 

contractor to a debriefing. At the same time the bidder’s decision to have counsel present at the 

debriefing may be to gain enough information to explain to a bid and proposal team why a protest 

would not be in the best interest of the contractor. This proposal will not provide the same level of 

transparency as some of the enhanced debriefing procedures that allow outside counsel are provided 

access to the evaluation of the successful offeror. Yet, the combination of a redacted source selection 

decision document and the technical evaluation of the contractor requesting the debriefing, should 

provide disappointed offerors with adequate information to improve future proposals and understand 

the rationale behind DoD’s award decision. 

Conclusions

Congress should expand the Section 818 requirement to provide a redacted source selection decision 

document as part of a debriefing for all situations in which a debriefing is required and to also provide 

the technical evaluation documentation of the vendor requesting the debriefing. Providing this 

additional transparency should minimize the likelihood contractors will file protests because of a lack 

of information. Providing this additional information may create more work for contracting officers, 

but in addition to decreasing the number of protests, it should also increase the quality of future 

proposals, and help recalibrate DoD contracting activities’ understanding of the value of a more 

fulsome debriefing. 

 

7 Mark V. Arena et al., Assessing Bid Protests of U.S. Department of Defense Procurements, RAND Corporation, December 2017, 23, 

accessed November 9, 2018, https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RR2300/RR2356/RAND_RR2356.pdf. 
Report of the Advisory Panel on Streamlining and Codifying Acquisition Regulations

Volume 3 of 3 | January 2019

Streamlining and Improving Compliance Volume 3

Implementation

Legislative Branch

§ Amend Section 818(a)(1) of the FY 2018 NDAA to eliminate the thresholds and include the 

requirement to provide the technical evaluation of the vendor requesting the debriefing.

Executive Branch

§ Amend DFARS 215 to include the debriefing requirements included in the amended 

Section 818(a)(1) of the FY 2018 NDAA. 

Implications for Other Agencies

§ There are no cross-agency implications for this recommendation.