# In th e United States Court of Federal Cl aims

No. 17-868C (F iled: October 2, 2017)

************************************* TORRES ADVANCED ENTERPRI SE * SOL UTI ONS, L L C, *
* Plaintiff, * Postaward B id Protest; Proposed
* Redactions; Presumption of Public Access
v. * to Court Records; Protective Order;
* Competitive Harm; I n formation Concerning THE UNI TED STATES, * Performance of I ncumbent Contract;
* I nformation in the Contractor Performance Defendant, * Assessment Reporting Sy stem (CPARS);
* I nformation F r o m Proposals; Price and * I nformation; I nformation Supplied via
* Declaration G4S J OI NT VENTURE, *
* Defendant-I

ntervenor. *
*************************************
Georg e R. Calhoun, W ashing ton, DC, for plaintiff.
Tany a B . Koenig , United States Department of Justice, W a shing ton, DC, for defendant.

Gerald H. W erfel, McL ean, VA, for defendant-intervenor.

OP INION AND ORDER

SWEENEY , J udg e

I n this postaward bid protest, plaintiff Torres Advanced Enterprise Solutions, L L C (“Torres”) contended that the United States Department of State (“State Department”) improperly

awarded a contract for local g uard services at a United States embassy to defendantintervenor G4S J o int Venture (“G4S”). After the court denied Torres’s motion for a preliminary injunction, Torres voluntarily dismissed its complaint. The only remaining issue is what information should be redacted from the court’s J uly 31, 2017 Opinion and Order–and the documents filed by

the parties under seal–before it is released to the public.I. BACK G ROUND

Torres filed its bid protest on J une 26, 2017. In its complaint, Torres alleg ed that the State Department ex ag g erated Torres’s routine performance issues during the incumbent contract into major deficiencies. Torres further alleg ed that the State Department performed a premature, abbreviated evaluation of its performance of the incumbent contract, and then entered the performance evaluation into the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting Sy stem (“CPARS”) so that the Technical Evaluation Panel (“TEP”) could use the neg ative information contained in the evaluation when assessing Torres’s proposal for the follow-on contract. Along with its complaint, Torres filed a motion for a preliminary injunction, and then, two weeks later, a motion to supplement the administrative record and for ex pedited discovery

(“motion to supplement”). As is ty p ical in bid protests, the court entered a protective order “to safeg uard the confidentiality ” of “competition-sensitive or otherwise protectable” information. Protective Order 1. I

n the protective order, “protected information” was defined as: information that must be protected to safeg uard the competitive process, including source selection information, proprietary information, and confidential information contained in: (a) any document (e.g

. , a pleading , motion, brief, notice, or discovery request or response) produced, filed, or served by a party to this litig ation; or (b) any deposition, sealed testimony or arg ument, declaration, or affidavit taken or provided during

this litig ation.

I d. ¶ 1. The parties were required to file documents containing protected information under seal. I n addition, the protective order contained procedures for redacting protected information from documents that would be made available to the public and for the resolution by the court of any disputes concerning

what information should be protected. Defendant filed both the administrative record and the corrected administrative record under seal.

I n its J uly 31, 2017 Opinion and Order, the court denied both Torres’s motion to supplement and Torres’s motion for a preliminary injunction. The court filed its decision under seal and afforded the parties the opportunity to propose the redaction of protected information. I n a September 15, 2017 joint status report, the parties indicated that they could not ag ree on what information should be redacted from the court’s decision. Torres proposed ex tensive redactions, most of which related to the State Department’s assessments of Torres’s performance of the incumbent contract, while defendant and G4S jointly proposed more limited redactions focused on Torres’s and G4S’s proprietary information. The parties explained the basis for their

-2-proposed redactions and responded to the arg u ments presented by

their opponents. 1 The court addresses these arg

uments below.

II. DISCUSSION

A. Legal Standard As all three parties recog

niz e , there is a well-established presumption in favor of public access to court records and proceeding s. See Nix on v. W arner Commc’ns, 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978) (“[ T] he courts of this country recogniz e a g eneral right to inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial records and documents.”); I n re Violation of Rule 28(d), 635 F .3d 1352, 1356 (F ed. Cir. 2011) (“There is a strong presumption in favor of a common law rig h t of public access to court proceeding s.”). This presumption applies to court records in civil adjudicatory proceeding s, AmerGen Energ y Co. by & Throug hEx elon Generation Co. v. United States, 115 F ed. Cl. 132, 136 (2014), including the records maintained by the United States Court of F ederal Claims (“Court of F ederal Claims”), 28 U.S.C. § 174(b) (2012); Pratt & W h itney Canada I nc. v. United States, 14 Cl. Ct. 268, 273 (1988). The presumption of public access, however, “is not absolute. Every court has supervisory power over its own records and files, and access [may be] denied where court files mig ht . . . become a vehicle for improper purposes.” Nix on, 435 U.S. at 598. Thus, “the decision as to access is one best left to the sound discretion of the trial court, a discretion to be ex ercised in lig ht of the relevant facts and circumstances of the particular case.” I d. at 599. I n

ex ercisingthat discretion, a court “weig

h[ s] the interests advanced by the parties in lig ht of the public interest and the duty

of the courts.” I d

. at 602; accord AmerGen Energ y , 115 F ed. Cl. at 137 (“[ T] his court must weig h the private interests advanced by the parties ag a inst the public’s interest in access to judicial proceeding s.”). The party seeking to restrict access to court records bears a “heavy burden of overcoming

the presumption of open judicial records.” Pratt & W hitney , 14 Cl. Ct. at 275. I ndeed, only a “compelling justification” will suffice to overcome the presumption. I d. at 274; accord I n re Violation of Rule 28(d), 635 F .3d at 1358 (remarking that another federal appellate court had concluded that “‘only the most compelling showing can justify ’ limitations on the disclosure of ‘testimony or documents actually

introduced at trial’” (quoting Poliquin v. Garden W ay , I nc., 989 F .2d 527, 533 (1st Cir. 1993))); AmerGen Energ y , 115 F ed. Cl. at 137 (“[ A] party seekingto prevent disclosure of information submitted as evidence in dispositive judicial proceeding s, whether at trial or in connection with a motion for summary judg ment, must demonstrate compelling reasons for keeping such information out of public view.”); see also Pratt & W hitney , 14 Cl. Ct. at 276 (“The common law rig h t of access is particularly

strong with respect to materials considered by a court.”).

1 Torres nevertheless requested the opportunity to file a brief in response to the other parties’ arg

uments. B ecause Torres has responded to the arg uments jointly

advanced by defendant and G4S, and because Torres has not stated why its response was inadequate, the court denies Torres’s request.

-3-One circumstance in which courts will deny public access to its records is when those

records contain “business information that mig ht harm a litig ant’s competitive standing

. ” Nix on, 435 U.S. at 598. I ndeed, the protective order in this case allows for the redaction of “information that must be protected to safeg uard the competitive process, including source selection information, proprietary

information, and confidential information . . . .” Protective Order ¶ 1; see also I n re Violation of Rule 28(d), 635 F .3d at 1360 (noting that the court’s local rule–Rule 28(d)–makes it “clear that the parties must confine their confidentiality marking s [ in their briefs] to information covered by a protective order”); Def. Tech., I nc. v. United States, 99 F ed. Cl. 103, 103 n.* (2011) (rejecting

the proposed redaction of information that did not fall within the protective order’s definition of protected information); Mag num Opus Techs., I

nc. v. United States, 94 F ed. Cl. 512, 519 n.* (2010) (rejecting p r oposed redactions “not concerning ‘protected information’ as defined in the protective order”); cf. L inc Gov’t Servs., L L C v. United States, 96 F ed. Cl. 672, 724 (2010) (“The purpose of redaction . . . is to safeg uard the competitive process, not to withhold information that a party frowns on making public.”). However, if the redactions would be so ex tensive as to render the affected document incomprehensible, the court may
ex e rcise its discretion and decline to make them. See, e.g ., I n re Violation of Rule 28(d), 635 F .3d at 1360 (noting that “[ t] he confidentiality marking s in this case were so ex tensive that the non-confidential version of the brief is virtually incomprehensible” and that such “an improper casual approach to confidentiality marking s . . . ig nores the requirements of public access[ and] deprives the public of necessary information”); Allied Tech. Grp., I nc. v. United States, 94 F ed. Cl. 16, 23 n.1 (2010) (“[ I ] f the court were to accept all of [ the] proposed redactions, it would . . . result[ ] in a nearly

incomprehensible public document.”); MVM, I nc. v. United States, 46 F ed. Cl. 137, 137 n.* (1999) (“I f the languag e were redacted, the opinion would be incomprehensible.”).

B. The P arties’ P roposed Redactions Torres requests that the court redact from its J uly 31, 2017 Opinion and Order “tex t that quotes or reflects source-selection information, proprietary information, and confidential information that a competitor could use in future competitions to g a in an unfair advantag e over Torres,” J oint Status Report 3, including : (1) “all information that derives from nonpublic CPARS evaluations of Torres’[ s] contract performance,” id. (referring to pag es 5-21 of the court’s decision); (2) “information reg a

r ding the [ TEP’s] assessment of Torres’[ s] and G4S’[ s] proposals and references to specific price proposals and evaluations thereof,” id. (referring to pag es 24-30 of the court’s decision); (3) “the corresponding

information as it appears in the Court’s analy sis,” id. at 6 (referring to pag es 38-51 of the court’s decision); and

-4-(4) “nonpublic information that was disclosed to the Government and this Court

in affidavits and declarations that Torres submitted in support of its motions,” id. (referring to pag es 35-37 of the court’s decision).

W ith respect to the first categ ory , Torres specifically proposes the redaction of the substantive contents of deduction letters, a major nonconformance notice, a cure notice, and other correspondence it received (along with its responses to that correspondence) during its performance of the incumbent contract. Torres also proposes the redaction of some, but not all, of the information contained in the CPARS reg arding its performance of the incumbent contract; in particular, Torres seeks the redaction of the State Department’s specific concerns with its performance and its responses to those concerns.

Nex t, with respect to the second categ o ry , Torres specifically proposes the redaction of information contained in its and G4S’s proposals, the State Department’s initial total evaluated prices for both offerors, the State Department’s final total evaluated price for Torres, the independent g overnment price estimate, the portions of discussion questions and responses that concern G4S’s proposed price, the portions of discussion questions that concern Torres’s performance of the incumbent contract, the TEP’s assessment of Torres’s performance of the incumbent contract, and the State Department’s analy sis of whether G4S was a responsible offeror. Then, with respect to the third categ ory , Torres’s proposed redactions alig n with the redactions it proposed in the first two categ ories. F inally , with respect to the fourth categ ory , Torres specifically

proposes the redaction of the contents of an electronic-mail messag e , information concerning

its investig ation of the contents of that messag e , and certain details reg arding its post-2010 success rate in being awarded local g

uard services contracts by the State Department.

I n contrast to the ex tensive redactions proposed by Torres, defendant and G4S jointly propose the redaction only of information contained in the proposals, the total evaluated prices, the independent g overnment price estimate, and the portions of discussion questions and responses that concern G4S’s proposed price.

C. Inf orm ation Related to Torres’s P erf orm ance of

the Incum bent Contract The bulk of the redactions proposed by Torres relate to the State Department’s assessments of Torres’s performance of the incumbent contract. These assessments were contained in correspondence between Torres and the State Department during contract performance, as well as in performance evaluations submitted to the CPARS. Torres contends that the information in these assessments that it seeks to withhold from the public “is quintessential source-selection information that should be protected from disclosure to prevent Torres’[ s] competitors from g aining an unfair advantag e in future solicitations.” I d. at 4.

-5-As defined by federal law, source selection information is

any of the following information prepared for use by a F ederal ag ency

to evaluate a bid or proposal to enter into a F ederal ag ency procurement contract, if that information previously

has not been made available to the public or disclosed publicly : (A) B id prices . . . . (B ) Proposed costs or prices . . . . (C) Source selection plans. (D) Technical evaluation plans. (E) Technical evaluations of proposals. (F ) Cost or price evaluations of proposals. (G) Competitive rang e determinations . . . . (H) Ranking s of bids, proposals, or competitors. (I ) Reports and evaluations of source selection panels, boards, or advisory councils. (J ) Other information marked as ‘‘source selection information’’ based on a case-by -case determination by

the head of the ag ency , the head’s desig nee, or the contracting officer that its disclosure would jeopardiz e the integ rity or successful completion of the F ederal ag ency procurement to which the information relates. 41 U.S.C. § 2101(7) (2012); accord F ederal Acquisition Reg ulation (“F A R”) 2.101 (2017). “[ S] ource selection information must be protected from unauthoriz ed disclosure in accordance with [ F A R 15.207] , applicable law, and ag ency regulations.” F AR 3.104-4(b); see also 41 U.S.C. § 2102(a)(1) (providing that source selection information may not be disclosed “before the award of a F ederal ag ency procurement contract to which the information relates”); F AR 15.207(b) (“Proposals shall be safeg uarded from unauthoriz e d disclosure throug hout the source selection process.”). Althoug h past performance information is not specifically identified as source selection information in 41 U.S.C. § 2101(7) or F AR 2.101, past performance information that is entered into the CPARS must be marked as source selection information pursuant to F AR subpart 42.15.

-6-Under that subpart, past performance information is “relevant information, for future source

selection purposes, reg arding a contractor’s actions under previously awarded contracts or orders.” F AR 42.1501(a). Past performance information is reported in past performance evaluations, F AR 42.1501(b), and these evaluations, which include the initial evaluation, the contractor’s response, and any review comments, F AR 42.1503(d), (f), must be submitted to the CPARS, F AR 42.1502(a); F AR 42.1503(f). Past performance evaluations submitted to the CPARS

may be used to support future award decisions, and should therefore be marked “Source Selection I

nformation”. . . . The completed evaluation shall not be released to other than Government personnel and the contractor whose performance is being

evaluated during

the period the information may be used to provide source selection information. Disclosure of such information could cause harm both to the commercial interest of the Government and to the competitive position of the contractor being evaluated as well as impede the efficiency of Government operations.

F AR 42.1503(d); cf. F AR 42.1503(f) (“Ag encies shall ensure that appropriate manag ement and technical controls are in place to ensure that only authoriz ed personnel have access to the data and the information [ is] safeg uarded in accordance with 42.1503(d).”). Moreover, a nonbinding

CPARS g uidance document provides:

All CPARS information is treated as “F or Official Use Only /Source Selection I nformation” in accordance with F AR 2.101 and 3.104 and 42.1503. A Contractor Performance Assessment Report (CPAR) is source selection information because it supports ong oing source selections. I t contains sensitive data concerning

a contractor’s performance under a specific business arrang e ment as covered by

the F AR. A CPAR has the unique characteristic of alway s being pre-decisional in nature. . . . Access to the CPARS . . . and other performance information is restricted to those individuals with an official need to know. Guidance for the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting Sy stem (CPARS) v (Aug

. 2017), https://www.cpars.g ov/pdfs/CPARS-Guidance.pdf; see also id. (“This g uidance is non-reg ulatory in nature and intended to provide useful information and best practices to the workforce for using

the CPARS. . . . [ T] he g uide . . . should be read in conjunction with F AR Part 42.15 and other F AR Parts related to past performance information. . . . I f any inconsistencies are found between this document and the F AR or ag e ncy F AR supplements, the F AR then ag e ncy ’s supplements, in that order, take precedence.”). The g uidance document further provides:

-7-6.1 CPAR Marking s and Protection

Those g ranted access to the CPARS are responsible for ensuring that CPARs are appropriately

marked and handled. All CPAR forms, attachments and working papers must be marked “F OR OF F I CI AL USE ONL Y/SOURCE SEL E CTI ON I NF ORMATI ON – see F AR 2.101, 3.104, and 42.1503” . . . .
CPARs may

also contain information that is proprietary to the contractor. I nformation contained on the CPAR, such as trade secrets and protected commercial or financial data obtained from the contractor in confidence, must be protected from unauthoriz ed disclosure. . . . The following g uidance applies to protection both internal and ex ternal to the Government:

6.1.1 I nternal Government Protection

CPARs must be treated as source selection information at all times. I nformation contained in the CPAR must be protected in the same manner as information contained in source selection files. . . .

6.1.2 Ex ternal Government Protection
Due to the sensitive nature of CPARs, disclosure of CPAR data to . . . other entities outside the Government[ ] is strictly prohibited.

6.2 F reedom of I

nformation Act [ (“F OI A”)] Contractor performance information is privileg ed source selection information. As these evaluations may be used to support future award decisions, the completed evaluation shall not be released to other than Government personnel and the contractor whose performance is being evaluated. This information is not releasable under the [ F OI A] . . . . Performance evaluations may be withheld from public disclosure as they

are procurement sensitive.

I d. at 25-26. Read tog e ther, the statute, reg ulations, and g uidelines constrain the disclosure of past performance information contained in the CPARS. 2 However, these constraints apply to

2 Torres relies on another F AR provision for the proposition that g overnment officials are prohibited “from publiciz ing any source-selection material if it is subject to an ex emption from disclosure under” the F OI A, 5 U.S.C. § 552 (2012), and from publishing “past performance reviews.” J oint Status Report 5. However, the provision relied upon by Torres, F AR 9.105- 2(b)(2)(iii)-(iv), is not relevant in this bid protest because it concerns information posted in the

-8-procuringag encies and their officials, not to the Court of F ederal Claims. 3 The court is instead

g uided by its previously issued protective order, which provides that “source selection information, proprietary

information, and confidential information” should not be made publicly available if its disclosure would adversely affect “the competitive process . . . .” Protective Order ¶ 1. I n other words, a party seeking to withhold information in court records from the public must demonstrate that the information’s disclosure would cause the party competitive harm. See also AmerGen Energ

y , 115 F ed. Cl. at 140-41 (remarking that because broad, nebulous, or conclusory

alleg ations of competitive harm are insufficient to establish g ood cause for the issuance of a protective order under Rule 26(c)(1) of the Rules of the United States Court of F ederal Claims, “such alleg a tions are insufficient to meet the more string ent compelling reasons standard required to rebut the presumption of public access with respect to judicial records”).
Torres arg

ues that the disclosure of information related to its performance of the incumbent contract would cause it competitive harm: Making such information public would g ive Torres’[ s] competitors an unfair advantag e over Torres in future competitions: competitors would have information on Torres’[ s] prior performance reviews while Torres would have little to no performance information on its competitors. That information would enable competitors, potentially , to overbid in “fair value” competitions based on a belief that they could use the [ incumbent contract] past-performance evaluation ag ainst Torres. Certainly , competitors would use the information proposed to be redacted ag ainst Torres with respect to private contracts. The Court should preclude that harm by

accepting

Torres’[ s] proposed redactions, which preserve the Court’s analy sis and the meaningof the Opinion, without revealing source-selection details that could be used ag ainst Torres in competitive bidding

.

F ederal Awardee Performance and I nteg rity I nformation Sy stem (“F API I S”), which is used by the g overnment to document nonresponsibility determinations, the submission of defective cost or pricingdata, terminations for default, human trafficking , and repeated failures to pay small business subcontractors. See F AR 9.105-2(b)(2)(i); F AR 42.1503(h). The disclosure rules that apply to information contained in the F API I S are different from the disclosure rules that apply to past performance information contained in the CPARS. Compare F AR 42.1503(d) (CPARS), with F AR 42.1503(h) (F A PI I S).

3 Similarly , the F OI A does not apply to the Court of F ederal Claims. See 5 U.S.C. § 552(a) (limiting the disclosure requirements to “[ e] ach ag ency”); see also id. §§ 551(1) (ex cluding “the courts of the United States” from the definition of “ag ency”), 552(f) (defining “ag ency” as including “any ex ecutive department, military department, Government corporation, Government controlled corporation, or other establishment in the ex ecutive branch of the Government . . . , or any

independent reg

ulatory ag ency”). According ly , the court does not address the F OI A-related reg ulations and case law relied upon by the parties in support of their positions reg arding the redaction of information in the court’s J uly 31, 2017 Opinion and Order.

-9-J oint Status Report 5-6; accord id. at 7 (“Torres’[ s] proposed redactions . . . are limited to

nonpublic commercial information that Torres’[ s] competitors could use to g ain an unfair advantag e in federal solicitations or private contract neg otiations.”). However, the specific “harm” that Torres identifies–potential overbidding by its competitors–is not actually harmful to Torres. As an initial matter, procuring ag encies within the federal g overnment will have access to Torres’s past performance information in the CPARS reg ardless of whether that information is available to its competitors. Thus, a procuring ag e ncy ’s assessment of Torres’s past performance would not be affected by

the prices proposed by

Torres’s competitors in a particular procurement. Moreover, all other thing s being equal, an offeror who submits a hig h er price is at a disadvantag e in any g iven procurement. Consequently , Torres would not be adversely affected if a competitor increased its proposed price in response to its knowledg e of Torres’s past performance. I n short, a competitor proposinga hig her price than it otherwise would have proposed cannot harm Torres.

F urthermore, Torres has not identified any specific harm that it would suffer, when competing for private contracts, from the disclosure of information related to its performance of the incumbent contract. I nstead, Torres g enerally

avers that competitors would use the information ag ainst it. Such a conclusory alleg ation of harm is insufficient to support Torres’s redaction request.

I n sum, Torres has not advanced a compelling justification for the court to redact information related to Torres’s performance of the incumbent contract from its J uly 31, 2017 Opinion and Order.

D. Inf orm ation Contained in the P roposals, P rice-Related Inf orm ation, and the Responsibility Determ ination

Torres nex t requests that the court redact from its J uly 31, 2017 Opinion and Order information contained in or derived from its and G4S’s proposals. Defendant and G4S ag ree with Torres that information taken directly from the proposals, the State Department’s initial total evaluated prices for both offerors, the State Department’s final total evaluated price for Torres, the independent g overnment price estimate, and the portions of discussion questions and responses that concern G4S’s proposed price should be redacted from the decision. However, unlike Torres, defendant and G4S do not propose the redaction of the State Department’s analy sis of whether G4S was a responsible offeror. The information that all three parties ag ree should be redacted from the court’s decision is protected information as defined by the protective order. Specifically, the disclosure of information contained in Torres’s and G4S’s proposals, total evaluated prices, and price-related discussions would provide Torres, G4S, and their competitors with insight into how Torres and G4S approach procurements of local g uard services contracts, putting Torres and G4S at a competitive disadvantag e. According ly , the court will redact that information from its decision.

- 10-W ith respect to the State Department’s analy sis of whether G4S was a responsible offeror, the court finds that this information need not be redacted from its decision, for two reasons. F irst, the analy sis does not contain any specific information from G4S’s proposal; rather, it reflects in g e n eral terms that the State Department checked the relevant databases, reviewed G4S’s proposal, and determined that there was no information preventing it from deeming G4S to be a responsible offeror. Such g eneral statements would not result in competitive harm to G4S. Second, G4S does not propose that the analy sis be redacted from the court’s decision, which sug g ests that G4S does not consider the analy sis to be protected information. I n

short, there is no compelling justification for the court to redact the analy sis.

E. Inf orm ation Disclosed in the Declarations Subm itted by Torres The final categ ory of information that Torres seeks to withhold from the public is certain information that it disclosed in the declarations it filed in support of its motions, namely , the contents of an electronic-mail messag e, information concerning its investig ation of the contents of that messag e, and specific details reg arding its post-2010 success rate in being awarded local g uard services contracts by the State Department. Torres asserts that “[ u] nder the terms of the Protective order in this case, such information is protected and, therefore, exempt from disclosure,” J oint Status Report 6, but does not specify how the disclosure of this information would cause it competitive harm. B ecause a showing of competitive harm is necessary for Torres to meet its burden of overcoming the presumption of public access to court records, the court will not redact this information from its J uly 31, 2017 Opinion and Order. 4

III. CONCLUSION As set forth above, the court finds that the following information should be redacted from its J uly 31, 2017 Opinion and Order: information taken directly from Torres’s and G4S’s proposals, the State Department’s initial total evaluated prices for both offerors, the State Department’s final total evaluated price for Torres, the independent g overnment price estimate, and the portions of discussion questions and responses that concern G4S’s proposed price. The court further finds that the following information should not be redacted from its Ju ly 31, 2017 Opinion and Order: information related to Torres’s performance of the incumbent contract; the State Department’s analy sis of whether G4S was a responsible offeror; and the information disclosed by

Torres reg arding the contents of an electronic-mail messag e, its investig ation of the contents of that messag e, and its post-2010 success rate in being awarded local g

uard services contracts by

the State Department. The court has incorporated these finding s into the

4 I ndeed, the court cannot discern how the contents of the specified electronic-mail messag e and the information concerning Torres’s investig ation of the same would constitute protected information in lig ht of the fact that this information is summariz ed in the nex t parag raph of the court’s decision. Nor can the court discern how the disclosure of details reg arding Torres’s success rate in past competitions for local g uard services contracts would harm Torres in future competitions.

- 11-contemporaneously filed public version of its decision. I n addition, the parties shall use the court’s finding s when preparing public versions of the documents that they filed under seal during the pendency

of the bid protest.

IT IS SO ORDERED. s/ Marg aret M. Sweeney MARGARET M. SW EENEY J udg e

- 12-