← Case detail
FA-26-00418 · FOIA · Army Materiel Command (AMC)

Review and redact

Sustainment contract award decisions, Redstone Arsenal FY25

Processing inside Army M365 tenant boundary, zero data egress
Source selection decision document, Redstone sustainment servicesNo redaction scan has run on this artifact yet
Working copySelect text to withhold it by hand. Nothing here is covered up: authorized reviewers see the record in full.

The source selection authority evaluated four proposals for sustainment services at Redstone Arsenal under the FY25 solicitation. Award was made on a best value tradeoff basis, weighing technical approach and past performance above price.

The awardee proposed a fully burdened labor rate of $138.40 per hour for senior logistics technicians and disclosed a proprietary parts forecasting model developed at its own expense(b)(4). Both figures were submitted with a restrictive legend and are treated as confidential commercial information.

The evaluation board's internal scoring narrative recommended a second round of discussions before award, a recommendation the source selection authority declined to adopt(b)(5).

Released record previewGenerated from the current decisions. The withheld characters are never written into this copy.
Page 1 of 1

The source selection authority evaluated four proposals for sustainment services at Redstone Arsenal under the FY25 solicitation. Award was made on a best value tradeoff basis, weighing technical approach and past performance above price.

The awardee proposed a fully burdened labor rate of $138.40 per hour for senior logistics technicians and disclosed a proprietary parts forecasting model developed at its own expense. Both figures were submitted with a restrictive legend and are treated as confidential commercial information.

The evaluation board's internal scoring narrative recommended a second round of discussions before award, a recommendation the source selection authority declined to adopt.

Decision recordEvery suggestion the model made, and what a person decided about it. Rejected suggestions stay on the record; they are released in full.
  • Span 1AI suggestedPending decision
    Page 1, paragraph 2, characters 21 to 182
    5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4) · offeror pricing and rate structure

    Reproduces the offeror's proposed pricing build up, submitted under an assertion of confidentiality. Release would cause competitive harm in future procurements.

  • Span 2AI suggestedPending decision
    Page 1, paragraph 3, characters 0 to 171
    5 U.S.C. 552(b)(5) · evaluation board recommendation

    Evaluation board's comparative recommendation to the source selection authority, made before the award decision issued.