FAR 3.907-5—Access to investigative file of Inspector General.
Plain-English Summary
FAR 3.907-5 explains who can access an Inspector General’s investigative file in a reprisal case under the Recovery Act whistleblower protections, when that access becomes available, and what limits still apply. It covers the employee alleging reprisal, the non-Federal employer in a civil action, the Inspector General’s authority to withhold certain material, the point at which the IG investigation is treated as closed for Privacy Act disclosure purposes, and the confidentiality restrictions on the IG while the matter is pending. In practice, this section is about balancing transparency for the parties with privacy, law-enforcement sensitivity, and protection of confidential sources or investigative methods. It matters because access to the investigative file can affect appeals, civil litigation, settlement posture, and the ability of each side to understand the evidence supporting or refuting the reprisal claim. Contractors and agencies should read this section as a disclosure rule tied to Privacy Act requirements, not as a blanket right to every document in the file. The section also makes clear that the IG cannot casually answer inquiries or reveal information about the complainant outside the Privacy Act or other applicable law.
Key Rules
Employee access to IG file
The employee alleging reprisal is entitled to access the Inspector General’s investigative file, but only in accordance with the Privacy Act. This is a qualified disclosure right, meaning the file is not automatically open in full and any release must comply with Privacy Act limits and other applicable restrictions.
When the file is deemed closed
For Privacy Act disclosure purposes, the IG investigation is treated as closed when the employee files an appeal to the agency head or to a court of competent jurisdiction. That closure point triggers the disclosure framework, even if other administrative or litigation steps continue.
Access in civil actions
If the employee brings a civil action under section 1553(c)(3) of the Recovery Act, both the employee and the non-Federal employer have access to the investigative file, again subject to the Privacy Act. This ensures both sides in the lawsuit can obtain relevant investigative material, but not necessarily every piece of information without redaction or withholding.
Permitted withholdings
The Inspector General may exclude information protected from disclosure by law and may also withhold additional information if disclosure would impede a continuing investigation. Once that investigative concern no longer exists, the information should be disclosed unless a separate exception applies.
Law-enforcement and source protections
Even after the general impediment to disclosure ends, the IG may continue to withhold law-enforcement techniques, procedures, or information if disclosure could reasonably be expected to risk circumvention of the law or reveal the identity of a confidential source. This preserves core investigative and enforcement protections.
Confidentiality of reprisal allegations
The Inspector General may not respond to inquiries or disclose information from or about any person alleging reprisal except as allowed by the Privacy Act or other applicable Federal law. This limits informal disclosures and reinforces that any release must be legally authorized.
Responsibilities
Employee alleging reprisal
May access the IG investigative file under Privacy Act rules and, if filing an appeal or civil action, may obtain disclosure consistent with the section. The employee must use the proper legal process and should expect redactions or withheld material where the law permits.
Non-Federal employer
In a civil action under section 1553(c)(3), is entitled to access the IG investigative file in accordance with the Privacy Act. The employer must rely on the authorized disclosure process and cannot demand unrestricted access to protected or withheld information.
Inspector General
Must provide file access as required by this section and the Privacy Act, determine when the investigation is deemed closed for disclosure purposes, and withhold only information protected by law or properly exempted because disclosure would impede an investigation or reveal sensitive law-enforcement information or confidential sources. The IG must also avoid unauthorized responses or disclosures about the complainant.
Agency head or court of competent jurisdiction
Receives the employee’s appeal, which marks the investigation as closed for Privacy Act disclosure purposes. These bodies do not control the IG file directly under this section, but their receipt of the appeal affects when disclosure obligations attach.
Agency and legal/privacy officials
Must ensure any release of the investigative file complies with the Privacy Act and other applicable disclosure laws, including proper redaction, exemption analysis, and handling of sensitive information.
Practical Implications
This section gives parties in a reprisal case a meaningful right to see the IG file, but not an unlimited right to every document or source statement. Expect redactions, partial releases, and withheld material where privacy or law-enforcement concerns apply.
The timing matters: filing an appeal to the agency head or court can change the disclosure status of the IG investigation. Contractors and employees should track that procedural step carefully because it affects when the file is treated as closed for Privacy Act purposes.
Non-Federal employers involved in civil litigation should prepare for disclosure of the investigative file and should preserve records and coordinate with counsel early, since the file may become evidence in the case.
A common mistake is assuming the IG can discuss the complaint informally. This section sharply limits off-the-record disclosures, so parties should use formal Privacy Act and litigation channels rather than expecting verbal explanations from the IG.
Even when disclosure is required, the IG can continue to protect confidential sources and sensitive investigative techniques. Parties should anticipate that some of the most sensitive material may remain withheld if disclosure would compromise law enforcement or source safety.
Official Regulatory Text
(a) The employee alleging reprisal under this section shall have access to the investigation file of the Inspector General, in accordance with the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. §552a . The investigation of the Inspector General shall be deemed closed for the purposes of disclosure under such section when an employee files an appeal to the agency head or a court of competent jurisdiction. (b) In the event the employee alleging reprisal brings a civil action under section 1553(c)(3) of the Recovery Act, the employee alleging the reprisal and the non-Federal employer shall have access to the investigative file of the Inspector General in accordance with the Privacy Act. (c) The Inspector General may exclude from disclosures made under 3.907-5 (a) or (b)- (1) Information protected from disclosure by a provision of law; and (2) Any additional information the Inspector General determines disclosure of which would impede a continuing investigation, provided that such information is disclosed once such disclosure would no longer impede such investigation, unless the Inspector General determines that the disclosure of law enforcement techniques, procedures, or information could reasonably be expected to risk circumvention of the law or disclose the identity of a confidential source. (d) An Inspector General investigating an alleged reprisal under this section may not respond to any inquiry or disclose any information from or about any person alleging such reprisal, except in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552a or as required by any other applicable Federal law.