Pennsylvania Orders Release of Cancelled Community HealthChoices Proposals

On November 9, 2026, the Pennsylvania Office of Open Records ordered the Pennsylvania Department of Human Services (DHS) to disclose proposals submitted in response to the cancelled Community HealthChoices Request for Applications, RFA No. 31-22. DHS must release the submissions within 30 days, while redacting information that qualifies as confidential proprietary material or a trade secret. The determination concerns five managed-care proposals and addresses how public-records obligations apply when a procurement is cancelled rather than completed through an award.

The ruling has practical implications for both public agencies and companies competing for state healthcare work. The source describes the decision as indicating that plans to reissue the work or collect responses to a Request for Information generally do not preserve the proposal exemption after cancellation. For agencies, that means a cancelled procurement may still lead to disclosure of the materials submitted by offerors, even if the underlying program need remains and procurement planning continues through another process. Cancellation should therefore trigger an assessment of records-retention and disclosure obligations, not an assumption that proposals remain protected.

For bidders, the central action is to identify sensitive content before submission and be prepared to substantiate any later request for redaction. The supplied account advises that a general claim of confidentiality may not be sufficient: vendors should identify the particular proposal passages they consider proprietary or trade-secret material and provide specific evidence supporting that treatment. This is especially relevant in managed-care procurements, where proposals may contain business methods, pricing-related information, operational details, or other commercially sensitive content. The ruling does not establish that all such material must be disclosed; it requires release with qualifying information redacted.

The determination is identified in the source as Lawrence Sher and Winston Taylor, LLP v. DHS, concerning Community HealthChoices proposals. Its procurement lesson is not limited to this particular RFA: when a solicitation ends without an award, agencies and offerors should plan for a possible public-records review and distinguish protectable information from the rest of the submission. Agencies should apply redactions to qualifying information while preparing the releasable record, and vendors should make focused, evidence-backed arguments rather than relying on blanket confidentiality labels. The order sets a concrete 30-day release timeframe for these proposals, making timely coordination important for DHS and the affected companies.

• DHS must release five proposals within 30 days, subject to redaction of qualifying confidential proprietary information and trade secrets.
• The records concern Community HealthChoices RFA No. 31-22, a cancelled Request for Applications.
• The proposals were submitted by Aetna Better Health, Health Partners Plans, PA Health & Wellness, UPMC for You, and UnitedHealthcare of Pennsylvania.
• The determination indicates that plans to reissue the work or collect RFI responses generally do not preserve the proposal exemption after cancellation.
• Bidders should identify the specific information they seek to protect and support requested redactions with evidence; a general confidentiality claim may not be enough.
• Agencies managing cancelled procurements should anticipate disclosure requests and prepare records for release with appropriate redactions.
• The ruling is identified as Lawrence Sher and Winston Taylor, LLP v. DHS and concerns proposals for managed-care services.
• Offerors pursuing future state healthcare procurements should build disclosure review into proposal preparation and document why particular content qualifies for protection.