Office of the Saskatchewan Information and Privacy Commissioner. Guide to FOIP, Chapter 4, Exemptions from the Right of Access. Updated 8 April 2024. 224 o Publications o In applications to government that are public o In the press o In annual reports, government filings o In public registries • How old is the information. If the information is not current, why would disclosure still adversely affect the third party. • Has similar information about the third party been made public in the past. If so, what was the impact. Was the impact quantifiable (e.g., lost sales or revenues). • Is information of this nature available about competitors of the third party. • Are there examples in other businesses where disclosure of similar information led to competitive prejudice. If so, describe and quantify the financial loss or gain. Why is the situation parallel to that of this third party. • What actions could the third party take to counteract potential competitive prejudice knowing the information would be disclosed. Pursuant to subsection 19(2) of FOIP, where a record contains third party information, the government institution can release it with the written consent of the third party. Pursuant to subsection 19(3) of FOIP, where a record contains third party information, the government institution can release it if disclosure is in the public interest and the information relates to public health, public safety or protection of the environment. In addition, the public interest clearly outweighs in importance any financial loss or gain, prejudice to competitive position or interference with contractual negotiations of the third party. For further guidance, see Subsection 19(3) of this Chapter. IPC Findings In Review Report 007-2015, the Commissioner considered subsection 19(1)(c). An applicant made an access to information request to the Ministry of Central Services (Central Services) for the Statement of Work attached to Information Technology Consulting Services Agreement ITO-12023. Central Services responded to the applicant advising that it was withholding portions of the Statement of Work pursuant to several provisions of FOIP including subsection 19(1)(c). During the review, Central Services and the third party asserted that releasing the estimated hours, hourly rate and estimated cost per consultant would result in a competitor having the ability to provide a lower rate for future contracts, which would cause the third party to experience a competitive disadvantage. However, neither Central Services nor the third party provided anything further to support this assertion. The Commissioner also stated that the winning contractor would have access to the internal cost estimates in question as it
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTgwMjYzOA==