Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner. Guide to FOIP, CHAPTER 5, Third Party Information. Updated 9 March 2023. 34 In Review Report 195-2015 and 196-2015, the Commissioner considered subsection 19(1)(c) of FOIP. An applicant made two access to information requests to the Ministry of Central Services (Central Services) for all current active information technology service contracts with a maximum value of over $1 million and any between Central Services and Solvera Solutions that were over $1 million. Central Services responded to the applicant advising that some of the information in the contracts was being withheld under various provisions of FOIP including subsection 19(1)(c). Specifically, Central Services withheld the hourly rates for contracted services pursuant to subsection 19(1)(c). Upon review, both Central Services and the third party asserted that releasing the hourly rates could result in competitors having the ability to provide a lower rate for future contracts and result in undue loss to Solvera Solutions and prejudice its competitive position. The Commissioner found that the bids were evaluated based on several criteria and laid out the three stages used by Central Services at paragraph [44] of the report. As such, the selection was not based on price alone. Finally, the Commissioner found that releasing costs would increase the chances that a public body would, in the future, obtain fair bids and a competitive bidding process. The Commissioner found that subsection 19(1)(c) did not apply to the hourly rates. In Review Report 236-2017, the Commissioner considered subsection 19(1)(c) of FOIP. An applicant made an access to information request to the Water Security Agency (WSA) for copies of a report of the standing of each firm who submitted quotes to WSA in response to a Request for Quotes. Upon review, the WSA asserted that if the quotes were released to the applicant, it would result in financial loss for the third parties and result in a competitive advantage. Relying on Review Reports 007-2015 and 195-2015 and 196-2015, the Commissioner found that the risk of being underbid by competitors for future contracts did not meet the threshold for this provision. Releasing costs would increase the chances that the public body would obtain fair bids and a competitive bidding process.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTgwMjYzOA==