Office of the Saskatchewan Information and Privacy Commissioner. Guide to LA FOIP, Chapter 4, Exemptions from the Right of Access. Updated 18 Oct 2023. 194 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 is part of the current contract and that keeping these figures from the public, including other future bidders, would jeopardize competitive bidding processes. The Commissioner found that subsection 19(1)(c) of FOIP was not properly applied by Central Services. In Review Report 195-2015 and 196-2015, the Commissioner considered the equivalent provision in The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FOIP) (subsection 19(1)(c)). 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) of FOIP. 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 the 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 a number of 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) of FOIP did not apply to the hourly rates. In Review Report 236-2017, the Commissioner considered the equivalent provision in The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (subsection 19(1)(c)). 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==