Office of the Saskatchewan Information and Privacy Commissioner. Guide to LA FOIP, Chapter 5, Third Party Information. Updated 22 February 2023. 29 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 18(3) later in this Chapter. IPC Findings In Review Report 007-2015, the Commissioner considered the equivalent provision in The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy (subsection 19(1)(c)). An applicant had 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 ITO12023. 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 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 the subsection 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 (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). 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
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTgwMjYzOA==