Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs

Recommended Posts

I have been out of town the past few days, but - for Cripes sake, already - this is a grounds maintenance service contract! What kind of trade secret is involved in finding the overall contract price (I'm guessing that it is X months at $y/month = contract price)?

"Here is FAR 52.215-1, Instructions to Offerors--Competitive Acquisitions, with respect to debriefing:

(f)(11) If a post-award debriefing is given to requesting offerors, the Government shall disclose the following information, if applicable:

...(ii) The overall evaluated cost or price and technical rating of the successful and the debriefed offeror and past performance information on the debriefed offeror."

Seems like the overall price is one thing that must normally be revealed in the debriefing and the questioner never said that there are trade secrets involved - in a grounds maintenance contract?????????? mowing grass, trimming plants, fertilizing, etc. ??????

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 60
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Guest Vern Edwards
- for Cripes sake, already - this is a grounds maintenance service contract! What kind of trade secret is involved in finding the overall contract price (I'm guessing that it is X months at $y/month = contract price)?

That's no kind of argument. If aircraft maintenance prices can be trade secrets, why can't grounds maintenance prices be trade secrets? Do you know some rule that we don't know about what can and can't be trade secrets?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seems to me that the only trade secrets in a lawn maintenance contract might be if they were going to use Edward Scissorhands or Sweeney Todd to trim the grass or bushes. Besides nobody said there are trade secrets involved, here.

Are you are telling me that anytime there are unit prices involved in a government contract, the government can't reveal them to the public? What about the same work but in an IFB format? This is getting ridiculous. Civil works construction contracts might contain up to 100 CLINS and public works contracts often use unit prices and estimated quantities to be measured and paid at actual installed quantities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Joel,

The court decisions are saying line item or unit pricing information is subject to exception 4 of FOIA. For the exception to apply, you must determine whether disclosure causes competitive harm to the submitter. Obviously not all unit or line prices fall into that situation but some do. Before disclosing unit pricing, many agencies follow their internal FOIA practices and ask the submitter if disclosure of the information will cause them competitive harm. They also ask the submitter to justify why.

A very simple example actually relates to what started all this several years ago. Hourly contract rates that are "fully loaded" rountinely used to be released. However some firms said that caused them competitive harm because going labor rates were commonly known in the industry. That occurs through employees transferring to competitors, application of the Service Contract Act, unions and collective bargain agreements, etc. So if the fully loaded "wrap" rates are divulged, competitors know how the winning vendor structures their pricing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Vern Edwards

The court in Canadian Commercial Corp. and Orenda Aerospace Corp., stated the rule quite succinctly"

Exemption 4 of the Freedom of Information Act protects “matters that are ... trade secrets and commercial or financial information obtained from a person and privileged or confidential.” 5 U.S.C. ? 552(B)(4). Commercial or financial information obtained from a person involuntarily “is ‘confidential’ for purposes of the exemption if disclosure [would either] ... impair the Government’s ability to obtain necessary information in the future; or ... cause substantial harm to the competitive position of the person from whom the information was obtained.” Nat’l Parks & Conservation Ass’n v. Morton, 498 F.2d 765, 770 (D.C. Cir. 1974); see also Critical Mass Energy Project v. NRC, 975 F.2d 871, 880 (D.C. Cir. 1992) (enbanc) (adhering to National Parks with regard to commercial or financial information involuntarily submitted to the Government). We have long held the Trade Secrets Act, 18 U.S.C. ? 1905, a criminal statute that prohibits Government personnel from disclosing several types of confidential information unless “authorized by law,” is “at least co-extensive with ... Exemption 4 of FOIA.” CNA Fin. Corp. v. Donovan, 830 F.2d 1132, 1151 (D.C. Cir. 1987). The upshot is that, unless another statute or a regulation authorizes disclosure of the information, the Trade Secrets Act requires each agency to withhold any information it may withhold under Exemption 4 of the FOIA. Bartholdi Cable Co., Inc. v. FCC, 114 F.3d 274, 281 (D.C. Cir. 1997). A person whose information is about to be disclosed pursuant to a FOIA request may file a “reverse-FOIA action” and seek to enjoin the Government from disclosing it. See Chrysler Corp. v. Brown, 441 U.S. 281, 317-18 1979).

Among other reasons, there should be no disclosure of "constituent" or "line item" prices if it would cause substantial harm to the competitive position of the firm from which the information was obtained. Before releasing any such info the CO should contact the firm whose information has been requested. You can pooh-pooh this all you want, but as a businessman I understand why some firms in some markets do not want to disclose their prices. A firm that competed for a specially-tailored government grounds maintenance job may have given the government prices that it does not want disclosed to its competitors because it would harm its competitive position in the future. Instead of being sarcastic, you could try reading the case law. Saying that a position is ridiculous is not an argument.

The government can reveal unit prices if the contractor does not object. If the contractor does object, then someone in the government (not the contracting officer) must decide whether to release the info despite the objection. If that is the decision, the contractor can file a reverse-FOIA suit. This nondisclosure rule does not apply in sealed bidding, in which public bid opening is mandated by statute.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The court in Canadian Commercial Corp. and Orenda Aerospace Corp., stated the rule quite succinctly"

Among other reasons, there should be no disclosure of "constituent" or "line item" prices if it would cause substantial harm to the competitive position of the firm from which the information was obtained. Before releasing any such info the CO should contact the firm whose information has been requested. You can pooh-pooh this all you want, but as a businessman I understand why some firms in some markets do not want to disclose their prices. A firm that competed for a specially-tailored government grounds maintenance job may have given the government prices that it does not want disclosed to its competitors because it would harm its competitive position in the future. Instead of being sarcastic, you could try reading the case law. Saying that a position is ridiculous is not an argument.

The government can reveal unit prices if the contractor does not object. If the contractor does object, then someone in the government (not the contracting officer) must decide whether to release the info despite the objection. If that is the decision, the contractor can file a reverse-FOIA suit. This nondisclosure rule does not apply in sealed bidding, in which public bid opening is mandated by statute.

Vern, I understand the background and reasons for the exclusion. However, this is now being interpreted to the extreme to the point where it is just a croc. This is a grounds maintenance contract.

I may have missed it, but did anyone look at the reason the KO gave not to reveal the price? Brian said only that the KO referred to "FAR 24.202", with no apparent further explanation other than the price is part of a proposal, thus cannot be revealed. He later said that she also refuses to name the winner. Both of those practices are contrary to the requirement where there is a debriefing, to provide the overall price and name of the winner, unless there is some other reason provided. She apparently didn't (from the info presented) explain why the contract price would reveal any proprietary information other than it is part of a proposal, so is not releasable. I don't think that one can use 24.202 (a) as justification not to name the contractor or reveal the price because those items are obviously prime features incorporated into the contract. She didn't explain why 24.203 (B) would apply, either. That refers to a price breakdown or some other info used to evaluate the reasonableness of the price, not the overall contract price itself.

Everyone seems to have jumped into this specific case as though the unit prices are to be held tight, perhaps because they will automatically reveal proprietary information. I've dealt with construction and other public works repair and maintenance contracts for 30 years that contain unit prices and it would be extremely rare where the unit prices would reveal such info. I've also evaluated a couple of service contracts for grounds maintenance on civil works sites and nobody ever objected to releasing the contract prices.

You may say, yes but many of those (not all) were IFB where the information is public by law. Well, IFB, RFP, Part 13 doesn't seem to make a difference here as price alone was evaluated and it appears to be a routine contract, not unlike those that are publicly bid all over the US.

Hell, there are reporting services that have been publishing unit prices on public works projects for at least 38 years (I didn't read any before 1971). I used to subscribe to a few of them. That is how we used to budget for our new projects and we used the data in developing our owner and government cost/price estimates.

Brian said that they wont even name the awardee. This whole thing looks fishy to me. Maybe it is a secret contract at Camp David or something and Edward or Sweeny will do the work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Joel,

We had a publishing company that received the whole contract, unit prices and everything else, just by asking at FT. Benning until shortly before I reported there in 2005. They stopped releasing that information after the Army lost a lawsuit from a contractor who was "harmed" by the release of his unit prices and several other management concepts which were used by a competing contractor in the generation of his competing proposal for a follow-on contract.

It was for an equally common type of service as ground maintenance, so I can see that in some cases even a grounds maintenance contractor might want to protect his unit prices, as it might suggest to a competitor how to beat him or her in the future.

I agree that a failure to release the name of the contractor appears to be overly restrictive, but I don't know the specifics well enough to say its a violation of the FAR.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

.

I find this discussion interesting - its more like the old WIFCON, before the switch over to the new format. Maybe it's just me, but I think that the debates aren't as lively as they used to be.

I really appreciate all of the feedback, particularly the exploration of aspects that I'd never considered.

So, this discussion is on two levels -

my individual whining about how life is unfair is on one level, and the bigger picture about what the FAR and the courts actually say about releasing or withholding pricing information is on the other level. This second level of discussion does not depend on the particulars of my case.

........

I am selfishly more interested in finding out if I lost out to someone with an improper competitive advantage, such as a business run by the CO's husband, for example. And if so, was his price higher than mine ?

I know that the protocols here say we don't get too deep into the particulars of a specific situation. This is a forum for intellectual exchange, not for pointing fingers or embarrassing individuals.

If it would help, I could provide specifics of the solicitation. But I think that could effectively identify the post and CO involved, even if I deleted their names and address, due to the unique aspects of the required grounds maintenance services. I think I can safely say that the requirement is for picking up and disposing of an unusual form of debris/ trash under conditions that require special safety precautions, protective equipment and security clearances. It was not SECRET; it was posted at the Army's asfi website.

I could also provide the text of the Government's email to me saying that they would not release either the award price or the winner's name. That would not identify the Government people involved.

Please let me know if that would help.

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jeez, now we have a trickle of "the rest of the story". I withdraw, since you are now feeding us bits and pieces of "the unique" nature of the contract.

Sorry, I should have given the KO the benefit of the doubt here. She may be wrong but it now looks like there is much more to this than initially presented.

Had this been a routine grounds maintenance contract, I would find it hard to believe that pricing, which consists of one line item and no technical proposal, would reveal proprietary secrets, given the original scenario presented. The purported reason given for not releasing the contract price did not fit the seemingly simple scenario. No wonder this looked (and smelled) fishy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest carl r culham

Vern - My responses.

How, exactly, are those different? Both quote FAR 15.506(d). You may read them as quoting FAR 15.506(d) but I do not. They may read close to each other but there are subtle differences. More importantly they are in fact separate FAR provisions and statements of the FAR. I do not believe you could read FAR 52.215-1 or for that matter FAR 15.506(d) into the solicitation they must be there. I say this noting the further information now provided by Brian where I have assumed that 52.212-1 was or should have been in the solicitation.

Where, exactly, are the inconsistencies between FAR Part 12 and FAR Part 15 when it comes to debriefings? I find no reference in FAR Part 12 to FAR Part 24. I see this as an inconsistency therefore FAR Part 12 takes precedence.

Not stipulated? What do you think FAR 52.215(f)(11) is saying? I do not care what FAR 52.215(f)(11) says nor do I think I would need to. Based on my position and my assumption that as a commercial item 52.212-1 is in the solicitation I only care about the Part 12 provision and it application or lack therefore as provided for in FAR Part 12. If the Part 15 provision was in the solicitation then I would care about it and its application as provided for in FAR Part 15.

Do you say that 15.506(e) does not apply to acquisitions of commercial items? If so, on the basis of what FAR text? Yes. FAR Part 12.

Do you think that contracting officers must release trade secrets or confidential manufacturing processes and techniques when giving debriefings in commercial item acquisitions? Yes, unless a contractor claims Exemption 4 and it is then determined that Exemption 4 applies. I question whether Exemption 4 would when applying the full context of the process of FOIA. Until proven otherwise in a court I will stand on that opinion noting specifically that I do not believe the courts have addressed the matter of Exemption 4 when it comes to commerical item acquisiton contract line items.

Do you think that they must release the names of individuals providing reference information about an offeror's past performance during a debriefing in a commercial items acquisition? Who cares? This not applicable to my comments/opinions on release of the contract pricing info.

Do you think that 10 U.S.C. 2305(g) and 41 U.S.C. 254b(d)(2)? do not apply to commercial item acquisitions? I do not. What I have said is that I believe there is a higher standard for claiming Exemption 4 for a FAR Part 12 procurement.

Thank you for the reference on the debriefing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Vern Edwards

Carl,

I am frankly astonished by your last post. You are so wrong, and so obviously wrong, that I see no point in continuing a dialogue with you about this matter. When FAR 12.102? says that procurements of commercial items are subject to the policies in other parts of the FAR unless those policies are inconsistent with Part 12, it is nutty for you to say that failure of FAR Part 12 to mention another part gives creates an inconsistency with that part. If we were to follow FAR 12.102? and your logic, we would have to believe that Part 12 must restate every policy in every other part.

I will let the readers look at what we have said and at FAR and make up their own minds.

Sorry.

Vern

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest carl r culham

Vern ? In spite of our protracted discussion of FAR Part 12, which like you I will leave to others to judge, I do believe it is important return to the primary implied question of the initial post and that being whether it is appropriate for a CO to apply FAR Part 24.2, independently, without due process and benefit of legal counsel? I do not, do you?

Exemption 4 does apply to contract line item unit prices. However, the determination to release or not depends on a detailed application of case law and legal principle based on the submitter's ability to support that requested information is trade secrets; and information that is commercial or financial, and obtained from a person, and privileged or confidential. Having a CO make this determination on a request for contract pricing debriefing on the specific matters of "trade secret" and "privileged or confidential" outside the appropriate processes of FOIA is something I would not recommend. I note this especially when it comes to a commercial item acquisition, as the very nature of such an acquisition raises the many legal questions related to Exemption 4 most specifically whether information provided by the submitter in response to the Government solicitation is, or is not, equal to information that the submitter would customarily provide to the public. Rather than a CO making such an independent decision I would highly recommend that the CO refer any such matter to appropriate legal counsel, and also equally suggest that any requester seeking such information submit as a specific FOIA request.

In my view failure to release information that can be, is an injustice equal to releasing information that should not be.

Carl

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Carl,

What basis do you have for the response below?:

Questions:Do you think that contracting officers must release trade secrets or confidential manufacturing processes and techniques when giving debriefings in commercial item acquisitions?

Your answer: Yes, unless a contractor claims Exemption 4 and it is then determined that Exemption 4 applies.

Are you really saying that the debrief MUST divulge trade secrets (and) or confidential manufacturing processes and techniques UNLESS the contractor specifically says no in this specific instance?

I read the law as it is impermissible for the U.S. Government to release trade secrets and confidential information obtained from contractors without specific authority. I do not see that a debriefing of a competitor's proposal equates to that specific authority. Your position that it IS that specific authority is puzzling to me, as it means that a contractor who has provided trade secrets or confidential information to the Government must repeatedly state its right every time we do a debrief in order to protect its information.

Do you really mean to say that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Vern Edwards

Carl,

I do not believe that FAR 24.202 protects contract prices from disclosure, whether overall prices or unit prices. FAR 24.202 is not the issue with respect to disclosure of prices. The issue is the case law of the DC Circuit.

The DC Circuit has held that "constituent" or "line item" prices (not just line item "unit" prices) are protected under certain circumstances.

We reaffirm today what we have held twice before: Constituent or line-item pricing information in a Government contract falls within Exemption 4 of the FOIA if its disclosure would "impair the government's ability to obtain necessary information in the future" or "cause substantial harm to the competitive position of the person from whom the information was obtained." Nat'l Parks, 498 F.2d at 770.

Canadian Commercial Corp. and Orenda Aerospace Corp. v. U.S., 514 F.3d 37, at 40.

Now, you say:

Having a CO make this determination on a request for contract pricing debriefing on the specific matters of "trade secret" and "privileged or confidential" outside the appropriate processes of FOIA is something I would not recommend.

I say that if a CO is asked for consitutent or line item prices during a debriefing she faces a dilemma. If she releases it, and it turns out to have been protected, then there will be a problem. In my opinion, she would be a fool to release the information on her own initiative. In my opinion, the proper thing for her to do would be to explain to the loser that such information has been found to be protected under some circumstances, that she is not sure whether those circumstance exist in the case in question, but that prudence dictates that she not disclose the information until there has been a formal determination in accordance with the agency's FOIA procedures. She should then tell the loser that if it wants the prices it must submit a FOIA request in accordance with the agency's FOIA procedures. She should provide the loser with a copy of those procedures, and assure the loser of prompt handling of any request received.

You think that there is less ground for protection in a procurement of commercial items. I say that there are greater grounds. Joel thinks that grounds maintenance is too prosaic a service to justify trade secret protection of prices in a private transaction. I say that he has stated no rational basis for that position.

I say again that your interpretation of FAR Part 12, as stated in your earlier post of today, is fundamentally unsound, and an excellent example of how not to read a regulation. I'm astonished to get such a reading from someone as knowledgeable as you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to take some exception to Don's assertions regarding line item pricing. The court has never held that such pricing is automatically exempt from disclosure. Instead, its position is summarized in this extract from the CCC decision

We reaffirm today what we have held twice before:

Constituent or line-item pricing information in a Government

contract falls within Exemption 4 of the FOIA if its disclosure

would ?impair the government?s ability to obtain necessary

information in the future? or ?cause substantial harm to the

competitive position of the person from whom the information

was obtained.?

Thus, before line item pricing can be withheld, the government must determine that one of these two results will occur. Similarly, in a reverse FOIA action, the party seeking to enjoin release has the burden of proof in regard to making one of these showings.

As for Carl's idea about a protest, what is to be protested? Look at the GAO protest regs to determine what can be protested. I don't see where a contracting officer's failure to disclose this information is protestable to the GAO.

I agree. I didn't mean to imply that line-item pricing falls within Exemption 4 per se.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vern Edwards: "You think that there is less ground for protection in a procurement of commercial items. I say that there are greater grounds. Joel thinks that grounds maintenance is too prosaic a service to justify trade secret protection of prices in a private transaction. I say that he has stated no rational basis for that position."

I said that I understand the legal basis for withholding price details. I did say that I doubt that there are any trade secrets. I also said that the government never said that there were any trade secrets. If there are, then the government should determine whether or not there are and ought to provide a reasonable explanation why it wont even identify the contract price. That is not an unreasonable public request. The FAR says to provide the evaluated award price (and to identify the winner) in a debriefing, if given. Its an awfully big stretch to go from protecting trade secrets to keeping the award price secret.

What is funny to me at this point is how nobody here seems to have examined the reasons the KO provided for withholding the contract price. To say that the price is part of the proposal, thus protected, is goofy, when the FAR says to disclose it when debriefing unsuccessful offerors.. The FAR citation she provided (24.202) doesn't make sense to me. Paragraph (a) isn't applicable. If she means that the price is part of the proposal, so cant be disclosed, that contradicts the debriefing requirements to identify the contract award price. Paragraph (bee) doesnt apply because the contract price wasn't obtained pursuant to 15.403-3(bee). Paragraph (cee) doesnt apply either. No reason was given for not identifying the winner.

The goofy excuses that the KO provided don't make any sense at all, based upon the scenario outlined. As it turns out, there is more to the story that the questioner started trickling out yesterday. So, who knows what the real reason is? Ok, experts, please tell me what she meant and why she refused to disclose the price and winner's name, base on the information Brian provided. Please explain where she indicated that the price is a trade secret or otherwise would harm either the government or the contractor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

.

apologies to all, especially to Joel, for dribbling out bits of information. My intention was to not give out so much information that the CO involved, who I felt had made an incorrect decision, would be readily identifiable.

I asked the CO I disagreed with for contact info for her Small Biz liaison, and she gave me email addresses for her boss and the SB person.

Today, her boss emailed me. She didn't understand why I was so put out - all I had to do was to ask her for the information.

She told me how many offers, who won, and at what price. Turns out my estimate of the level of effort was way, way high. I figured almost 4 FTE's, and the PO was awarded for under $25K. With my cost structure, which I think is lean, that wouldn't have covered even 1 FTE, with the costs for labor overhead, equipment and materials factored in.

The separate discussion on releasing prices has made me think.

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Vern Edwards
What is funny to me at this point is how nobody here seems to have examined the reasons the KO provided for withholding the contract price. To say that the price is part of the proposal, thus protected, is goofy, when the FAR says to disclose it when debriefing unsuccessful offerors.. The FAR citation she provided (24.202) doesn't make sense to me. Paragraph (a) isn't applicable. If she means that the price is part of the proposal, so cant be disclosed, that contradicts the debriefing requirements to identify the contract award price. Paragraph (bee) doesnt apply because the contract price wasn't obtained pursuant to 15.403-3(bee). Paragraph (cee) doesnt apply either. No reason was given for not identifying the winner.

The goofy excuses that the KO provided don't make any sense at all, based upon the scenario outlined. As it turns out, there is more to the story that the questioner started trickling out yesterday. So, who knows what the real reason is? Ok, experts, please tell me what she meant and why she refused to disclose the price and winner's name, base on the information Brian provided. Please explain where she indicated that the price is a trade secret or otherwise would harm either the government or the contractor.

I don't know what that contracting officer meant, and I don't care why she refused to disclose the price. My point is that a circuit court of appeals has ruled on several occasions that prices can be protected information that should not be released. In light of those decisions, no contracting officer should release such information until he or she has checked with their FOIA advisor. Those of you who have claimed that commercial items are in some kind of special category in this regard, or that grounds maintenance prices cannot be trade secrets, and that it is ridiculous to refuse to release prices, do not know what you're talking about and should be ignored. The Department of Justice has issued extensive guidance about what should be done prior to the release of possibly protected information, and that guidance is consistent with what I have been saying. See http://www.usdoj.gov/oip/foiapost/2005foiapost17.htm. That guidance spells out extensive steps to be taken prior to releasing such information:

[A]gencies are best advised to take the following steps whenever they receive a FOIA request that encompasses unit prices. First, they should continue the sound administrative practice of providing notice to the submitter in accordance with the requirements of Executive Order 12,600, 3 C.F.R. 235 (1988), reprinted in 5 U.S.C. ? 552 note (2000), and in FOIA Update, Vol. VIII, No. 2, at 2-3; see also FOIA Update, Vol. VIII, No. 2, at 1, in order to obtain, in a timely fashion, any objection to disclosure. See FOIA Post, "Treatment of Unit Prices Under Exemption 4" (posted 5/29/02) (describing submitter-notice process).

Second, they should conduct a thorough competitive harm analysis, see id., always keeping in mind that it is the opponent of disclosure that bears the burden of proof, accord Occidental Petroleum Corp. v. SEC, 873 F.2d 325, 342 (D.C. Cir. 1989) (explaining that "the statutory policy favoring disclosure requires that the opponent of disclosure" bear the burden of persuasion). For example, in ruling in the agency's favor on the "over and above" prices in McDonnell Douglas v. Air Force, the D.C. Circuit held that "the agency reasonably concluded [that] McDonnell Douglas failed to carry its burden of showing [that] release of the ['over and above' prices] was likely to cause it substantial competitive harm." 375 F.3d at 1192. This allocation of burden thus is a significant aspect of the process.

Third, after performing a thorough analysis of the specific arguments presented by the submitter, and upon a determination that release is required, an agency then should clearly set forth its analysis and the rationale for its decision in the administrative record. As is clear from both McDonnell Douglas decisions, the single most important thing that an agency can do to prepare its disclosure decision for possible judicial review is to create an adequate administrative record. Of necessity, that means precisely tailoring its decision letter to the facts of the case and to the specific objections that are made by the submitter within the time period allowed. In creating such a record there are several key elements that an agency should be sure to include.

Any advice to a CO to simply release constituent and line item pricing information during a debriefing for the reasons that you and Carl have given is reckless and should be ignored.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know what that contracting officer meant, and I don't care why she refused to disclose the price. My point is that a circuit court of appeals has ruled on several occasions that prices can be protected information that should not be released. In light of those decisions, no contracting officer should release such information until he or she has checked with their FOIA advisor. Those of you who have claimed that commercial items are in some kind of special category in this regard, or that grounds maintenance prices cannot be trade secrets, and that it is ridiculous to refuse to release prices, do not know what you're talking about and should be ignored. The Department of Justice has issued extensive guidance about what should be done prior to the release of possibly protected information, and that guidance is consistent with what I have been saying. See http://www.usdoj.gov/oip/foiapost/2005foiapost17.htm. That guidance spells out extensive steps to be taken prior to releasing such information:

Any advice to a CO to simply release constituent and line item pricing information during a debriefing for the reasons that you and Carl have given is reckless and should be ignored.

If I follow you, Vern, I think you are suggesting that, in any debriefing for an acquisition where there is only one line item, the CO should not give the award price until a FOIA request is fully processed.

But I didn't see anybody present an argument why a CO might not tell who won the contract.

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Vern Edwards

brian:

That would be my advice, unless the award was made through sealed bidding, in which case I think that there is no question that the prices can and will be revealed upon request. Of course, a CO might say in the solicitation that the government intends to release the price(s) of the winner during postaward debriefings and upon request and that competitors must submit their quotes or offers based on that understanding.

I see no reason for refusing to disclose the name of the winner.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest carl r culham

Vern - So you would not release the contract price if the one line item price is based on catalog price? Also what if it was based on market prices?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

brian:

That would be my advice, unless the award was made through sealed bidding, in which case I think that there is no question that the prices can and will be revealed upon request. Of course, a CO might say in the solicitation that the government intends to release the price(s) of the winner during postaward debriefings and upon request and that competitors must submit their quotes or offers based on that understanding.

I see no reason for refusing to disclose the name of the winner.

Why would the CO have to make a statement that they intend to release the total contract price of the winning offer when that statement is contained in 52.212-1(l) or 52.215-1(f)(11)?

I understand not releasing line item pricing. In a purchase order with only one line item wouldn?t it be the responsibility of the offeror to identify this information as proprietary or a trade secret during the solicitation process since they are told that if they are successful this information will be given during a debriefing?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest carl r culham

CORRECTED POST

Vern - So you would not release the contract price if the solicitation method was conducted under FAR Part 12 (RFQ, IFB or RFP) and the one line item price is based on catalog price? Also what if it was based on market prices?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...