|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Document
|
|
MO-1919
|
|
|
|
|
|
Institution/HIC
|
|
City of Toronto
|
|
|
|
|
|
Summary
|
|
NATURE OF THE APPEAL: The City of Toronto (the City) received a request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the Act ) for access to records relating to a specified Request for Proposal (RFP). Specifically, the requester sought access to the following: List of all prices submitted for this proposal Departmental evaluation scoring and worksheets for all proponents Name of winning proponent Fee at which winning proponent was awarded The City denied access in full to the list of all prices submitted, to the individual evaluation sheets and to information related to the winning proponent, pursuant to sections 11(c), (d) and (e) of the Act . However, the City granted access in full to a copy of the evaluation criteria form used by the review team and advised that the range of prices in response to the RFP was from a low of $158,370.07 to a high of $479,836.00. The requester, now the appellant, appealed the City’s decision. During mediation, it was determined that the appellant’s company had submitted a proposal in response to the specified RFP. In light of this information, the City issued a supplementary decision letter, granting access in full to a copy of the appellant’s evaluation form related to his submission and disclosing the name of the winning proponent. It also informed the appellant that access was denied to all other information related to the RFP pursuant to the mandatory exemption at section 10 and continued to rely on sections 11(c), (d), and (e) of the Act . No further mediation was possible and the file was moved to adjudication. A Notice of Inquiry, summarizing the facts and issues on appeal, was initially sent to the City and 21 organizations whose interests may be affected by the outcome of this appeal (affected parties). I received a response from the City and six affected parties. One of the affected parties consented to the disclosure of the “departmental scoring and worksheet” relating to her organization. A Notice of Inquiry was then sent to the appellant along with a summary of the representations received from the affected parties and a complete copy of the representations submitted by the City. The appellant did not make representations. During the adjudication process on December 20, 2004, the City issued a revised decision letter informing the appellant of its decision to grant partial access to the records pertaining to the RFP and indicating the date after which the records will be released, providing no affected parties appealed its decision. The City concurrently informed the affected parties (as described above) of its intention to provide the following records to the appellant: The final total price The identity of the winning bidder The total price of each bidder The total score of each bidder The City advised that details regarding unit pricing, unit scoring, and specific details of the affected parties’ submissions would not be disclosed. One of the affected parties appealed the City’s decision, and Appeal MA-050037-1 was opened. Appeal MA-050037-1 The affected party appellant appealed the City’s decision to grant partial access to the records as described in its December 20, 2004 decision letter. During the course of mediation, the affected party appellant agreed to disclosure of the record to the requester (appellant in appeal MA-040166-1) and provided written consent to the mediator. The affected party appellant clarified that he did not authorize the City to disclose the entirety of his proposal to the requester, but agreed to the disclosure of the records identified in the City’s December 20, 2004 decision letter. The mediator forwarded the affected party appellant’s consent to me and the file in Appeal MA-050037-1 was closed. Appeal MA-040166-1 This appeal relates to the remaining undisclosed information. RECORDS: There are two groups of records at issue. In its representations the City agreed to disclose the following records from the Group I - Committee Notes and Recommendations: Pages 2, 4, 10 and 11 in their entirety Pages 3 and 6 in part In the records described as Group II – Evaluation Sheets, the City agreed to disclose each worksheet absent any notations and numerical marks. As stated one of the affected parties consented to the disclosure of the evaluation worksheets relating to her organization. As a result, pages 43 – 45 of the Group II records should be disclosed. In its revised decision letter, the City agreed to disclose records that contained: the final total price, the identity of the winning bidder, the total price of each bidder and the total score of each bidder. This would include the following information from the Group I records: The total price on page 3 The fees on page 6 The total score of each affected party on page 8 The fees on page 9 Therefore, the records remaining at issue include the following: Group I Records Page 1 – in full (non-responsive) Page 3 – Fee Breakdown (sections 10 and 11) Page 5 – in full (sections 11(c) and (d)) Page 6 – information under “Qualified/Disqualified” and “Ranking Fees” Headings (sections 11(c) and (d)) Page 7 – in full (non-responsive) Page 8 – Breakdown of Scoring, information under “Comments” and information under “Disqualified Proponents” (sections 11(c) and (d)) Page 9 – information under “Qualified/Disqualified” and “Ranking Fees” Headings (sections 11(c) and (d)) Group II Records Pages 1 – 42 and 49 – 51 – notations and numerical marks (sections 11(c) and (d)) PRELIMINARY MATTER: NON-RESPONSIVE RECORDS The City submits that pages 1 and 7 of the Group I Records are non-responsive to the appellant’s request. The City states: The appellant requested the following information in relation to this RFP: List of all prices submitted for the proposal Department evaluation scoring and worksheets for all proponents Name of winning proponent Fee at which the winning proponent was awarded The City submits that page 1 of Group I on its face does not respond to the appellant’s request. It contains none of the information requested by the appellant. The City submits that page 7 of Group I records is no longer relevant as the appellant has been provided with the name of the successful proponent. The information contained in page 7 of the Group I records does not respond to any of the specific details requested by the appellant in his request, set out above, and is, therefore, no longer responsive. In Order P-880, former Adjudicator Anita Fineberg defined "responsive" as meaning "reasonably related to the request." I agree with this interpretation. Page 1 of the Group I records is an administrative document that relates to the timing of the evaluation process and is not reasonably related to the information requested by the appellant. I agree with the City that the information on page 1 does not reasonably relate to the appellant’s request and is non-responsive. Page 7 of the Group I records is a letter between two City employees detailing the winning bidder of the RFP and the “quoted fee”
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legislation
|
|
-
MFIPPA
-
10(1)(a)
-
10(1)(c)
-
11(c)
-
11(d)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Published
|
|
Apr 18, 2005
|
|
|
|
|
|
Type
|
|
Order
|
|
|
|
|
|
<<
Back
|
|
|
|
Back to Top
|
 |
|
|
|
© Copyright
2013
Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario. All Rights Reserved.
|