Access to Information Orders
Decision Information
The background to this appeal was described to me by the City of Toronto (the City) in its representations as follows: In June of 1999, the City issued a Request for Proposal [RFP] for Part I of a Plant-Wide Heating System at the Main Treatment Plant for Toronto Works and Emergency Services [Ashbridge’s Bay Treatment Plant]. The RFP was for the City of Toronto to select a contractor for the design, construction, start-up and acceptance testing of a plant-wide heating system at the Main Treatment Plant. The issuance of the RFP by the City was an invitation to short-listed firms or joint ventures to submit proposals. The City had earlier that year made a Request for Qualifications [RFQ] and four firms or joint ventures had been short- listed and invited to submit a proposal in response to the RFP. The RFP is a detailed document which outlines RFP and proposal information preparation and submission; technical proposal requirements; price proposal requirements; financial information requirements; proposal screening and evaluation; project requirements; and a number of appendices relating to declarations, bonds, letters of credit and agreements to bond, forms of contract, general conditions, specifications, drawings and reference information. When the bids were received, they exceeded the budget for the project. As a result, one facet of the project was removed and the bidders were asked to resubmit their bids based on the reconfigured project. This second set of bids is contained on the records entitled Revised Price Proposal Forms, (Form P-1 (Revised)). The aspect of the project that was removed from the first RFP was added onto Phase II of the project which was tendered in the summer of 2003 under RFP No: 915509307268. The Contract for Phase II of the project has not yet been awarded. Since the submission of their representations, the City has not only confirmed that the contract for Phase II of the Ashbridge’s Bay plant-wide heating system project has been awarded, but that construction on that phase began in September of 2004.
Decision Content
BACKGROUND
The background to this appeal was described to me by the City of Toronto (the City) in its representations as follows:
In June of 1999, the City issued a Request for Proposal [RFP] for Part I of a Plant-Wide Heating System at the Main Treatment Plant for Toronto Works and Emergency Services [Ashbridge’s Bay Treatment Plant].
The RFP was for the City of Toronto to select a contractor for the design, construction, start-up and acceptance testing of a plant-wide heating system at the Main Treatment Plant. The issuance of the RFP by the City was an invitation to short-listed firms or joint ventures to submit proposals. The City had earlier that year made a Request for Qualifications [RFQ] and four firms or joint ventures had been short-listed and invited to submit a proposal in response to the RFP.
The RFP is a detailed document which outlines RFP and proposal information preparation and submission; technical proposal requirements; price proposal requirements; financial information requirements; proposal screening and evaluation; project requirements; and a number of appendices relating to declarations, bonds, letters of credit and agreements to bond, forms of contract, general conditions, specifications, drawings and reference information.
When the bids were received, they exceeded the budget for the project. As a result, one facet of the project was removed and the bidders were asked to resubmit their bids based on the reconfigured project. This second set of bids is contained on the records entitled Revised Price Proposal Forms, (Form P-1 (Revised)).
The aspect of the project that was removed from the first RFP was added onto Phase II of the project which was tendered in the summer of 2003 under RFP No: 915509307268. The Contract for Phase II of the project has not yet been awarded.
Since the submission of their representations, the City has not only confirmed that the contract for Phase II of the Ashbridge’s Bay plant-wide heating system project has been awarded, but that construction on that phase began in September of 2004.
NATURE OF THE APPEAL:
The City received a request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the Act) for access to the “details of each of the tenders, including price”, submitted by three named pre-qualified bidders in response to a Request for Proposal (RFP) put forward by the City for a plant-wide heating system at the Ashbridge’s Bay Treatment Plant.
The City’s position seems to be that because disclosure of the information could reasonably be expected to cause competitive harm or undue loss under section 10(1)(a), it stands to reason that affected parties would be reluctant to disclose information to the City in the course of future negotiations. However, as I explained above, the evidence under section 10(1)(a) is not persuasive. Given that finding, I am not satisfied that it is reasonable to expect that companies will no longer supply similar information to the City during contract negotiations, and I find that the threshold for section 10(1)(b) has not been met.