NPR 's Planet Money Crane FOIA Appeal Letter

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

  • 7/29/2019 NPR 's Planet Money Crane FOIA Appeal Letter

    1/13

    June 4, 2012

    Freedom of Information Act Appeal, DO

    Disclosure Services

    Department of the Treasury

    Washington, D.C. 20020

    Re: FOIA request to Treasury OIG for contract audit report

    Dear FOIA Officer:

    This is an appeal under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552, requesting

    access to and copies of the Treasury Office of Inspector Generals (OIG) audit report OIG-11-

    026, Contract Audit Regarding Crane & Companys Price Proposal in Response to Solicitation

    No. BEP-10-0001 (the Audit). I made my initial request on April 13, 2012, and a copy of my

    initial request letter is attached hereto as Exhibit A.

    On May 15, 2012, I received a response to my request in a letter signed by R.K. Delmar,

    denying my request. A copy of the denial letter is attached hereto as Exhibit B.

    I appeal the denial of my request. The portions of the Audit that contain information

    relating to profit percentages and costs attributable to particular segments of Crane & Companys

    (Cranes) price proposal are not exempt from disclosure under 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4)

    (Exemption 4).

    Exemption 4 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).

    However, FOIA's exemptions do not obscure the basic policy that disclosure, not secrecy, is the

    dominant objective of the Act. Dept. of Air Force v. Rose, 425 U.S. 352, 361 (1976). Thus,

    any FOIA exemption must be narrowly construed. Id. A proper construction would require

    disclosure of the information requested. Even if similar information might be exempt in other

    1

  • 7/29/2019 NPR 's Planet Money Crane FOIA Appeal Letter

    2/13

    cases, the information I requested is not exempt from disclosure, because of Cranes unique

    status and relationship with the Department of Treasury (DOT) and the reasons set forth below.

    I.

    THE INFORMATION IN THE AUDIT WAS NOT OBTAINED FROM APERSON UNDER EXEMPTION 4

    In your denial, you explained that businesses are considered persons for the purpose of

    the [Exemption 4] definition. While that may be true, the specific information that I am

    requesting is part of a broad, comprehensive analysis that was assembled by DCAA after it

    retrieved the necessary information from DOT. Because DCAA did not receive the information

    directly from Crane, but rather used the information as part of a government-generated analysis

    of Cranes contract with DOT, that information was not obtained from a person within the

    meaning of Exemption 4.

    Courts have held that information produced by the government is not obtained from a

    person and thus does not come within the scope of Exemption 4. See Buffalo Evening News,

    Inc. v. Small Bus. Admin., 666 F. Supp. 467, 469 (W.D.N.Y. 1987) (ordering disclosure and

    rejecting agencys argument that the agency obtain[ed] information concerning the status of

    [the] loan from the small business itself [and] merely compiles and records the data supplied

    by the business through its loan payment activity).

    One analogous case is particularly demonstrative. In Philadelphia Newspapers, Inc. v.

    Dept. of Health & Human Serv., the plaintiffs sought access to results within HHSs audit of

    medicare billing practices of Clinical Practices of the University of Pennsylvania (CPUP). 69

    F.Supp.2d 63, 65 (D.D.C. 1999). Judge Robertson explained that Exemption 4 did not apply to

    HHS spreadsheets that were generated from contractor-furnished raw data. Id. at 66-67. The

    court dismissed HHSs claims that the information was obtained from CPUP because it was

    2

  • 7/29/2019 NPR 's Planet Money Crane FOIA Appeal Letter

    3/13

    based on CPUPs raw data, holding that [a]n audit is not simply a summary or reformulation

    of information supplied by a source outside the government. It also involves analysis, and the

    analysis was prepared by the government. Id. at 67.

    For the same reasons, exemption 4 does not apply to the data requested in this case. The

    fact that DCAA could conceivably use information shown in the Audit to generate some of the

    same information does not mean that the DCAA-generated Audit reflecting the final information

    from Cranes proposal and DOTs solicitation were submitted by Crane. Crane is wholly an

    outsider to the auditing process between DCAA and DOT, and has no control over the

    information that is discovered and published in the audit process. Similar to the information at

    issue in Philadelphia Newspapers, even though some or all of the raw data that Crane provided

    as part of its bid proposal was included in the Audit , the consolidation, organization, expression

    and analysis of that information was prepared by DCAA. DOT has therefore not shown that the

    requested information was submitted by a person.

    II. CRANE DID NOT VOLUNTARILY SUBMIT ITS PROFIT MARGIN AND COSTINFROMATION AND THEREFORE THE TEST FOR VOLUNTARILY-

    DISCLOSED MATERIALS DOES NOT APPLY

    A. 48 C.F.R. 15.408 creates a legal obligation for Crane to submit its profitmargin as part of its bid proposal.

    In your denial, you said that Crane supplied its profit margin and cost information

    voluntarily as a proposal, and that such information should be protected because that type of

    information is not usually made publicly available. Based on our analysis of the relevant case

    law and government procurement regulations, we conclude that you have mistakenly contended

    that the lower bar governing voluntarily disclosed information applies to this case.

    3

  • 7/29/2019 NPR 's Planet Money Crane FOIA Appeal Letter

    4/13

    In National Parks and Conservation Assn v. Morton (National Parks I), 498 F.2d 765

    (D.C. Cir. 1974), the D.C. Circuit established a two-part test for determining whether

    commercial or financial information submitted to an agency is confidential under Exemption 4.

    The court explained that commercial or financial matter is confidential for purposes of the

    exemption if disclosure of the information is likely to have either of the following effects: (1) to

    impair the Government's ability to obtain necessary information in the future; or (2) to cause

    substantial harm to the competitive position of the person from whom the information was

    obtained. Id. at 770. Seventeen years later, in Critical Mass Energy Project v. NRC, 975 F.2d

    871 (D.C. Cir. 1992), the court narrowed the reach of the two-part test, confining it to cases in

    which a FOIA request is made for financial or commercial information a person was obliged to

    furnish to the Government. Id. at 880. The court concluded that Exemption 4 would protect

    voluntarily submitted commercial or financial information if it is of a kind that the provider

    would not customarily release to the public. Id.

    Because the contracts between DOT and Crane were negotiated, government

    procurement rules applicable to negotiated acquisitions apply. See 48 C.F.R. 15.000. The

    federal courts recognize the Federal Acquisitions Regulations (FAR) to have the force and

    effect of law. Davies Precision Machining, Inc. v. United States, 35 Fed. Cl. 651, 657 (Fed. Cl.

    1996). Table 15-2 of 48 C.F.R. 15.408 explains that for price proposals in which certified cost

    or pricing data are required, an offeror must provide on the first page of the pricing proposal,

    [p]roposed cost; profit or fee; and total. 48 C.F.R. 15.408, Table 15-2, General Instructions

    (A)(6). Thus, Crane was required by law to submit information pertaining to its profit margin as

    part of its bid proposal. The D.C. Circuit has explained that the determination of whether a

    submission was voluntarily submitted or required by the agency must be supported by actual

    4

  • 7/29/2019 NPR 's Planet Money Crane FOIA Appeal Letter

    5/13

    legal authority, rather than parties beliefs or intentions. Ctr. For Auto Safety v. Natl Highway

    Traffic Safety Admin., 244 F.3d 144, 149 (D.C. Cir. 2001). The directions for bid proposals in 48

    C.F.R. 15.408 create this necessary legal authority. While Crane could choose to place itself

    into the pool of potential bidders for paper currency contracts, once it chose to do so, it was

    required to submit a proposal in accordance with the requirements of FAR. Thus, Critical Mass

    does not apply here.

    B. Even without the obligation under 48 C.F.R. 15.408, Crane still would havebeen required to submit the information to DOT.

    Additionally, your characterization that Crane submitted its profit margin and cost

    information voluntarily lacks merit because it fails to take account of the unique relationship

    between Crane and BEP. Crane has supplied the United States Treasury with its currency paper

    since 1879.1

    Under 31 U.S.C. 5114, the Secretary of the Treasury is given the authority to

    make contracts for United States currency. Before a change in the statute took effect on

    December 23, 2011, the Secretary was restricted in his procurement efforts in that contracts had

    to be made for a period of not more than four years.2

    In 2006, Crane demonstrated the

    significance of this four-year restriction to its business relationship with DOT, when it protested

    the Bureau of Engraving and Printings (BEPs) solicitation offers for six-year contracts. See

    Crane & Co., Inc., 2005 WL 3682359 (Comp. Gen. Jan. 18, 2006). GAO found that such

    solicitations violated the plain language of 5114(c), but also acknowledged that its reading of

    the statute may be anticompetitive. Id. at *8, n.13.

    1 Currency & Security Papers, Crane & Co., http://www.crane.com/about-us/currency-paper?RPL (last visited May

    23, 2012).2See Crane & Co., Inc., 2005 WL 3682359 at *5, n.6 (Comp. Gen. Jan. 18, 2006) (As originally enacted, thestatute read as follows: The Secretary of the Treasury is authorized, in his discretion, to enter into a contract for the

    manufacture of distinctive paper for a period not to exceed four years. Act of July 1, 1916, ch. 209, 39 Stat. 277.5

  • 7/29/2019 NPR 's Planet Money Crane FOIA Appeal Letter

    6/13

    Potential paper currency suppliers had indicated to BEP that a four-year period was an

    inadequate payback period for production of paper currency.3

    Thus, BEP proposed an

    amendment to strike the four-year limitation from the statute.4

    As concern about the lack of

    competition in the paper currency market grew, Congress amended the statute to lift the four-

    year restriction. The change in 5114(c) lifted the four-year restriction, and the first sentence of

    the provision now says that [t]he Secretary may make a contract to manufacture distinctive

    paper for United States currency and securities. (Amendment).

    The statutory restrictions effectively ensured that Crane would be the sole supplier of

    paper currency for DOT. As such, any financial data that Crane submitted before the statutory

    amendment was an integral part of the negotiating process between Crane and BEP. In a

    bilateral relationship, such as the one that Crane and DOT shared, information such as profit

    margins tends to become more essential to the negotiating process and shifts more towards the

    required information side of the line rather than the voluntary one. Accordingly, the

    Exemption 4 standard for voluntary submissions outlined in Critical Mass does not apply to this

    case. Instead, the two-partNational Parks test should determine the status of the information I

    am trying to obtain. Resolution of this issue in favor of DOT requires it to prove that: (1) Crane

    actually faced competition, and (2) Crane was likely to suffer substantial competitive injury from

    disclosure. See National Parks & Conservation Assn v. Kleppe (National Parks II), 547 F.2d

    673, 679 (D.C. Cir. 1976).

    3See U.S. Department of the Treasury FY 2012 Budget in Brief at 88 (Feb. 14, 2012), available at

    http://www.treasury.gov/about/budget-performance/budget-in-brief/Documents/FY2012_BIB_Complete_508.pdf.4Id.

    6

  • 7/29/2019 NPR 's Planet Money Crane FOIA Appeal Letter

    7/13

    III. THE DISCLOSURE OF CRANES PAST FINANCIAL INFORMATION IS NOTLIKELY TO IMPAIR DOTS ABILITY TO OBTAIN SIMILAR INFORMATION IN

    THE FUTURE

    Under the government-impairment prong of theNational Parks test, DOT or any other

    government agency seeking the type of information at issue in this case will not be harmed in

    receiving similar information in the future. Past paper currency market participants have made

    strong efforts to enter the paper currency market, and BEP believes that the Amendment will

    result in more competition. Courts have found that there are sufficient external incentives for

    a government contractor to submit pricing information as part of a contract bid despite the risk of

    disclosure because disclosure of such information is merely the cost of doing business with the

    government and the financial rewards for contractors ensure continued government access to the

    price information. Am. Mgmt. Services, LLC v. Dept. of the Army, 2012 WL 215046 at *20

    (E.D. Va. Jan. 23, 2012) (citingRacal-Milgo Government Systems, Inc. v. Small Business

    Admin., 559 F.Supp. 4, 5-6 (D.D.C. Dec. 28, 1981); Center for Public Integrity v. Dept. of

    Energy, 191 F.Supp.2d 187, 195-96 (D.D.C. Mar. 26, 2002).

    The threat of the disclosure of non-harmful bidding information like what I am seeking

    here will not deter rational marketplace actors from competing for government contracts. Any

    determination to the contrary would be inconsistent with other district court decisions, which

    have found that it is unlikely that companies will stop competing for lucrative government

    contracts simply because contract information is disclosed. See McDonnell v. Douglas Corp. v.

    NASA, 981 F.Supp. 12, 15 (D.D.C. 1997) (Government contracting involves millions of

    dollars[,] and it is unlikely that release of this information will cause [the government] difficulty

    in obtaining future bids.), revd on other grounds, 180 F.3d 303 (D.C. Cir. 1999); accord

    Martin Marietta Corp. v. Dalton, 974 F.Supp. 37, 40 (D.D.C. Aug. 8, 1997) (explaining that

    [g]overnment contractors, including Martin Marietta, will continue bidding for [agency]

    7

  • 7/29/2019 NPR 's Planet Money Crane FOIA Appeal Letter

    8/13

    contracts despite the risk of revealing business secrets if the price is right.);Racal-Milgo, supra

    559 F.Supp. at 6 (Disclosure of prices charged the government is a cost of doing business with

    the Government. It is unlikely that companies will stop competing for Government contracts if

    the prices contracted for are disclosed.). As the 2006 GAO bid protest suggests, competitors

    were interested in competing for these contracts, but struggled to do so, because of the statutory

    hurdles. SeeCrane & Co., Inc., supra, 2005 WL 3682359 at *8.

    While the type of information sought in this case need not necessarily be made available

    in all circumstances, any data in the Audit that references bidding or internal information during

    the pre-Amendment period does not fall within the scope of Exemption 4. If the same

    information were sought from a post-Amendment government audit, then that case might present

    a different question. However, DOT does not need to make that determination in order to

    conclude that the information I seek is not protected under Exemption 4. The prospect of

    disclosure in this case presents a problem for would-be bidders only if their current proprietary

    data were to be released. However, I am merely requesting data that would be largely irrelevant

    to post-Amendment bidding competitions. The GAO bid proposal and complaints from other

    potential competitors suggests that there will now be a strong interest in the market for paper

    currency services now that the burdensome statutory requirements have been lifted. Because of

    the strong interest in the paper currency market and the loosened statutory requirements, DOT

    should find that the governments interests would not be harmed by the release of the requested

    information.

    8

  • 7/29/2019 NPR 's Planet Money Crane FOIA Appeal Letter

    9/13

    IV. CRANE WAS NOT ACTUALLY COMPETING FOR PAPER CURRENCYCONTRACTS WITH BEP BECAUSE POTENTIAL COMPETITORS WERE

    EFFECTIVELY BARRED FROM ENTERING THE PAPER CURRENCY

    MARKET

    Under the second prong of theNational Parks test, neither Crane nor DOT can establish a

    likelihood of competitive harm based on the disclosure of the requested data in the Audit because

    there is no evidence that shows that Crane was actually competing for printing currency contracts

    prior to the Amendment. TheNational Parks test requires a showing of actual competition, not

    future or potential competition. Niagara Mohawk Power Corp. v. U.S. Dept. of Energy, 169

    F.3d 16, 19 (D.C. Cir. 1999).

    Congresss mere loosening of the statutory requirements for BEPs procurement of

    contracts is not sufficient to demonstrate that Crane had any meaningful competition before the

    amendments to 5114(c). In National Parks I, the court found the National Parks and

    Conservation Associations argument in favor of disclosure to be compelling when it argue[d]

    that disclosure [could not] impair the [defendant] concessioners competitive position because

    they have no competition. National Parks I, supra, 498 F.2d at 770 (emphasis added). After

    the case came back on appeal after remand, the court in National Parks IIconcluded that the

    defendants would not suffer competitive harm from the release of copies of their financial

    records to the NPCA. National Parks II, supra, 547 F.2d at 681-82. Existing concessioners

    enjoyed a statutory renewal preference and a compensable possessory interest in any structure

    they created on government land. Id. at 681-82. The court explained that the concessioners

    possessory interest effectively shut out competitors from seeking contracts:

    This compensable possessory interest, where it has been incorporated into a

    current concession contract, poses a considerable, even insuperable, barrier to

    competition at the contract renewal stage, since it usually requires that either thePark Service or another private business seeking to outbid the existing

    9

  • 7/29/2019 NPR 's Planet Money Crane FOIA Appeal Letter

    10/13

    concessioner must be willing to acquire the interest at a reconstruction cost

    greatly in excess of book value.

    Id. at 681-82. Citing these barriers to entry, the D.C. Circuit reversed the lower courts finding

    that release of the financial information would cause damage to the defendants in their contract

    renewal efforts. Id. at 682. See alsoCooper v. Dept. of the Lottery, 266 Ill. App. 3d 1007, 1013-

    14 (Ill. App. Ct. 1994) (finding that under Illinois Freedom of Information Act, which was

    similar to the federal Freedom of Information of Act, an entitys status as a legal monopoly

    ensured that it could not suffer competitive harm if portions of advertising and promotion plan

    were disclosed).

    Similar to the evidence found to create a monopoly in National Parks II, there is specific

    factual evidence that prior to the Amendment, Crane was never truly competing in the paper

    currency market. In a 1998 report, the GAO explained that several manufacturers had told the

    government that they would compete in the paper currency market if the legal restrictions were

    amended to allow 1) foreign-owned companies to compete in the market and 2) the granting of

    contracts for more than a four-year period.5

    The insistence of would-be competitors to amend

    5114(c), the aspiration of BEP to gain meaningful competition, and the effort of Massachusetts

    congressmen to kee[p] the production process as close to home as possible6

    all indicate that

    competitors had significant barriers to entry in the paper currency market, analogous to those

    which were found to prevent meaningful competition inNational Parks II.

    V. THE DISCLOSURE OF CRANES PROFIT MARGINS AND COSTINFORMATION, AS SUPPLIED IN THE AUDIT, WOULD NOT BE LIKELY TO

    CAUSE SUBSTANTIAL HARM TO CRANES COMPETITIVE POSITION

    5 See U.S. Govt Accountability Office, GAO/GGD-98-181, Currency Paper Procurement: Meaningful Competition

    Unlikely Under Current Conditions 22 (1998).6 Keeley McCarty, Flip the Coin to the Fed: A Comment on the Dysfunctional Relationship Among the Federal

    Reserve System, Congress, and the United States Mint, 64 Admin. L. Rev. 315, 326 (2012).

    10

  • 7/29/2019 NPR 's Planet Money Crane FOIA Appeal Letter

    11/13

    To satisfy its burden of proof in this case, DOT must provide specific factual or

    evidentiary material justifying nondisclosure. National Parks II, supra, 547 F.2d at 679

    (quoting Pacific Architects & Eng'rs, Inc. v. The Renegotiation Board, 505 F.2d 383, 385

    (D.C.Cir.1974)). Mere conclusory opinion testimony is not sufficient. The D.C. Circuit has

    expressly rejected that it imposes per se rules for certain contract items. See McDonnell Douglas

    v. U.S. Dept. of the Air Force, 375 F,3d 1182, 1193 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (Our analysisdoes not

    come close to a per se rule that contract line-item prices may never be revealed to the public

    through the [FOIA]. )

    In Boeing Co. v. U.S. Dept. of Air Force, Judge Kessler of the United States District

    Court for the District of Columbia explained that the release of past data does not present the

    same potentially harmful effects as does the disclosure of present data. 616 F.Supp.2d 40, 49

    (D.D.C. May 18, 2009). In that case, the Air Force received a FOIA request in 2004 that sought

    a copy of the Air Forces contract with Boeing as well as the Source Selection Decision

    Document. Id. at 42. Boeing objected to the release of pricing information, specifically its

    wrap-around rates, which included both labor rates and profit rates. Id. at 43. The Air Force

    overruled Boeings request and permitted the release of pricing information for the period

    between 1996 and 2004, but withheld prices for the years 2005-2012. Id. Boeing brought a

    reverse-FOIA suit, contending that release of the pricing information would allow for

    underbidding by competitors who could estimate Boeings future pricing information if they had

    knowledge of Boeings labor rates. Id. The court concluded that while release of the data from

    2005-2012 would have helped competitors underbid Boeing, the release of the data from 1996-

    2004 would only harm Boeing to the extent that it could be used to extrapolate future data. Id.

    at 49. The court upheld the Air Forces determination that competitors could not use past data to

    11

  • 7/29/2019 NPR 's Planet Money Crane FOIA Appeal Letter

    12/13

    make reliable future predictions, and thus it concluded that the Air Force had not acted arbitrarily

    in disclosing the data from the time period prior to the FOIA request. Id.

    Similar to the wrap-around rates disclosed inBoeing, the information sought here is only

    of historical value. Exemption 4 may cover any data pertaining to profit margins that Crane

    submitted subsequent to the Amendment. However, because of the unique relationship that

    Crane enjoyed with BEP prior to that change in the statute, the disclosure of any data that Crane

    submitted prior to the Amendment does not have the same potential anticompetitive effect. See

    Hercules, Inc. v. Marsh, 839 F.2d 1027, 1030 (4th Cir. 1988) (concluding that a contractors

    claims of competitive injury for release of government record were deemed speculative and

    remote when contract was not awarded competitively). Most, if not all, data in the Audit will be

    reflective of Cranes internal finances under a wholly different paper currency market than what

    exists after the Amendment. Competitors will not gain an advantage over Crane in the paper

    currency market by knowing Cranes sole-source profit margins. Cranes profit rate could, and

    likely will be, completely different under the new statutory scheme under 5114(c). DOT has

    failed to make the requisite showing that competitors could use any underlying data in the Audit

    for a competitive advantage. Additionally, BEP has all but admitted that the paper currency

    market had barriers to competitive entry because of the four-year limitation, not because

    competitors lacked knowledge as to the underlying data in Cranes financial reports. Thus, the

    likely reason that competitors were struggling in this market had little to do with Cranes strategy

    in bidding for contracts, but everything to do with the statutory scheme under 5114(c).

    Consequently, the data from past contract audits will not allow competitors to underbid future

    contract bids from Crane to BEP.

    12

  • 7/29/2019 NPR 's Planet Money Crane FOIA Appeal Letter

    13/13

    13

    VI. CONCLUSIONFor the foregoing reasons, I respectfully request that DOT reverse its May 15 decision

    and provide me with the information requested in the Audit.

    This appeal comes from a tax-exempt, non-profit membership corporation, consisting of

    licensees of noncommercial educational radio stations. I would appreciate your communicating

    with me by telephone, rather than by mail, if you have questions regarding this appeal. You are

    also authorized to discuss this request with anyone in the Office of the General Counsel as well.

    Thank you for your consideration of this appeal.

    Sincerely,

    David Kestenbaum

    Economics CorrespondentNational Public Radio