FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint by FINAL DECISION
against Docket #FIC 90-107
Connecticut Resources Recovery Authority,
Respondent December 12, 1990
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on April 23, 1990, at which time the complainant and the respondent appeared, stipulated to certain facts and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the complaint.
On May 4, 1990 the respondent provided the Commission with the documents it deemed relevant to the complainant's request for in camera inspection.
After consideration of the entire record, the following facts are found and conclusions of law are reached:
1. The respondent is a public agency within the meaning of 1-18a(a), G.S.
2. By letter dated March 7, 1989, the complainant requested the following records from the respondent:
a. the service fee, according to formula or a fixed price per ton, and the fixed price for construction and operation of the facility in each of the responses to your Request For Proposals (RFP, hereinafter) for the Housatonic and the South Central regions of Connecticut;
b. the proposed sites for the facility in each response to the RFP described above; and
c. the proposed sites for the disposal of non-processed and by-passed waste in each of the responses to the RFP.
3. By letter of complaint filed March 19, 1990, the complainant alleged that the respondent had not provided him with the requested records.
#FIC 90-107 page two
4. It is found that the records were not provided to the complainant.
5. It is found that the complainant's request concerns material contained in the responses of several different corporations to the respondent's RFP for the Housatonic and the South Central regions of Connecticut.
6. At hearing the complainant agreed that he would exclude from his request materials in the proposals that had been designated confidential and proprietary. See, Connecticut Resources Recovery Authority, et al. v. FOIC, et al. [DN 328720, Superior Court, August 24, 1988 (Dorsey, J.)].
7. The respondent claimed that all of the requested records were exempt from disclosure pursuant to 1-19(b)(7), G.S.
8. The respondent provided all of the records submitted to it in response to its RFP for the Housatonic and the South Central regions of Connecticut for in camera inspection because it claimed that it could not determine which parts of those records were responsive to the complainant's request.
9. It is found that the records submitted for in camera inspection consist of the following:
a. a two page letter dated January 29, 1990 from SITA Corporation and HARBERT/TRIGA Resource Recovery;
b. a letter and five volumes of proposals from Combustion Engineering that include an executive summary, a technical proposal, a business/management proposal, a cost proposal, and qualifications of its proposals;
c. a letter and a proposal from Environmental Recovery Systems of New Milford;
d. a letter and proposal from Ogden Martin Systems ;
e. a proposal from Riley Energy Systems;
f. a letter and five volumes of materials from American Energy with titles similar to those of Combustion Engineering. See, "b.", above,
g. a letter and five volumes of proposals from Wheelabrator Technologies including an executive summary, a cost proposal, a business management proposal, a project description, and a description of company background and
#FIC 90-107 page three
10. It is found that pursuant to the agreement of the complainant and the respondent at hearing stated at paragraph 6, above, the business management proposal in Volume III of the response of Combustion Engineering and the cost proposal in volume II of Wheelabrator Technologies are outside the scope of the complainant's request.
11. It is found that the respondent failed to prove that the remainder of the records is exempt from disclosure pursuant to 1-19(b)(7), G.S.
The following order by the Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above captioned complaint.
1. The respondent shall provide the complainant with an opportunity to inspect all of the the material that was submitted to this Commission for in camera inspection, except for the portions of the proposals of Combustion Engineering and Wheelabrator Technologies described at paragraph 10 above.
2. After such inspection, the respondent shall provide the complainant with copies of the portions of the responses to the RFP for the Housatonic and South Central Connecticut region which the complainant decides are responsive to the request for records set forth at paragraph 2, herein.
Approved by order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of December 12, 1990.
Tina C. Frappier
Acting Clerk of the Commission
#FIC 90-107 page four
PURSUANT TO SECTION 4-180(c), G.S. THE FOLLOWING ARE THE NAMES OF EACH PARTY AND THE MOST RECENT MAILING ADDRESS, PROVIDED TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION, OF THE PARTIES OR THEIR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE.
THE PARTIES TO THIS CONTESTED CASE ARE:
79 1/2 NORTH STREET
DANBURY, CT 06810
CONNECTICUT RESOURCES RECOVERY AUTHORITY
Glen A. Gross, Esq.
179 Allyn Street, Suite 603
Hartford, CT 06106
Tina C. Frappier
Acting Clerk of the Commission