View Story | 99 comments
Comments: Expand Shrink Hide (Always) | Indented Flat (Always)
Assuming that each item is on a par with the other exceptions, I find it amazing that they regard protecting private competition (such as it is) as important as the other exceptions.
(iii) improperly or unlawfully interfere with competition in the private sector;
In fact, I have to wonder whether this might not be targeted as another way to protect their contractor allies, who, of course, engage in competition in only the most vestigial and symbolic way.
unbossed You betcha!
by shirah on Sun May 11, 2008 at 06:46:53 AM PDT
[ Parent ]
This is supposed to protect information involved in source selection activities (that is, competitions for contracts). That's so cost proposals from contractors, which are considered pretty sensitive, aren't grabbed by the competition when the contractor gives the information to the government. However, I wouldn't trust this administration to restrain themselves.
by RichK on Sun May 11, 2008 at 07:29:46 AM PDT
But go back and read that exception. It says:
(26) Notwithstanding the above, information shall not be designated as CUI: a. to . . (iii) improperly or unlawfully interfere with competition in the private sector;
(26) Notwithstanding the above, information shall not be designated as CUI:
a. to . . (iii) improperly or unlawfully interfere with competition in the private sector;
In the case of OMB's Circular A-76 bidding process, I'm not sure this is relevant. I assume that's what you're referring to. This seems broader and even unnecessary given the protections given in the A-76 process.
It would also act, potentially, to shield from public disclosure shenanigans such as those involving IAP Worldwide Services and Walter Reed. link
link
by shirah on Sun May 11, 2008 at 03:56:09 PM PDT
wide narrow
View Story | 99 comments