FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint by FINAL DECISION
Robert A. Hamilton and The Day,
Complainant
against Docket #FIC 90-76
State of Connecticut, Department of Mental Retardation, Region 6,
Respondent December 12, 1990
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on June 12, 1990, at which time the complainant and the respondent appeared, stipulated to certain facts and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the complaint.
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 of complaint dated February 28, 1990, the complainant alleged that he had been denied the names of medical practices which had taken out bid documents on February 2, 1990, and on February 27, 1990, he was denied the right to inspect bid documents which had been opened and copied for distribution to the review committee.
3. At hearing the parties stated that they had reached agreement on all issues except one: whether the respondent was required to disclose the bid documents prior to the date the review committee determined that no contract would be awarded.
4. It is found that the respondent denied the complainant access to the bid documents on February 27, 1990.
5. It is found that at the time of the request the respondent had a committee to review bids submitted by medical practices for the provision of medical services for more than 200 clients, some of whom lived in community settings.
6. It is concluded that the bids are public records within the meaning of 1-18a(d), G.S.
Docket #FIC 90-76 Page Two
7. It is found that the date for the submission of the bids was February 15, 1990.
8. It is found that the review committee, which was instructed to keep the proposals and their opinions of the proposals confidential, opened the bids on February 16, 1990.
9. It is found that the review committee expected to disclose the contents of the bids when the contract was awarded.
10. It is found that while the members of the review committee were negotiating with the bidders, the amount of money available to pay for medical services for the clients decreased.
11. It is found that the review committee decided to reject all bids and not to award a contract on April 30, 1990.
12. The complainant claims that the bids should have accessible to the public at the time the bids were opened.
13. The respondent admits that it did not provide access to the bids at the time they were requested by the complainant, but it argues that the bids were not required to be disclosed until after April 30, 1990 when the review committee determined it would reject all bids.
14. It is concluded 4a-57, G.S., provides that in a competitive bidding process each bid is kept sealed until the time stated in the public notice soliciting such bid.
15. It is concluded that 4a-59, G.S., provides that each bid or proposal with the name of the bidder or proposer shall be entered on the record, and each record, with the successful bid or proposal indicated thereon, shall be open to public inspection, after the award of the contract.
16. It is concluded that 4a-57 and 4a-59, G.S., are statutes which create an exemption to disclosure for competitive bids until a decision is made whether to select or reject a bidder.
17. It is concluded that the respondent should have disclosed the bids to the complainant on or about April 30, 1990 when the review committee decided to reject the bids.
Docket #FIC 90-76 Page Three
18. It is concluded that the respondent failed to provide the requested records promptly within the meaning of 1-19(a), 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 henceforth comply with 1-19(a), G.S.
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
Docket #FIC 90-76 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:
ROBERT A. HAMILTON AND THE DAY
47 Eugene O'Neill Drive
New London, CT 06320
STATE OF CONNECTICUT, DEPARTMENT OF MENTAL RETARDATION, REGION 6
c/o James P. Welsh
Assistant Attorney General
110 Sherman Street
Hartford, CT 06105
Tina C. Frappier
Acting Clerk of the Commission