[CivicAccess-discuss] City list of provider: should it be open?

[Stéphane Guidoin]

During a meeting yesterday where we discussed this point, the head of 
the "greffe" (who is in charge of the ATI request) said that an ATI 
request would be refused for the same reasons. However, with ATI 
requests, it is always possible to appeal where the reason of refusal 
might be rejected.

Yeah, GC publishes some data, but some might argue that the risk of 
collusion is lower because of the larger geographical coverage. 
Collusion is easier to setup locally although wide cartel systems exist.

Steph


Le 13-05-09 13:47, James McKinney a écrit :
> Wow, I was considering sending an ATI request to get the list of 
> providers. I guess I can expect a "No"? However, the reason you 
> explain below doesn't fall into any of the standard exemptions to ATI 
> requests, so it may still be possible to get the list. Frankly, I 
> think the reason isn't a good one - the construction companies already 
> know each other. I think publishing the list would make it easier for 
> watchdogs (who are less familiar with those companies) to more 
> effectively research potential collusion.
>
> Canada provides a list on its data catalog: 
> https://buyandsell.gc.ca/procurement-data/standing-offers-and-supply-arrangements
>
> James
>
>
> On 2013-05-09, at 12:45 PM, Stéphane Guidoin wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Hi there,
>>
>> I would like to submit a case to the wisdom of the list here :)
>>
>> As you probably know, Montreal (and Québec in general) is struggling
>> with some corruption issue. As an effort to push govs to be more
>> "agressive" on the topic, Quebec Ouvert organized a hackathon about
>> corruption few months ago, asking govs to open data that can help find
>> corruption cases: contract attributions, etc.
>>
>> One of the request for the City of Montreal was the list of the
>> registered providers. I guess it is the same in other place, but in
>> order to get some business from the city, you have to be registered as a
>> provider. When the City is doing some invitation-based call for tender
>> (between 25 and 100 k$ I think), they do the invitation based on this
>> list. For open call for tenders (100k$+), you have to be registered to
>> submit.
>>
>> The request to publish this registry was rejected recently. Reason: it
>> would ease collusion. If, as a mafiosi-sidewalk builder I can see who
>> else is registered in the same category as me, it eases my work to reach
>> out all the other providers and set up a collusion/cartel schema.
>>
>> Do you agree with this reason? Does anybody knows some cities that
>> provider registered provider list?  Comments?
>>
>> Stéphane
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> CivicAccess-discuss mailing list
>> CivicAccess-discuss at civicaccess.ca 
>> <mailto:CivicAccess-discuss at civicaccess.ca>
>> http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CivicAccess-discuss mailing list
> CivicAccess-discuss at civicaccess.ca
> http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://civicaccess.ca/pipermail/civicaccess-discuss/attachments/20130509/dc470510/attachment.html>