2024.07.06. The Fair Economy — Incheon Seo-gu (Mayor Kang Beom-seok) lost an administrative appeal after it kept the proposal evaluation committee list for the "Seo-gu Cultural Center remodeling project audio‑visual equipment purchase" undisclosed without legal basis.
The project, for which Seo-gu announced a tender last November, has an estimated value of 1.826 billion won (about $1.32 million). Its purpose is to replace outdated sound systems and infrastructure to stabilize the performance hall and enable diverse stage productions.
In ordering the project, the district carried out the proposal evaluation using the "contract by negotiation" (negotiated contract) method. However, as the project proceeded, a flood of tips alleged that the proposal evaluation had been conducted unfairly — specifically, that the district had committed a so-called "sweep," stacking the evaluation committee mainly with "sound directors."
To check whether the allegations were true, The Fair Economy requested disclosure of the proposal evaluation committee list from the district's Culture, Tourism and Sports Division, which is in charge of the project. The official in charge responded that, following an internal departmental review, the list could not be disclosed, citing by analogy the Ministry of Economy and Finance's directive, the "Standards for Concluding Contracts by Negotiation."
Accordingly, The Fair Economy filed an administrative appeal with the Incheon Metropolitan City Administrative Appeals Committee to cancel Seo-gu's decision to withhold the information. The Incheon Administrative Appeals Committee recently ruled that the head of Seo-gu should disclose the relevant information.
The Incheon Administrative Appeals Committee stated that the benefits gained from disclosing the proposal evaluation committee list outweigh the interests protected by keeping it undisclosed, and concluded that the list does not fall under the information that the Information Disclosure Act designates as non‑public.
Furthermore, it assessed that since the proposal evaluation committee members performed the public task of evaluating proposals, it is difficult to conclude that the benefit of securing transparency in work performance and clarifying accountability through disclosure is smaller than the benefit of keeping it secret.
In addition, it pointed out that the list needs to be disclosed even for an ex post review of whether the proposal evaluation was lawfully composed of members with no grounds for avoidance or disqualification.
The committee also judged that the post‑hoc disclosure of the list does not undermine the fairness of the proposal evaluation process.
The roster lists only the names of the committee members and does not include specific deliberation processes, such as each member's opinions or evaluation content, or matters that could identify or infer each member's evaluation score. Therefore, it is difficult to see that disclosing the roster would prevent future committee members from conducting free evaluations in similar procedures or cause a significant hindrance to the fair performance of evaluation duties.
The committee judged that the "Local Government Bidding Winner Determination Standards (Ministry of the Interior and Safety guidelines)" appear to stipulate the disclosure of the evaluation committee list based on these reasons.
It therefore concluded that the list cannot be considered information exempt from disclosure under Article 9(1)(6) of the Official Information Disclosure Act.
Furthermore, the committee clarified that Seo-gu's claim that local governments can apply national contract law or the Public Procurement Service regulations is inconsistent with legal principles.
Seo-gu has argued that it may not disclose the evaluation committee list under the "Negotiated Contract Award Standards (Ministry of Economy and Finance guidelines)" or that it must keep the names confidential under the "Public Procurement Service Negotiated Contract Proposal Evaluation Detailed Standards".
In response, the Incheon Administrative Appeals Committee judged that the Standards for Contracting by Negotiation stipulate matters necessary for concluding contracts by negotiation under Article 43 and Article 43-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on Contracts to Which the State Is a Party, and apply to contracts with the state as a party, not to contracts with local governments such as Seo-gu.
It pointed out that the "Detailed Standards for Proposal Evaluation in Public Procurement Service Negotiation-Based Contracts" apply when the head of the Public Procurement Service conducts proposal evaluations for goods or general service contracts concluded via the negotiation-based contract method. Since the head of the Public Procurement Service did not conduct the proposal evaluation on behalf of Seo-gu, it is also unlawful to use this as a basis for keeping the roster non-public.
Most of all, the Incheon Administrative Appeals Committee gave a sharp rebuke to public institutions' indiscriminate information non-disclosure, stating, "In light of the legislative purpose and intent of the Information Disclosure Act, which is to guarantee the people's right to know and secure the people's participation in state affairs and transparency in the operation of state affairs, public institutions are in principle obligated to disclose the information they hold and manage. Whether a reason for non-disclosure exists as an exception to information disclosure must be interpreted strictly."
0 Comments
No comments yet.