420. Id. under 1347-48; See RMS, No. C-92-1545, underpants op. 7 (N.D. Cal. November 24, 1992) (states that the court “was not satisfied, on the basis of the evidence, that the release of prices, conditions and conditions, intermediate or final, will harm successful bidders”); see also GC Micro, 33 F.3d to 1114-15 (referring to Pacific Architects and diviulating the disclosure of percentages and dollar coins awarded by defence companies). Hercules, Inc. v. Marsh, 839 F.2d 1027, 1030 (4 cir. 1988); “When an agency makes a decision to disclose information, a party that opposes disclosure makes little progress on the issue of breaching the collection of information on behalf of the Agency”). 398.
Id. 30-31 (citing 48 C.R. 15.503 (1), 15,506 (d) (2) (currently in volume 2003), disclosure of unit prices in post-auction notices and debriefings for markets, Unit prices are “the type of price information that is regularly disclosed under the [FAR]” (referring to Acumenics). , 843 F.2d to 807-08); JL Assocs, 90-2 CPD 261, B-239790 at 4 n.2 (October 1, 1990) (Comptroller Allgemeine Entscheidung), which argues that disclosure of option prices would cause competitive harm to bid companies by disclosing the pricing strategy and decision-making process and stating that FAR “expressly advises the winners that unit premium prices are generally disclosed to unsuccessful suppliers”); See McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Widnall, 94-0091, 13 (D.C. Apr. 11. April 1994) (decision relating to various provisions relating to the advertising of far and the provision that this provision served as a statutory authorization for the Agency to release the option prices exercised and that these prices were therefore not “protected from disclosure by the Trade Secrets Act,” 18 US.C. , and McDonnell Douglas Corp. v.
Widnall. 92-2211 Slip op. a 8 (D.C. Apr. 11, 1994) (same), consolidated cases for purpose and remand for further development of the record, 57 F.3d 1162, 1167 (D.C. Cir. Cir. 1995) (on the ground that, since the Authority`s far argument being “analytically” related to the issue of exemption 4, pre-trial detention is necessary for the court to “have a thoughtful and complete explanation of the position of the Air Force” on the supplier`s claim that their prices were protected by exemption 4) (non-FOIA cases under the Administrative Procedures Act).
See in general Flammann, 339 F.3d to 1323 (as part of a pre-auction protest procedure on unit prices included in the sealed offers – contrary to the prices contained in the proposals — which are subject to the public obligation of openness contained in another provision of the FAR, that such offer prices “entered the public domain at the opening of the offer and therefore .