You are on page 1of 25
he Hallas Morning News Sept. 26, 2013 The Honorable Gregg Abbott Attomey General of Texas Office of the Attorney General P.O. Box 12548 Austin, TX 78711-2548 Dear Mr. Abbott, The Dallas Morning News received a cost estimate dated Sept. 13, 2013 (Attachment 1) in response to an open records request dated Aug. 12, 2013 (Attachment 2) that was submitted to the North Central Texas Regional Certification Agency (NCTRCA). We believe that the cost estimate is excessive and does not meet the standards outlined in Sec. 552.2615 of the Texas Government Code, The cost estimate also is vague and, in some cases, apparently based on little more than conjecture. We respectfully ask that we be afforded the appropriate remedies under the law. The News request sought eight distinct and segregable types of information in its Aug. 12 letter. ‘The NCTRCA’s cost estimate lumps five of those distinct types information together. We note that some of the information requested is routinely available at entities subject to TPIA, such as the NCTRCA’s strategic plans and board minutes. Further, The News asked in its Aug. 12 request to “review the disclosed material in your office and ark those portions I wish to have copies” as is permitted under the TPIA. ‘The NCTRCA did not respond to this request. ‘The NCTRCA estimated the cost for “Request No. 3” — copies of any complaints alleging that @ certified firm was ineligible submitted to the NCTRCA during the years 2007-2013 ~ at $55,472 to $107,477. At the same time, the NCTRCA asserts that itis “unable to precisely determine” the copying costs. It also is “unable to determine” labor costs, although it estimates it would take one to two hours. We believe that the NCTRCA’s apparent position — that it only can determine if a complaint has been lodged against a company by rummaging through files is suspect ‘The NCTRCA’s “vendor poo!” list of companies it has certified, as well as it list of decertfied, is contained in computerized databases. And former NCTRCA executive director Sheena Morgan alluded to the fact that information on complaints was computerized when she testified in a federal civil case in 201 (Attachment 3) ‘That case specifically involved a complaint against a company that had been certified by the NCTRCA. Bowman testified that she'd received a written complaint against the company on Nov. 17, 2009. ‘And that she failed to produce that written complaint in court as a part of the entire file in the case because of an alleged computer crash in her office. ‘The NCTRCA’s policy and procedures manual for M/WBE certification (Attachment 4) details the extensive records produced when the bility complaint, including an agency review, notification of the complainant and the firm in writing, a record of informal hearings and a notice of | decision. How much of that information is included in the NCTRCA’s computer records is not known by The ‘News, However we would note that the NCTRCA apparently has been less-than-forthcoming on information it has in a computer record in at least one previous incident, in response to an open records request. The News obtained a copy of what was purportedly the NCTRCA’s vendor list after a civil district judge ruled that the agency was subject to the TPIA and ordered its release. (Sample, Attachment 5) It did not include several fields specifically described by one of the NCTRCA’s own attorneys in a Sept. 10, 2012 letter to the Attomey General. (Page 3-4, Attachment 6) After The News’ attorney contacted the NCTRCA, a more complete list, which still may be missing some releasable information, was provided (Sample, Attachment 7). Thank you for your consideration Regards, Ed Timms. The Ballas Morning News 214.977.8070 etimms@dallasnews,com ce: Jose L. Gonzalez Beirne, Maynard & Parsons, LLP Albert Titus, executive director North Central Texas Regional Certification Agency Communicalans Cen PO Box 65, 29778222 ATTACHMENT 1 BEIRNE, MAYNARD & PARSONS, L.L.P. 1700 PACIFIC AVENUE SUITE 4400 DALLAS, TEXAS 78201-7305 September 13, 2013 VIA ELE U EGULAR MAIL, Ri Ed Timms ‘The Dallas Morning News 508 Young Street Dallas, Texas 75202 Re: NCTRCA Open Records Request (August 12, 2013) Dear Mr. Timms; ‘This is to follow up on your open records request to the North Central Texas Regional Certification Agency dated August 12, 2013. This supplemental response is subject to our previous letter to the Texas Attorney General wherein we requested his opinion on exceptions that may apply to various documents. Accordingly, at present we are not making available to ‘you those documents that we identified for a ruling by the Attorney General’s office. Request Nos. 1, 2, 6,7 and 8: ‘The NCTRCA has responsive documents and will produce those to you, ‘The NCTRCA’ estimated costs on the production of these responsive documents is calculated as follows Copying of non-excepted pages: 1555 pages x $0.10 = $155.50 Labor: 42 hrs. x $15.00 = $630.00 Offsite Retrieval of $408.13 Files/transportation: ‘TOTAL: $1,193.63 Please remit your check to the “North Central Texas Regional Certification Agency.” Beinne Mavnano & Pansons, LLP. Austin» pALLAE “HOUSTON = NEW ORLEANS © 5AM ANTONIO Mr. Ed Timms September 13, 2013 Page 2 Request No. 3: ‘The NCTRCA has identified at least 3,467 files that are responsive to this request that would have to be searched for the type of “complaints” you seek. NCTRCA estimates 1 labor cost of 1-2 hours to search these files depending on the size of the file. There will also be a charge for off-site retrieval and transportation of these files. Before we proceed with that search, Tam asking if you want to modify your request, or if you want us to go forward. ‘The costs to conduct the search will be as follows: Retrieval/transportation: This cost is subsumed in the previous section of this letter, Copying: Unable to precisely determine until we do the search because NCTRCA does not know (without searching) which files will have complaints. We estimate 10 pages per file at $0.10 cents per page: 3467 x 10 pages x $0.10 = $3,467.00. Labor Unable to determine but estimate 1-2 hrs. per file at $15.00/hr.: 1 of 2 his, x 3,467 files x $15.00/hr.: $52,005.00 - $104,010.00 TOTAL ESTIMATED COSTS: — $55,472.00 - $107,477.00 Please let us know how you want to proceed on Request No. 3. Request Nos. 4 and NCTRCA has no responsive records to these requests. Very truly yours, ) iA ns Tos L. Gosizalenl ILGermr cc: Albert Titus (via regular mail) Perfecta Gallegos (via regular mail) Gail Scott (via regular mail) 1852643v.1 IMANAGE 106386 ATTACHMENT 2 Ghe Dallas Morning Neos Aug. 12, 2013 Laura Rodela, Interim Director North Central Texas Regional Certification Agency 624 Six Flags Drive, #100 Arlington, TX 76011 Dear Ms, Rodela, This request is made under the Texas Public Information Act, Chapter 552, Texas Government Code, which guarantees the public’s access to information in the custody of governmental agencies. In the NCTRCA’s capacity as a governmental body within the meaning of the Texas Public Information Act, Texas Government Code sections $52,001 through 552.353 (as State Dist. Judge Eric Moye ruled recently in Cause No, DC-12-11214), I respectfully the following information: 1. Copies of the NCTRCA’s Strategic Plans for the years 2007-2013 2. Copies of performance reviews for former executive director Sheena Morgan for 2013, 2012 and 2011. 3. Copies of any complaints alleging that a certified firm was ineligible submitted to the NCTRCA during the years 2007-2013. 4. Copies of NCTRCA notifications to firms asserting that there was reasonable cause to remove their eligibility during the years 2007-2013. 5. Notices of decisions in cases in which the NCTRCA sought to remove companies’ certification during the years 2007-2013. 6. Copies of NCTRCA board minutes for the years 2007-2013. 7. Copies of releasable portions of the original NCTRCA applications and renewal applications by the following companies: KDAT LLC or Kevin Dean Asphalt ‘Technology; TBey & Associates; TBey Consulting; Excite Staffing Solutions; JPK Consulting; Brandon Staffing Solutions; A Plus Carpet and Flooring; Charles Martin Enterprises; Admiral Construction Company; Admiral Conerete Paving; Lift Rising; P.1.E. Management; Annexus Personnel; Bowman Engineering & Consulting; Mail Man Sales or MMS; Kathy Nealy & Associates or KNLA; TimeSaving Construction and General Construction (William Risby, owner); Lipscomb Industries, Inc.; LCG Development Corp. 8. 7. Copies of releasable portions of all NCTRCA site visit/field audit reports for the following companies: KDAT LLC or Kevin Dean Asphalt Technology; TBey & Associates: TBey Consulting; Excite Staffing Solutions; JPK Consulting; Brandon Staffing Solutions; A Plus Carpet and Flooring; Charles Martin Enterprises; Admiral Construction Company; Admiral Concrete Paving; Lift Rising; P.1LE. Management; Annexus Personnel; Bowman Engineering & Consulting; Mail Man Sales or MMS; Kathy Nealy & Associates or KNLA; imeSaving Construction and General Construction (William Risby, owner); Lipscomb Industries, Ine.; LCG Development Corp. I respectfully ask that the information I request be provided to me in eleetronie form, such as aPDF. If that is not possible, I ask that I be provided paper copies of the requested documents Disclosure is in the public interest because its intended use if for a news story that contains information that primarily benefits the general public. I therefore request a waiver of all fees and charges pursuant to Section 552.267 of the act, Ifthe decision is made not to waive the fees, and the amount exceeds $100, I ask to review the disclosed material in your office and mark those portions I wish to have copied, as if permitted under the TPIA. Please contact me if you need any additional information about this request. My direct phone number is 214.977.8070. My e-mail address is etimms@dallasnews.com, Regards, BA~ Ed Timms Communications Cener.PO. Bax 655237, Dallas, Texas 75265, 24977-8202 ATTACHMENT 3 Case 4:10-cv-00206-A Document 61 Filed 12/20/11 Page 1of 255 PagelD 554 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 2 FORT WORTH DIVISION 3 BOWMAN ENGINEERING & . CIVIL ACTION NO, CONSULTING, INC., + 4410-CV-206-A 4 Plaintiff, ‘ 5 v 6 NORTH CENTRAL TEXAS REGIONAL CERTIFICATION AGENCY, INC., + fort Worth, Texas 7 Defendant. + May 19, 2010 8 TRANSCRIPT OF THE TRIAL 9 BEFORE THE HONORABLE JOHN MCBRYDE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 10 APPEARANC:! ql For the Plaintiff: MR. EDWARD S. COX 12 The Cox Law Firm 1300 Norwood Drive, Suite 100 13 Bedford, Texas 76022 (817) 860-9200 14 For the Defendant: MR. MARCOS G. RONQUILLO 15 Godwin Ronquillo, PC Renaissance Tower 16 1201 Elm Street, Suite 1700 Dallas, Texas 75270-2041 17 (214) 939-8613 18 MR. WILLIAM E. HAMMEL Constangy Brooks & Smith, LLP 19 100 Crescent Court, Suite 700 crescent Center 20 Dallas, Texas 75201-2112 (214) 646-3422 22 Court Reporter: MS. ANA P. WARREN 22 U.S. District Court Reporter 501 W. 10th Street, Room 201 23 Fort Worth, Texas 16102-3637 (817) 850-6681 24 Proceedings recorded by mechanical stenography; transcript 25 | produced by computer-aided transcription. U.S. DISTRICT COURT Case 4:10-cv-00206-A Document 61 Filed 12/20/11 Page 116 of 255 PagelD 669 A, Not to my knowledge. ©. On November , 2003, you received a written complaint alleging that Bowman should not be certified as a disadvantaged business enterprise, correct? A. Yes. Q. However, you failed to produce that written complaint a: part of your entire file in this case because of an alleged computer crash in your office? A. That is correct. Q. Prior to receiving the written complaint, you had personally received five verbal concerns about Bowman? A, That's correct. Q. And two of those verbal concerns were from the very per: who you contend filed this written complaint that you've lost? AL Yes. Q. That person works in the public sector, right? [A. that is correct. 19 |o. and were you pressured by DART to pursue this 20 | decertitication process against Bowman? 21 |A. No, I was not. 22 |0. ‘The complaint raised questions concerning Mrs. Bowman's 23 | control and compensation, righ’ 2a Ja. ves. 25 |. So we're dealing with two issues, right? 116 s son U.S. DISTRICT COURT ATTACHMENT 4 NORTH CENTRAL TEXAS REGIONAL CERTIFICATION AGENCY MINORITY/WOMEN BUSINESS ENTERPRISES CERTIFICATION POLICY AND PROCEDURES MANUAL ADOPTED March 16, 2008 1 Procedures to challenge/remove a MBE or WBEs eligibility (1) Ineligibility complaints Any person or entity may file a challenge with the Agency by submitting a written complaint alleging that a certified firm is ineligible and specify the alleged reasons for ineligibility. The Agency is not required to accept a general allegation that a firm is ineligible or an anonymous ‘complaint. The complaint shall include any information or arguments supporting the complainant's assertion that the firm is ineligible and why the firm should not continue to be certified. Confidentiality of complainants’ identities will be protected, The Agency must review its records concerning the firm, any material provided by the firm and the complainant, and other available information. The Agency may request adcitional information from the firm or conduct any other investigation that it deems necessary and render a decision no later than sixty (60) calendar days from the receipt date of the complaint. If the Agency determines, based on this review, that there is reasonable cause to believe that the firm is ineligible, it shall. If the Agency determines that reasonable cause does not exist, it shall notify the complainant and the firm in writing of this determination and the cause for it. All statements and findings on the issue of reasonable cause must specifically reference the evidence in the record on which each reason is based. (2) Agency initiated proceedings If a firm notifies the Agency of a change in its circumstances or other information and the Agency determines that there is reasonable cause to believe that a currently certified firm is ineligible, it shall provide written notice to the firm. The notification shall state the reasons for the determination. The statement of reasons for the finding of reasonable cause must specifically reference the evidence in the record on which each reason is based (3) Hearing When the Agency notifies a firm that there is reasonable cause to remove its eligibility as provided in paragraph above, it shall give the firm an opportunity for an informal hearing. The firm may respond to the reasons for the proposed removal of its eligibility in person, providing information and arguments concerning why it should remain certified. (a) In such a proceeding, the firm bears the burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence that it meets the certification standards. (b) The Agency shall maintain a record of the hearing (c) The firm may elect to present information and arguments in writing, without attending a hearing. (4) Separation of functions The Agency must ensure that the decision in a proceeding to remove a firm's eligibility is made by an office and personnel that did not take part in actions leading to or seeking to implement the proposal to remove the firm's eligibility. Such office and personnel can not be subject to direction from the office or personnel who did take part in these actions. (5) Grounds for decision 16 The Agency must not base a decision to remove eligibility on a reinterpretation or changed opinion of information available to it at the time that it certified the firm. It may base such a decision on one or more of the following: (a) Changes in the firm's circumstances since the certification of the firm that render the firm unable to meet the eligibility standards; (b) Information or evidence not available to it at the time the firm was certified; (c) Information that was concealed or misrepresented by the firm in previous certification actions; (d) A change in the certification standards or requirements since the firm was certified; (e) Adocumented finding that was initially overlooked by Agency staff or (f) documented finding that the determination to certify the firm was factually erroneous. (6) Notice of decision Following the final decision, the Agency shall provide the firm written notice within fifteen (15) calendar days of the decision and the reasons. (7) The status of firm during proceeding Afirm remains an eligible MBE or WBE in the Agency's database during the pending phase of a proceeding to remove its eligibility. The firm does not become ineligible until the issuance of the final letter of denial. 7 ATTACHMENT 5 ATTACHMENT 6 GODWIN RONQUILLO sas aon ‘Attorneys and Counselors A Professional Corporation ectaee Sad < : Aenaissance Tower 1201 Elm street, Suite 1700 Dallas, Tees 75270-2081 2ia539.4000 8005020393, 214.760.7332 Fax GodwinRonquillocom Ramona SoTo~ SiavoR ATTORNEY Direct Dial: 214.939.4612 Diaecr Fax: 214,527:3126 solo@godwineongullo.com September 10, 2012 VIA U.S. MAIL AND FAX: 512-481-1992 Office of Attomey General Education and Enforcement Section Open Records Division P.O. Box 12548 Austin, TX 78711-2548 Re: Complaint from Mr. Ed Timms from the Dallas Morning News ~ Open Records Request ~ Complaint #466914 Our File: 11344.0036 Dear Sir or Madam: On June 26, 2012, the Dallas Morning News requested the following information from the North Central Texas Regional Certification Agency (NCTRCA or Agency) under the Texas Public Information Act, Chapter 552 of the Texas Government Code: 1. Records that identify all individuals and/or companies certified by the agency as Minority Business Enterprise or a Woman-Owned Business Enterprise (MWBE: including names, addresses, phone numbers and description of the work performed by each entity; 2. Records that identify all individuals and/or companies that have been certified by the Agency as Airport Concessionaire Disadvantaged Business Enterprises or Disadvantaged Business Enterprises; 3. Records that identify all individuals and/or companies that were removed from the agency's lists of certified MWBEs including an explanation and/or records that explain why they were removed from the list; 4. Records that identify all individuals and/or companies that have been removed from the ageney's list of Airport Concessionaire Disadvantaged Business Page | of 5 Enterprises or Disadvantaged Business Enterprises including an explanation and/or records that explain why they were removed from the list. ‘The NCTRCA, however, is not subject to the Chapter $52 of the Texas Government Code (the Code) because it is not a "governmental body" as the term is defined under the Code. ‘The NCTRCA is ¢ non-profit entity under Texas law, and as such, it is organized exclusively for charitable and educational purposes within the meaning of section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, Although the Code defines some non-profit entities as govemmental bodies subject to requests for information, it does not apply to the NCTRCA because it was not organized under Chapter 67, Water Code or is eligible to receive funds under the federal community services block grant program. See Tex. Gov. Cove $52.003(1\(A)(xi), (ix). Rather, the NCTRCA was created and organized to provide certification and other related services for the Disadvantaged, Minority and/or Women-Owned Business Enterprise programs of private and public entities, As such, NCTRCA factually audits applications throughout the certification process to build a certified vendor pool of Disadvantaged, Minority and/or Women-Owned Business Enterprises solely for the purpose for and the exclusive use of its private and public entity members in accordance with federal, state, and local laws and regulations, as well as guidelines adopted by the NCTRCA. Moreover, Chapter 552 of the Code does not apply to the NCTRCA merely because the NCTRCA is supported in part by public funds because public and private member entities that contribute to the NCTRCA provide the NCTRCA with valuable services and specified annual membership fee in exchange for access to NCTRCA's vendor pool of certified Disadvantaged, Minority and/or Women-Owned Business Enterprises, which the Dallas Morning News seeks to obtain and publish without meeting NCTRCA's membership qualifications, going through the admission process to become a new NCTRCA member entity, and receiving majority vote by its current member entities as required by the NCTRCA's bylaws. See TEX. Gov. Cove 552.003(1)(A)(xii); see Kneeland v. National Collegiate Athletic Ass'n, 850 F.2d 224 (Sth Cir. 1988), rev’g 650 F. Supp. 1047 (W.D. Tex. 1986), cert. denied, 488 U.S, 1042 (1989) (holding that the NCAA fell outside the definition of "governmental body" because the public university members received a quid pro quo in the form of specific, measurable services); ORD-228 at 2 (1979) (stating an entity is not a governmental body if its agreements with the government imposes "a specific and definite obligation . . . to provide a measurable amount of service in exchange for a certain amount of money as would be expected in a typical arms-length contract for services between vendor and purchaser"); see also Tex. Att'y Gen, No. JM-821 (1987). Associate membership, for example, is provided to non-governmental/private industry business entities with Disadvantaged, Minority and/or Women-Owned Business Enterprise programs. The associate member may serve as an ex-officio member or as a member on a NCTRCA standing committee with no voting rights and must pay a specified annual fee in exchange for a secured access to the NCTRCA's database of certified and registered Disadvantaged, Minority and/or Women-Owned Business Enterprises. Additionally, member governmental entities must serve on the NCTRCA Board of Directors, may serve as an elected officer, have voting rights, and must pay an annual fee, which must be set and approved by a majority of the NCTRCA Board of Directors in accordance with the NCTRCA's bylaws after the member entity has executed an application and qualifies for membership consistent with Chapter 791 of the Texas Interlocal Agreement in exchange for a secured access to the NCTRCA's Page 2 of $ database. Thus, because the Agency's relationship with its public and private member entities imposes "a specific and definite obligation . . . to provide a measurable amount of service in exchange for a certain amount of money as would be expected in a typical arms-length contract for services between a vendor and purchaser," the NCTRCA is not a governmental body as defined by the Code. Tex. Atty’ Gen, No. JM-821 (1987), quoting ORD-228 (1979). Additionally, Chapter 552 of the Code does not apply to the NCTRCA merely because the NCTRCA certifies Disadvantaged, Minority and/or Women-Owned Business Enterprises, See Tex. Att'y Gen. No. JM 821 (1987) (finding that Cy-Fair Volunteer Fire Department providing fire protection is a service traditionally provided by the Harris County Fire Prevention District No. 9, which set them apart from private vendors of goods and services who typically deal with governmental bodies in arms-length transactions); Tex. Atty Gen. No. ORD-228 (1979) (finding that a non-profit commission chartered to promote the interest of the Dallas-Fort Worth metropolitan by implementing new and innovative programs to further its corporate objectives and common City’s interest and activities for $80,000 made the Commission a governmental body under the Act); Tex. Att'y Gen. No. ORD-302 (1982) (finding a foundation formed to render aid to local manufacturing and industrial enterprises was a recipient of an unrestricted grant was @ governmental body under the Act). Even if governmental bodies traditionally provided the services of certifying Disadvantaged, Minority and/or Women-Owned Business Enterprises for their Disadvantaged, Minority and/or Women-Owned Business Enterprise programs, the circumstances in this case, including the specific terms in the contracts between the NCTRCA and its public and private member entities, as outlined above, impose specific obligations on the NCTRCA and its public and private member entities such that the NCTRCA is not a governmental body as defined by the Code. Tex. Atty’ Gen. No. JM-821 (1987), quoting ORD-228 (1979). See Tex. Atty Gen, No. ORD-343 (1982) (finding the agreement between Amarillo Medical Services and Amarillo Hospital District wherein Amarillo Medical Services was to provide specific duties for which it was to receive "each month a sum equal to the difference between cash receipts and approved operating expenditures of the ambulance services" imposed an obligation to make specific payment for specific services). Finally, the request by the Dallas Morning News is a request for NCTRCA's vendor pool, and the vendor pool is NCTRCA's trade secret, Tex. Gov. CODE ANN. § 552.110 (providing that "a trade secret obtained from a person and privileged or confidential by statute or judicial decision is excepted from the requirements of Section 552021."); Center for Economic Justice v. Am. Ins. Ass'n, 39 8.W.3d 337 (Tex. App—Austin 2001) (stating that this provision does not require that every conceivable trade secret, or every potential trade secret, be specifically identified in another statute of judicial decision to receive trade-secret protection under the Code); Ex. "A," OR2011-15715. Specifically, the Dallas Morning News requested records that identify all individuals and/or companies certified by the Agency and records indicating those individuals and/or companies that were removed from the list and reasons for their removal. The NCTRCA's vendor pool, which is created exclusively for its public and private member entities, contains. among other things, the following information: «Names of all firms seeking certification = Firm's contact information Page 3 of 5 Firm's structure Firm's certificate number Firm's certification type for services to provide Expiration date of Firm's certification «Firm's certification status * Firm's certification description = __Finm’ that were denied certification ‘Thus, NCTRCA's records that identify all individuals and/or companies certified by the Agency, contact information of individuals and/or companies seeking certification, description of work performed by those individual and/or companies seeking certification, and individuals and/or companies that were denied certification are contained in NCTRCA's vendor pool. Although the vendor poo! does not specify why a firm was denied certification, the NCTRCA denies certification to those firms that fail to meet the minimum eligibility requirements in accordance with federal, state, and local laws and regulations. Moreover, the NCTRCA does not maintain a separate list or records that capture denials to individuals and/or companies seeking certification. Because, the Dallas Morning News sought NCIRCA's vendor pool, NCTRCA, responded appropriately to the Dallas Morning News's June 26, 2012 request. See Ex. "A, OR2011-15715. As previously stated, the vendor pool is ereated by the NCTRCA solely for and exelusi use of its member entities after factually auditing a firm's application throughout the certification process in accordance with federal, state, and local laws and regulations, as well as guidelines adopted by the NCTRCA. This is a thorough certification process that involves, among other things, an extensive review of a firm's day-to-day operations, internal structure, corporate governance, capital investments, licenses, vendor contracts, control aspects, net worth, payroll and compensation structure, and if applicable, certificates of authorization through the firm's application, supporting documentation and site visits. See Ex. "B," MBE/WBE Application; Ex. "C," DBE Application; and Ex. "D," NCTRCA Site Visit/Field Audit Report. The firm seeking to be certified must undergo a site visit after it has provided its application and supporting documentation so that NCTRCA can personally observe the applicant's day-to-day business operation and verify the accuracy of the applicant's application responses to ensure that the Disadvantaged, Minority and/or Women-Owned Business Enterprise program benefits only bona fide Disadvantaged, Minority and/or Women-Owned Business Enterprises. Ex. "D." If the NCTRCA is not satisfied with the firm's responses and could not obtain verifying information through the supporting documentation or the site visit, it may require additional documents to review and analyze before certifying the firm as a Disadvantaged, Minority and/or Women- ‘Owned Business Enterprise and placing it on the NCTRCA's vendor pool. ‘Thousands of businesses each year entrust the NCTRCA with their confidential and proprietary information to be certified as a Disadvantaged, Minority and/or Women-Owned Business Enterprise and be placed on NCTRCA's vendor pool. The vendor pool is exclusive to Page 4 of S the NCTRCA's public and private member entities and is not accessible to nonmember entities, cannot be acquired, or duplicated by others as it is created through the extensive certification process, The release and publication of NCTRCA's vendor pool will result in severe economic harm to the NCTRCA and businesses seeking Disadvantaged, Minority and/or Women-Owned Business Enterprises certification in the North Texas region. Both public and private entities with Disadvantaged, Minority and/or Women-Owned Business Enterprise programs will no longer provide NCTRCA with valuable services and their annual fee for secured access to its vendor pool of certified Disadvantaged, Minority and/or Women-Owned Business Enterprises as the information will be readily accessible to the general public if released through Chapter 552 of the Code. The NCTRCA will not have the financial resources to certify deserving Disadvantaged, Minority and/or Women-Owned Business Enterprises and create a vendor pool of certified Disadvantaged, Minority and/or Women-Owned Business Enterprises for its members as the NCTRCA is entirely supported by its membership fees. For these reasons, the NCTRCA's vendor pool of certified Disadvantaged, Minority and/or Women-Owned Business Enterprises sought by the Dallas Morning News should not be released as the NCTRCA is not subject to the Code and the vendor pool is NCTRCA's trade secret and falls within exemption 552.110 of the Code. Ex. "A," OR2011-15715. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Vi ly yours, %, Cag Loto ma Soto RS:vr Enclosure(s) ce: Sheena Morgan Director of NCTRCA (w/o encl,) Ed Timms Requestor (w/encl.) Marcos G. Ronquillo (of the firm, w/o encl.) : See John Paul Mitchell Sys, V. Randalls Food Mits, Inc., 17 S.W.34 721, 738 (Tex. App.—Austin 2000, Pet. filed) (identifying the six factors to warrant trade-secret protection as the following (1) the extent to which the {nformation is known outside of the holder's business; (2) the extent to which it is known by employees and others involved in the holders business; (3) the extent of the measures taken by the holder to guard the secrecy of the information; (4) the value of the information to the holder and its competitors; (5) the amount of effort or money expended by the holder in developing the information; and (6) the ease or difficulty with which the information could be properly acquired or duplicated by others); see also Open Records Decision No. 552 (1990) (holding that the Attorney General must accept a claim for exception as valid if a prima facie case for exception is made and no argument is presented that rebuts such claim for exception as a matter of law), Page 5 of 5 ATTACHMENT 7

You might also like