Federal Communications Commission FCC 09-85 
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of
CAPITAL REPORTING COMPANY 
On Request for Inspection of Records
NEAL R. GROSS & CO., INC.
On Request for Confidential Treatment
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
FOIA Control No. 2008-116
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Adopted:  September 30, 2009 Released:  October 1, 2009
By the Commission:
1.  By this memorandum opinion and order, we deny an application for review filed by 
Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. (Gross)1 of the decision of the Office of Managing Director (OMD)2
granting in part a Freedom of Information (FOIA) request by Capital Reporting Company 
(Capital)3 for a copy of Gross’s winning bid for court reporting services supplied to the 
Commission in connection with the public hearing on media ownership held in Seattle, 
Washington on November 9, 2007.4 Capital indicated that it had submitted a competing bid for 
the services.5
  
1 Letter from Neal R. Gross, President, Neal R. Gross & Co. to Matthew Berry, Esq., General Counsel 
(January 28, 2008) (AFR).  
2 Letter from Mindy J. Ginsburg, Deputy Managing Director to Elizabeth King (January 25, 2008) 
(Ruling).
3 Letter from Elizabeth King, Director of Operations to Joann Summers, Contract Specialist, Capital 
Reporting Company  (December 4, 2007) (Request).  
4 Request at 1.  The request erroneously described the records sought as relating to the “2008 NCUA Board 
Meetings.”  Capital clarified in a telephone conversation that it meant to refer to the Seattle public hearing.  
See Ruling at 1 n.1.  See also http://www.fcc.gov/ownership/hearing-seattle110907.html . Capital also 
sought copies of the non-winning bids for the contract.  OMD withheld the non-winning bids submitted for 
the contract because their release is prohibited by 41 U.S.C. § 253b(m) and 48 C.F.R. § 24.202(a). Id. at 2.  
That portion of the Ruling has not been appealed.
5 See Request, supra n. 3.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 09-85 
2
I.  BACKGROUND
2.  In response to Capital’s FOIA request, OMD ruled that it would release a redacted 
copy of records relating to the contract awarded to Gross.6 These records consist of an FCC 
Optional Form 347 “Order for Supplies and Services,” dated November 7, 2007, which was 
issued to Gross for the reporting services in question, and Standard Form 30 “Amendment of 
Solicitation/Modification of Contract, dated December 14, 2007, revising the terms of the 
contract.  OMD indicated that it was redacting unit price information from both documents 
pursuant to FOIA Exemption 4,7 but would release the total price for the contract.8 OMD noted 
that Gross had objected to the release of any cost information because “information is company 
confidential and its release would greatly jeopardize our competitive position.9  
3.  In its application for review, Gross contends that the total price should be redacted 
from the forms because release of the total price, no less than the release of unit price 
information, would cause competitive harm to Gross.10 Gross observes that the Commission has 
posted the transcript prepared by Gross of the Seattle hearing on the Commission’s website and 
that the posted transcript indicates that it is 516 pages long.11 Gross states “anyone can simply 
divide the ‘total price’ . . . by the total pages . . . and [the unit price information withheld by 
OMD] would be disclosed.”12 Gross contends that the Commission may not effectively disclose 
confidential information by releasing, in a piecemeal fashion, information that would enable a 
third party to determine the confidential information withheld.13
II. PRELIMINARY MATTER
4.  Capital did not initially respond to Gross’s AFR.  In response to an inquiry by the 
Office of General Counsel as to whether Capital had responded or intended to respond to Gross’ 
AFR, Capital submitted a letter.14 Capital’s letter, however, did not respond to Gross’s AFR.  
Rather, it stated: “Please allow this letter to serve as an appeal of the above-referenced matter 
[i.e., OMD’s Ruling].”15 Appeals of FOIA decisions must, however, be filed within 30 days of 
  
6 Ruling at 1-2.  Because the records sought appeared to contain potentially confidential information, OMD 
notified Gross of Capital’s request, and Gross sought confidential treatment for certain information.  Id. at 
1.  See 47 C.F.R. § 0.461(d)(3) (notification requirement); 47 C.F.R. § 0.459 (requests for confidentiality).
7 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(4) (“trade secrets and commercial or financial information obtained from a person and 
privileged or confidential” are exempt from disclosure under the FOIA).
8 Ruling at 1-2.
9 Ruling at 1, quoting E-mail from Rick Russell, Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. to Sanford Williams, Federal 
Communications Commission. 
10 AFR at 1-2.
11 Id.  See http://www.fcc.gov/ownership/hearing-seattle110907.html.
12 AFR at 2.
13 Id.
14 Letter from Wayne R. Cohen, General Counsel to Mr. David S. Senzel (July 9, 2008).  
15 Id. at 1 (arguing that unit pricing information should be disclosed).  
.  
Federal Communications Commission FCC 09-85 
3
the decision, and we see no public interest in considering such an untimely appeal.16 We will 
therefore not consider the merits of Capital’s late-filed AFR. 17
III. DISCUSSION
5.  Commercial or financial information required to be submitted to the Commission will 
be deemed confidential if disclosure would cause competitive harm to the submitter or if 
disclosure would impair the government’s ability to obtain such information in the future.18  
While OMD redacted unit price information pursuant to this standard, it did not redact the total 
contract price, and we uphold OMD’s decision to disclose that information.  . 
6.  Specifically, we disagree with Gross’s contention that disclosure of the total contract 
price would enable Gross’s competitors to “reverse engineer” and thereby discover the unit 
prices.19 Gross’s competitors could not assume that the total contract price reflects a straight per-
page unit price.  Contracts for reporting and transcription services customarily contain provisions 
for hourly fees as well as per-page fees.  For example, we note that Capital’s own GSA schedule 
lists both per-page charges and per-hour charges for some services.20 The rates charged in such 
contracts may also depend upon when the recordings and transcripts will be delivered.  Further, 
depending on the nature of the contract, companies may discount unit prices depending on the 
quantity of services involved.  We note that the contract at issue here has a combination of these 
terms.  To better protect Gross from effective disclosure of its unit prices, we will redact terms 
that would alert a competitor to the nature of the unit prices charged (such as whether the contract 
specifies a time period during which services will be rendered or a delivery date).
7.  Another factor also supports disclosure of the total contract price.  In general, total 
contract prices are routinely made available to the public.21 Disclosure of such information is 
consistent with the core purpose of the FOIA, which is to “inform[] citizens what their 
  
16 See 47 C.F.R. 0.461(j).
17 See David A. Larson, 22 FCC Rcd 5281 (2007) (application for review dismissed as untimely) and cases 
cited therein.
18 See Critical Mass Energy Project v. FCC, 975 F.2d 871, 878-79 (D.C. Cir. 1992), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 
984 (1993) (discussing applicable factors).  See also National Parks & Conservation Ass’n v. Morton, 498 
F.2d 765 (D.C. Cir. 1974) (discussing applicable factors).
19 Compare id. at 1190-91 (finding that disclosure of Contractor Line-items would enable competitors to 
derive McDonnell Douglas’s Vendor Pricing Factor (a form of mark-up))  with id. at 1191-92 (finding that 
disclosure of Over and Above Work Contractor Line-items would not allow competitors to derive 
McDonnell Douglas’s Labor Pricing Factor (another form of mark-up)).  
20 See Contract #GS-07F-0528T (Capital’s GSA schedule may be viewed online at 
http://www.gsaelibrary.gsa.gov/ElibMain/contractorInfo.do?contractNumber=GS-07F-
0528T&contractorName=CAPITAL+REPORTING+COMPANY&executeQuery=YES ).  Gross’s GSA 
Schedule, by contrast, lists only a per-page charge.  See Contract #GS-07F-0444N.
21 See McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. U.S. Dep’t of the Air Force, 375 F.3d at 1193, citing JAMES T. 
REILLY, 1 FEDERAL INFORMATION DISCLOSURE § 14.84 (3d ed.. 2004).  See also 
http://www.fcc.gov/omd/contracts/post-award/ (FCC’s posting of contracts it has recently awarded, 
including total contract price); https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=agency&mode=form&tab=notices&id 
=461015d6812a0438ee174dcfbc8458e5 (including synopses of awarded FCC contracts, including total 
contract price, posted at FedBizOpps.gov, the official government point-of-entry for vendors and buyers, as 
provided by FAR Part 5).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 09-85 
4
government is up to,”22 because it informs the public how much the government actually pays for 
various types of products and services.   Accordingly, we agree with OMD that the total contract 
price should not be redacted from the copy of the contract provided to Capital.
IV. ORDERING CLAUSES
8.  Accordingly, it is ordered that the application for review filed by Neal Gross & Co., 
Inc. IS DENIED.  If Gross does not seek a judicial stay within ten (10) working days of the date 
of release of this decision, the records will be produced to Capital as indicated.  See 47 C.F.R. § 
0.461(i)(4).
9.  It is further ordered that the application for review, filed by Capital Reporting 
Company IS DISMISSED as untimely.  Capital may seek judicial review of this action pursuant 
to 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B).
10.  The officials responsible for this action are the following: Chairman Genachowski 
and Commissioners Copps, McDowell, Clyburn and Baker.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Marlene H. Dortch
Secretary
  
22 See McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. U.S. Dep’t of the Air Force, 375 F.3d at 1193, citing, Dep’t of Justice v. 
Reporters Comm. For Freedom of Press, 489 U.S. 749, 773 (1989) (Internal quotation marks omitted).