FOI-265-21

Date: 11 October 2021

Summary:

Commercial Information pertaining to Software Contracts.

Request: 

To request for all the information to which I am entitled under the Freedom of Information Act 2000.   

Consequently I require the organisation’s to provide me with the following contract information relating to the following corporate software/enterprise applications: 

a. Enterprise Resource Planning Software Solution (ERP) -this is the organisation’s main ERP system and may include service support, maintenance and upgrades. 

b. Customer Relationship Management (CRM) Solution-this is the organisation’s main CRM system and may include service support, maintenance and upgrades. Example of CRM systems the organisation may use could include Microsoft Dynamics, Front Office, Lagan CRM, Firmstep

c. Human Resources (HR) and Payroll Software Solution-this is the organisation’s main HR/payroll system and may include service support, maintenance and upgrades. In some cases the HR contract maybe separate to the payroll contract please provide both types of contracts. Example of HR/Payroll systems the organisation may use could include iTrent, Resourcelink, 

d. The organisation’s primary corporate Finance Software Solution-this is the organisation’s main finance system and may include service support, maintenance and upgrades. Example of finance systems the organisation may use could include E-Business suite, Agresso (Unit4), eFinancials, Integra, SAP 

In some cases you may come across contracts that provides service support maintenance and upgrades separate to the main software contract, please also provide this information in the response following the requested data below.  

For each of the categories above can you please provide me with the relevant contract information listed below:  

1. Software Category: ERP, CRM, HR, Payroll, Finance 
2. Software Supplier: Can you please provide me with the software provider for each contract? 
3. Software Brand: Can you please provide me with the actual name of the software. Please do not provide me with the supplier name again please provide me with the actual software name. 
4. Contract Description: Please do not just state two to three words can you please provide me detail information about this contract and please state if upgrade, maintenance and support is included. Please also include any modules included within the contract as this will support the categories you have selected in question
5. Number of Users/Licenses: What is the total number of user/licenses for this contract? 
6. Annual Spend: What is the annual average spend for each contract? 
7. Contract Duration: What is the duration of the contract please include any available extensions within the contract.
8. Contract Start Date: What is the start date of this contract? Please include month and year of the contract. DD-MM-YY or MM-YY. 
9. Contract Expiry: What is the expiry date of this contract? Please include month and year of the contract. DD-MM-YY or MM-YY. 
10. Contract Review Date: What is the review date of this contract? Please include month and year of the contract. If this cannot be provide please provide me estimates of when the contract is likely to be reviewed. DD-MM-YY or MM-YY. 
11. Contact Details: I require the full contact details of the person within the organisation responsible for this particular software contract (name, job title, email, contact number).

Response:

In accordance with Section 14 of the FOIA the University is not obliged to comply with your request as it is considered vexatious. 

Section 14 of the FOI Act provides that:      

        14. Vexatious or repeated requests.        

1. Section 1(1) does not oblige a public authority to comply with a request for information if the request is vexatious.        
2. Where a public authority has previously complied with a request for information which was made by any person, it is not obliged to comply with a subsequent identical or substantially similar request from that person unless a reasonable interval has elapsed between compliance with the previous request and the making of the current request.        

The FOI Act gives the public a right of access to information held by public authorities. Please note that the University has considered its obligation to transparency and openness when making this decision.      

Under Section 14 (1) of the FOI Act, public authorities like this University, do not have to comply with vexatious requests.  

The FOI Act was designed to give individuals a greater right of access to official information with the intention of making public authorities more transparent and accountable. Whilst most exercise this right responsibility, a few may misuse the FOI Act by submitting requests which have the effect of causing annoyance or disruption or which have a disproportionate impact on a public authority.  

The Information Commissioner recognises that dealing with unreasonable requests can place a strain on resources and get in the way of delivering mainstream services or answering legitimate requests. Furthermore, such requests can also damage the reputation of the legislation itself.  

Section 14 (1) may be used in a variety of circumstances where a request or its impact on the public authority, cannot be justified. The key question to ask is whether this request is likely to cause a disproportionate or unjustified level of disruption, irritation or distress. This is a matter of objectivity when judging the evidence of the impact on the University and weighing this against any evidence about the purpose and value of the request.         

Public authorities such as this University do not have to comply with vexatious requests. There is also no requirement to carry out a public interest test (however, reference to public interests is made within the following paragraphs/arguments, given where the request has originated) or to confirm or deny whether the requested information is held.        

Without clear public interest the University considers this request to be of a commercial nature and vexatious in line with the Upper Tribunal ruling recently upheld by the Court of Appeal in the following case: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKUT/AAC/2013/440.html

As indicated in paragraphs 35 and 38, the improper use of the FOI Act (such as no public interest) is a valid consideration to make when considering if a request or part of a request is vexatious. Using the FOI Act, as in this case, to gain a commercial advantage or opportunity over another can be included within this definition.         

Disclosure of information pertaining to the scope of your request, can be considered to be commercial information and thus commercially sensitive. Disclosure of the requested information could lead to other parties obtaining a commercial gain and be potentially commercially disadvantageous to this organisation.  This University has taken into account the wider context in which the request has been made.      

Given that the requested information appears to have only a commercial interest to it, it is reasonable to withhold information from disclosure under Section 14 of the FOI Act.         

When considering whether your request is potentially vexatious, other indicators listed below have been taken into consideration, including:     

Burden on the authority 

Organisations and institutions are having to continually adapt and divert resources to key areas to ensure that the entity continues to operate. The burden and time needed to collate information pertaining to spend and the other requested information is better spent actually implementing and maintaining our systems.        

Disproportionate effort 

Public authorities, like this University, must keep in mind that meeting their underlying commitment to transparency and openness may involve absorbing a certain level of disruption and annoyance.  

However, if a request is likely to cause a disproportionate or unjustified level of disruption, irritation or distress then this will be a strong indicate, as is the case here, that it is vexatious.  

In Information Commissioner vs Devon County Council & Dransfield [2012] UKUT 440 (AAC), Judge Wikeley recognised that the Upper Tribunal in Wise v The Information Commissioner (GIA/1871/2011) had identified proportionality as the common theme underpinning section 14(1) and he made particular reference to its comment that;  

‘Inherent in the policy behind section 14(1) is the idea of proportionality. There must be an appropriate relationship between such matters as the information sought, the purpose of the request, and the time and other resources that would be needed to provide it.’ 

A useful first step for an authority, like this University, to take when assessing whether a request, or the impact of dealing with it, is justified and proportionate, is to consider any evidence about the serious purpose of value of the request.  

When assessing the purpose and value, the University considers requesters/applicants blind, in accordance with the FOI Act. We do not insist on knowing why an applicant wants information before dealing with the request.  

However, this doesn’t mean that the University cannot take into account the wider context in which the request is made and any evidence that the requester/applicant is willing to volunteer about the purpose behind their request.  

The University has considered information/comments made available by you the requester/applicant, and any wider value or public interest in complying with the request.  

Most requesters will have some serious purpose behind their request, and it will be rare that a public authority will be able to produce evidence that their only motivation is to cause disruption or annoyance. As the Upper Tribunal in Information Commissioner vs Devon County Council & Dransfield [2012] UKUT 440 (AAC), (28 January 2013) observed: 

“public authorities should be wary of jumping to conclusions about there being a lack of any value or serious purpose behind a request simply because it is not immediately self-evident”. 

However, if the request does not obviously serve to further the requester’s stated aims or if the information requested will be of little wider benefit to the public, then this will restrict its value, even where there is clearly a serious purpose behind it. 

The matter being pursued by the requester is only for commercial gain and not for any public interest and the authority would have to expend a disproportionate amount of resources in order to meet their request.        

Given the nature of the requested information, in light of the above-referenced arguments, disclosure thereof, is withheld from disclosure in accordance with Section 14 of the FOI Act and the request is refused.