APPELLANT'S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER DENIED; GOVERNMENT'S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER GRANTED: October 7, 1993 GSBCA 12364-TD GOVERNMENT MICRO RESOURCES, INC., Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY, Respondent. Andrew J. Mohr and Alan J. Shusterman of Cohen & White, Washington, DC, counsel for Appellant. Ingrid D. Falanga, Daniel J. Mazella, and David A. Ingold, Financial Management Service, Department of the Treasury, Washington, DC, counsel for Respondent. LaBELLA, Board Judge. The Board has received several letters concerning the scope of the protective order in this appeal. Government Micro Resources, Inc. (GMR) seeks to protect the identity of its supplier, International Business Machines Corporation (IBM), the description of the equipment at issue, and the prices and discounts IBM offered to GMR. The Financial Management Service (FMS) seeks to protect the identity of an offeror who was subject to an audit by the Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) in a wholly unrelated matter. Background FMS issued a solicitation to GMR on August 18, 1992, seeking an offer on Direct Access Storage Device equipment. GMR obtained price quotes from IBM on the equipment required to satisfy FMS' needs. IBM's quote consisted of the commercial list price for each item and the total list price for all items. The quote also listed a bundled dollar discount for all items. The discount was subtracted from the list price to provide GMR's cost for the products. When preparing the item-by-item product cost required by the solicitation, a GMR employee divided GMR's cost by the IBM list price to obtain GMR's cost figure. GMR alleges that the employee mistakenly used this cost figure as GMR's discount in all subsequent cost and pricing calculations. FMS awarded the contract to GMR on September 28, 1992. After receiving the award, GMR discovered its mistake and, on September 30, informed FMS that it had made a bid mistake. GMR was informed by the contracting officer that there were no legal or factual grounds on which to reform or rescind the contract. Subsequently, GMR delivered the equipment and filed a certified claim for the mistake in bid. The claim was again denied and GMR filed an appeal at the Board. Discussion FMS objects to GMR's request on two grounds. FMS argues that the information is in the public domain and that disclosure will not cause GMR a specific injury. FMS notes that the contract, which is already in the public domain, contains a description of the equipment and identifies its manufacturer. Furthermore, FMS contends that neither GMR nor IBM will suffer a specific injury if pricing and discount information is disclosed. It asserts that GMR has not demonstrated that an injury to IBM would result from disclosure of either price quotations or discounts offered by IBM. The Board has considered the submissions made by both parties. "A party seeking a protective order to prevent disclosure of confidential or privileged information bears the burden of showing specific injury that will result from disclosure." Tidewater Consultants, Inc., GSBCA 8069-P, 85-3 BCA 18,294, at 91,804. We have agreed not to reveal trade secrets or certain proprietary information that is scrupulously held in confidence, e.g., burdens and overhead rates of the contractor that are held in confidence. See, e.g., HFS, Inc. v. National Archives and Records Administration, GSBCA 12010-P, 93-2 BCA 25,817, at 128,532; Presearch, Inc., GSBCA 8075-P, 85-3 BCA 18,297, at 91,818-819. GMR has not met that burden with regard to the information it seeks to protect. The identity of IBM and a description of the equipment involved in this procurement have been revealed in GMR's contract with FMS. This contract is already in the public domain. The protective order cannot be used to protect information to which the public already has access. See, e.g., Smith v. BIC Corp., 869 F.2d 194, 199-200 (3rd Cir. 1989); Zenith Radio Corp. v. Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd., 529 F.Supp. 866, 904 (E.D.Pa. 1981); University Systems, Inc. v. Defense Nuclear Agency, GSBCA 11813-P, 92-3 BCA 25,173, at 125,452 n.1. Similarly, the protective order cannot be used to protect the prices and discounts offered by IBM to GMR. This information is so basic to the essence of GMR's claim and to the Board's analysis that we need to discuss it in our decision. The Board's proceedings are presumptively open to the public. Presearch, Inc., GSBCA 8075-P, 85-3 BCA 18,297, at 91,818. This presumption ensures that the public is aware of how government spending impacts the public fisc. This Board does not operate in secret and intends to assure public access to information whose disclosure would not significantly harm specific governmental interests, or a party's trade secrets or proprietary information. As we stated in Tidewater, "The negotiations are over and the contract has been awarded. We cannot discern a reason to now protect [the information]." 85-3 BCA at 91,805. GMR has not presented, and the Board does not know, a reason to protect the price and outdated discount information that is at the heart of this claim of mistake in bid and appeal. Because GMR has not demonstrated a specific injury which would result from disclosure, its request to protect the information is denied. FMS has sought protection of the identity of a nonparty who was the subject of an audit conducted by the DCAA. GMR has not objected to protecting the nonparty's identity. FMS is using discount information contained in the audit report to demonstrate that the contracting officer was not on notice of GMR's alleged mistake. The identity of this nonparty in an unrelated procurement, as opposed to the discount information, is not essential to the disposition of this appeal. Thus, the Board need not disclose the identity of the offeror in its decision and will not do so. To this limited extent, the Board grants the Government's request to protect the identity of this entity which is not a party to this action. Decision Appellant's request to protect the identity of its supplier; a description of the equipment; and the prices and discounts offered by IBM is DENIED. The Government's request to protect the identity of a nonparty to this action that was the subject of a DCAA audit report is, without objection, GRANTED. VINCENT A. LaBELLA Board Judge