The routine use of proprietary markings when the data marked is not internal contractor information . . . is an abuse of FAR procedures . . . The result is that information normally releasable to the public must be protected from public release just because the information gathered . . ., pursuant to KBR’s contractual obligations, was marked as proprietary. In effect, KBR has turned FAR provisions designed to protect truly proprietary information and to enhance procurement competition . . . into a mechanism to prevent the government from releasing normally transparent information, thus potentially hindering competition and oversight.