I work with contracts, and I can tell you that what you're asking for is not easy. A $100,000,000 contract is easily going to take up a wall full of filing cabinets. It's not like you have a spreadsheet and can just get an itemized list of all the line items. Also, if you get too detailed into pricing you start getting into competitive information, and companies don't like it when you release that information (it might even be unlawful to release it). You might think, why can't they pull a list of line items? Well, they might for the original contract, but what happens when they modify the contract? Well, you can't just delete the item, because the government often owes for the portion of work that was completed before the item was deleted. So ... the contractor puts together an estimate of how much they've spent already, the government evaluates it, and gives back just a portion. There are often so many changes that this is a full time job for 1 contract and it gets convoluted very quickly.

It's not that you have a misunderstanding of the 5th amendment, it's just you were misled by the article summary and don't have the legal knowledge to know that it's wrong. In fact, the 5th amendment is not an issue in this case. It's more of a 4th amendment issue. The argument that worked in the last court is that the 5th amendment applies because the password is testimonial. The reason the defense worked is because they're right that it is testimonial in nature and is protected under the 5th amendment. Where the lower court messed up was thinking the 5th amendment was an issue.

Watch out, here comes an analogy. If police were conducting a search warrant on a home and there was a physical safe that contained actual photos of child pornography AND the safe is within the scope of the warrant. They could ask for the safe combination from the owner, but that's protected under the 5th amendment. It's protected because it's testimonial in nature. If he knows the combination of the safe then he is demonstrating that he owns it and likely knows what's in it. But let's say the owner waives his rights and opens the safe and lets the cops search it and they see child porn in it. Then, a police officer bumps the safe and closes it and they don't know the combo. Well now they have probable cause that you are in control of the documents in the safe and the 5th amendment is not the relevant protection.

Wow, good idea, except that was in TFA:
Recently, the Bush White House said it had located 14 million e-mails that were misplaced and that the White House had restored hundreds of thousands of other e-mails from computer backup tapes. The steps the White House took are inadequate, one of the two groups, the National Security Archive, told a federal judge in court papers filed Friday.
They even use "emails" as the plural "email" like you do.