City of Portsmouth, Virginia 2015 PROCUREMENT DISPARITY STUDY florida california michigan texas washington.
Post on 27-Dec-2015
218 Views
Preview:
Transcript
City of Portsmouth, Virginia
2015 PROCUREMENT DISPARITY STUDY
florida california michigan texas washington
Presentation Outline
Project Team
Study Background
Legal Framework
Disparity Results
Utilization Comparison
Anecdotal Information
Private Sector
Commendations and Recommendations
Questions and Answers
Disparity Project Team
MGT OF AMERICA
Reggie Smith Partner-in-Charge Vernetta Mitchell Project Manager Dr. Vince Eagan, J.D. Technical Advisor Marilyn Wiley Data Manager Lee Brazzell Transformation Consulting Anneliese Oppenheim Oppenheim Research
CITY OF PORTSMOUTH
Michael Ammons City’s Project Manager
Study Background
Procurement categories included in the study:
Construction
Architecture and Engineering
Professional Services
Other Services
Goods and Supplies
Study period July 1, 2008 through June 30, 2013
This is the City’s first disparity study
Study limitations
No subcontracting data
Minimal subcontractor data in permits
Legal Framework
J.A. Croson, Adarand , et. al.
A Compelling Interest Can Be Found in Private Sector Discrimination
Concrete Works v. City and County of Denver, 321 F.3 950 (10th Cir 2003)
4th Circuit Decision – most recent H.B. Rowe v. Tippett
Disparity Indices
An index of 100 indicates that utilization is perfectly proportionate to availability, therefore indicating the absence of disparity (that is, all things being equal).
Generally, firms are considered underutilized if the disparity indices are between 80 to 100, but not significant
Index below 80 is considered be significantly underutilization.
Index greater than 100 is considered overutilized.
Disparity Results
African American
Native American
Asian American
Hispanic American
Nonminority Women
Non W/MBEs
0.00 20.00 40.00 60.00 80.00 100.00 120.00
63.94
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.76
106.90
CONSTRUCTION
Disparity Index
Substantial Disparity =<80.00
Overutilization =>100
African American
Native American
Asian American
Hispanic American
Nonminority Women
Non W/MBEs
0.00 100.00 200.00 300.00 400.00 500.00 600.00 700.00
644.51
0.00
284.96
0.00
2.75
92.73
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
Disparity Index
Substantial Disparity =<80.00
Overutilization =>100
Disparity Results
Disparity Results
African American
Native American
Asian American
Hispanic American
Nonminority Women
Non W/MBEs
0.00 100.00 200.00 300.00 400.00 500.00 600.00 700.00 800.00
759.40
0.00
0.00
0.00
145.80
83.37
OTHER SERVICES
Disparity Index
Substantial Dispar-ity =<80.00
Overutilization =>100
Disparity Results
African American
Native American
Asian American
Hispanic American
Nonminority Women
Non W/MBEs
0.00 20.00 40.00 60.00 80.00 100.00 120.00 140.00 160.00
0.33
0.00
0.00
137.75
0.42
104.67
GOODS AND SUPPLIES
Disparity Index
Substantial Dispar-ity =<80.00
Overutilization =>100
Utilization Comparison
The following exhibit shows a comparison between the percent of M/WBE utilization for the City of Hampton (2014 study) and the City of Portsmouth (2015 study). The bottom half is the amount by which Portsmouth’s M/WBE utilization exceeds (or falls short of) Hampton M/WBE percent utilization.
M/WBE Utilization
BUSINESS OWNERSHIP CLASSIFICATION
Construction Architecture and EngineeringProfessional
ServicesOther
ServicesGoods and
Supplies
(%) (%) (%) (%) (%)
City of Portsmouth
Minority Business 1.73% 0.00% 11.68% 17.54% 0.54%
Nonminority Women 0.05% 0.00% 0.05% 4.62% 0.01%
Total M/WBE Firms 1.77% 0.00% 11.73% 22.16% 0.55%
City of Hampton
Minority Business 3.70% 0.00% 4.90% 6.91% 2.35%
Nonminority Women 8.18% 0.00% 2.43% 15.49% 13.03%
Total M/WBE Firms 11.88% 0.00% 7.33% 22.40% 15.38%
Portsmouth % - Hampton % (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)
Minority Business -1.97% 0.00% 6.78% 10.63% -1.81%
Nonminority Women -8.13% 0.00% -2.38% -10.87% -13.02%
Total M/WBE Firms -10.11% 0.00% 4.40% -0.24% -14.83%
Anecdotal Sampling
Survey of Vendors – 514 participants
Public Hearing – 16 attendees
Focus Group – 17 participants
Personal Interviews – 28 interviewees
Anecdotal Information
The biggest concern for was competing with large firms (34.3% of M/WBE primes). Other key issues noted by M/WBE respondents included:
Primes:
Selection process – 15.0 percent
Contracts too large – 15.0 percent
Specifications – 14.8 percent
Subcontractors:
Competing with large firms – 18.7 percent
Contracts too large – 8.2 percent
Anecdotal Information (cont’d.)
With respect to disparate treatment, M/WBE respondents reported:
An informal network precluded their firms from obtaining work in the private sector – 21.37 percent or 81 respondents
Seldom or never being solicited when there were no M/WBE goals – 9.23 percent or 35 respondents
Being dropped from a project after being included to satisfy good faith efforts requirements – 10.29 percent or 39 respondents
Private Sector
MBE prime contractors won 0.18 percent of prime permit dollars, and WBEs received 1.23 percent of prime permits dollars,
MBE subcontractors were issued 0.68 percent of all subcontracting permit dollars and WBEs 0.54 percent of subcontracting permit dollars.
This result is consistent with the anecdotal finding of the difficulty of M/WBEs securing construction work in the absence of a remedial program
Recommendations
RECOMMENDATIONS
Vendor Registration Consider combining M/WBE
& SBE Program Subcontract Project Goals Aspirational M/WBE Goals
Data Management
top related