Portof Seattle Disparity Study · Final Sept Po Prep Port 2711 Seatt Prep BBC R 1999 Denv 303.3 www bbc@ Report ember 12, 20 rt of S ared for of Seattle Alaskan Way le, Washingto

FINAL RE

Por

EPORT

rt of SSeattle Dissparitty Stuudy

Final

Sept

Po

PrepPort2711Seatt

PrepBBC R1999Denv303.3wwwbbc@

l Report

ember 12, 20

ort of S

ared forof Seattle1 Alaskan Waytle, Washingto

ared byResearch & Co9 Broadway, Suver, Colorado 8321.2547 faxw.bbcresearch@bbcresearch

014

eattle

yon 98121

onsultinguite 220080202 9750303.399.0448.com.com

Dispar

8

rity Stuudy

Table of Contents

BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING i

Chapter ES. Executive SummaryAnalyses in the 2014 Disparity Study ...................................................................................... ES–1Utilization and Disparity Analysis Results for Individual Groups............................................. ES–2Implementing the Federal DBE Program and the SCS and SBE Programs...............................ES–6Next Steps............................................................................................................................... .ES–7

Chapter 1. IntroductionA. Background......................................................................................................................... 1–2B Study Scope ........................................................................................................................ 1–4C. Study Team......................................................................................................................... 1–7

Chapter 2. Legal FrameworkA. Measures that are Part of the Federal DBE Program .........................................................2–1B. Measures that are Part of State and Local Programs.........................................................2–3C. Legal Standards that Race and Gender Conscious Programs Must Satisfy........................2–3

Chapter 3. Collection and Analysis of Port DataA. Overview of Port Contracts ................................................................................................3–1B. Collection and Analysis of Contract Data ...........................................................................3–2C. Collection of Vendor Data ..................................................................................................3–4D. Location of Vendors Performing Port Work .......................................................................3–5E. Types of Work Involved in Port Contracts .........................................................................3–5

Chapter 4. Marketplace ConditionsA. Entry and Advancement .....................................................................................................4–1B. Business Ownership............................................................................................................4–5C. Access to Capital................................................................................................................. 4–8D. Success of Business...........................................................................................................4–15

Chapter 5. Availability AnalysisA. Purpose of the Availability Analysis....................................................................................5–1B. Definitions of Minority and Women Owned Businesses ..................................................5–1C. Information Collected about Potentially Available Businesses ..........................................5–3D. Businesses Included in the Availability Database...............................................................5–5E. MBE/WBE Availability Calculations ....................................................................................5–6F. Availability Results..............................................................................................................5–9

Table of Contents

BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING ii

Chapter 6. Utilization AnalysisA. Overview of the Utilization Analysis...................................................................................6–1B. Overall Utilization Results...................................................................................................6–2C. Utilization Results for Construction and Construction Related Professional

Services Contracts ..............................................................................................................6–4

Chapter 7. Disparity AnalysisA. Overview of Disparity Analysis ...........................................................................................7–1B. Overall Disparity Analysis Results.......................................................................................7–5C. Disparity Analysis Results for Construction and Construction Related

Professional Services Contracts..........................................................................................7–7D. Statistical Significance of Disparity Analysis Results...........................................................7–8

Chapter 8. Further Exploration of DisparitiesA. Are there Disparities for Prime Contracts and Subcontracts?............................................8–1B. Are there Disparities for Large and Small Prime Contracts? ..............................................8–2C. Are there Disparities in Different Time Periods during the Study Period?.........................8–3D. Do Bid/Proposal Processes Explain Any Disparities for Prime Contracts? .........................8–4

Chapter 9. Race and Gender Neutral MeasuresA. Is there evidence of discrimination within the local construction and

construction related professional services contracting marketplace forany racial/ethnic or gender groups? ..................................................................................9–3

B. What has been the agency’s past experience in meeting its overall DBE goal? ................9–3C. What has DBE participation been when the agency did not use race or gender

conscious measures?..........................................................................................................9–3D. What is the extent and effectiveness of race and gender neutral measures

that the agency could have in place for the next fiscal year? ............................................9–4

Chapter 10. Implementation of the Federal DBE Program, the SCS Program, andthe SBE Program

Reporting to DOT – 49 CFR Part 26.11 (b)...............................................................................10–1Bidders List – 49 CFR Part 26.11 (c) .........................................................................................10–1Prompt Payment Mechanisms – 49 CFR Part 26.29................................................................10–2DBE Directory – 49 CFR Part 26.31 ..........................................................................................10–2Overconcentration – 49 CFR Part 26.33 ..................................................................................10–3

Table of Contents

BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING iii

Business Development Programs – 49 CFR Part 26.35 and Mentor ProtégéPrograms – 49 CFR Appendix D to Part 26 .......................................................................10–3

Responsibilities for Monitoring the Performance of Other ProgramParticipants – 49 CFR Part 26.37 ......................................................................................10–4

Fostering Small Business Participation – 49 CFR Part 26.39 ...................................................10–4Prohibition of DBE Quotas and Set asides for DBEs Unless in Limited and

Extreme Circumstances – 49 CFR Part 26.43....................................................................10–5Setting Overall DBE Goals – 49 CFR Part 26.45 .......................................................................10–5Analysis of Reasons for not Meeting Overall DBE Goal – 49 CFR Part 26.47(c) ......................10–5Maximum Feasible Portion of Goal Met through Race and Gender Neutral Measures

49 CFR Part 26.51(a) .........................................................................................................10–6Use of DBE Contract Goals – 49 CFR Part 26.51 (d).................................................................10–7Flexible Use of any Race and Gender Conscious Measures – 49 CFR Part 26.51 (f)...............10–8Good Faith Effort Procedures – 49 CFR Part 26.53 .................................................................10–8Counting DBE and MBE/WBE Participation – 49 CFR Part 26.55 ............................................10–9DBE Certification – 49 CFR Part 26 Subpart D .......................................................................10–10Monitoring Changes to the Federal DBE Program ................................................................10–10Locally Funded Contracts ......................................................................................................10–11

AppendicesA. Definitions of Terms .......................................................................................................... A–1B. Report on Legal Analysis.................................................................................................... B–1C. Utilization Analysis Methodology.......................................................................................C–1D. General Approach to Availability Analysis ......................................................................... D–1E. Entry and Advancement in the Seattle Metropolitan Area Construction and

Engineering Industries ........................................................................................................ E–1F. Business Ownership in the Seattle Metropolitan Area Construction and

Engineering Industries ........................................................................................................ F–1G. Access to Capital for Business Formation and Success ..................................................... G–1H. Success of Businesses in the Seattle Metropolitan Area Construction and

Engineering Industries ....................................................................................................... H–1I. Description of Data Sources for Marketplace Analyses ......................................................I–1J. Qualitative Information from Personal Interviews, Public Hearings, and

Other Meetings................................................................................................................... J–1K. Detailed Disparity Results...................................................................................................K–1

BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING— FINAL REPORT CHAPTER ES, PAGE 1

CHAPTER ES.Executive Summary

disparitystudy

Analyses in the 2014 Disparity Study


Utilization and Disparity Analysis Results for Individual Groups

— —

Official Western States Paving Company Case Q&A

BBC

Uti

FiguOveconprofand

Note:

Includ

Darke

The stcontr

For mAppe

Sourc

BBC R

Dis

C RESEARCH & C

lization res

ure ES 1.erall MBE/WBstruction andfessional servd subcontracts

:

des FAA and locally

er portion of bar pres

tudy team analyzedacts/subcontracts.

more detail and resultndix K.

ce:

Research & Consultin

sparity analy

ONSULTING— F

ults.

BE utilization od constructionvices prime cos

funded Port contract

sents certified DBE u

1,048 prime

ts by group, see Figu

ng from the Port’s co

ysis results.

FINAL REPORT

on Portn relatedontracts

ts.

tilization.

re K 2 in

ntracting data.

.

T CCHAPTER ES, PA

utilizatio

AGE 3

on—

BBC

All c

FiguDispPortconprofprimsub

Note:

Numbcontr1,048

For mAppe

Sourc

BBC Ravaila

of Soand C

C RESEARCH & C

construction

ure ES 2.parity indicest constructionstruction relafessional servme contracts acontracts

:

ber of primeacts/subcontracts an8.

more detail, see Figurndix K.

ce:

Research & Consultinability and utilization

outh Florida, Inc. vCounty of Denver

ONSULTING— F

and construc

forn andatedvicesand

nalyzed was

e K 2 in

nganalyses.

Rothv. Metropolitan Da

FINAL REPORT

ction related

e Development Coade County

T

professional

orp v. U.S. Dept of

l services con

f Defense

C

ntracts.

EngConcrete Work

CHAPTER ES, PA

g’g Contractors Asks of Colo., Inc. v. C

AGE 4

ss’nCity


Construction and construction related professional services.

BBC

FiguDispPortconprofcon

Note:

The stconstcontrconstserviccontr

For mand K

Sourc

BBC Ravaila

Oth

Im

C RESEARCH & C

ure ES 3.parity indicest constructionstruction relafessional servtracts

:

tudy team analyzedruction primeacts/subcontracts anruction related profeces primeacts/subcontracts.

more detail, see FigurK 4 in Appendix K.

ce:


her informa

plementin

ONSULTING— F

forn andatedvices

681

nd 367essional

es K 3

nganalyses.

ation.

ng the Fede

FINAL REPORT

eral DBE P

T

Program annd the SCS

C

S and SBE P

CHAPTER ES, PA

Programs

AGE 6


Next Steps

BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING— FINAL REPORT CHAPTER 1, PAGE 1

CHAPTER 1.Introduction

disparity study


A. Background

Federal DBE Program.

Setting an overall goal for DBE participation.

annual


Projecting the portion of the overall DBE goal to be met through race and gender neutralmeans.

Determining whether all groups will be eligible for race or gender conscious measures.

SCS Program and the SBE Program.


B. Study Scope

Racial/ethnic and gender groups examined in the study.


MBE/WBEs, DBEs, and Potential DBEs.

Analyses in the disparity study.

Legal framework and analysis.

Chapter 2 Appendix B


Data collection and analysis.

Chapter 3

Marketplace conditions.

Chapter 4 and Appendices E, F, G, H, I, and J.

Availability analysis.

Chapter 5 and Appendix C

Utilization analysis.

Chapter 6 and Appendix D

Disparity analysis.

Chapter 7 and Appendix K.

Further exploration of disparities.

Chapter 8

Race and gender neutral measures.

— — awardawarding


Chapter 9

Implementation of the Federal DBE Program and the SCS and SBE Programs.

Chapter 10

C. Study Team

BBC (prime consultant).

Holland & Knight.

Keen Independent Research.

Pacific Communications Consultants (PCC).


CHAPTER 2.Legal Framework

— —

A. Measures that are Part of the Federal DBE Program


1. Applying a combination of race and gender neutral and race and genderconscious measures with all certified DBEs considered eligible for race and genderconscious measures.

2. Applying a combination of race and gender neutral and race and genderconscious measures with only certain groups of certified DBEs considered eligiblefor conscious measures.

3. Applying a combination of race and gender neutral and more aggressive raceand gender conscious measures in extreme circumstances.

4. Operating an entirely race and gender neutral program.


B. Measures that are Part of State and Local Programs

C. Legal Standards that Race and Gender Conscious Measures MustSatisfy

City of Richmond v. J.A. Croson Company

Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Peña

City of Richmond v. J.A. Croson Company

Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Peña


compelling governmental interest

narrowly tailored

Examples of race conscious programs that have not satisfied the strict scrutinystandard.

Western States Paving Co. v. WashingtonState DOT

Western States Paving Co. v. Washington State DOT

Constitutionality of the Federal DBE Program on its face.— —

NorthernContracting, Inc. v. Illinois DOT, Sherbrooke Turf, Inc. v. Minn DOT Gross Seed v. NebraskaDepartment of Roads, Western States Paving Co. v. Washington State DOT, AdarandConstructors, Inc. v. Slater

Northern Contracting, Inc. v. Illinois DOT. Northern Contracting, Inc. v. Illinois DOTMilwaukee County

Pavers v. Fielder

Western States Paving Co. v. Washington State DOTSherbrooke Turf, Inc. v. Minnesota DOT

Western States Paving Co. v. Washington State DOT

Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Slater cert. granted then dismissed as improvidently granted subnom Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Mineta

Sherbrooke Turf, Inc. v. Minnesota DOT, and Gross Seed Company v. Nebraska Department of Roadcert. denied


Western States Paving Co. v. Washington State DOT.Western States Paving Co. v.

Washington State DOT

Western StatesPaving Associated General Contractors of America, San Diego Chapter, Inc. v. CaliforniaDepartment of Transportation, et al.

Guidance from decisions that have upheld state and local programs.

Concrete Works of Colorado v. City and County of DenverH.B. Rowe Company, Inc. v. W. Lyndo Tippett, North Carolina Department of

Transportation, et al.

Id

Id

Id

AGC, San Diego Chapter v. California DOT

Concrete Works of Colorado v. City and County of Denver cert. denied

H.B. Rowe Company., Inc. v. W. Lyndo Tippett, North Carolina Department of Transportation, et alappeal pending


CHAPTER 3.Collection and Analysis of Port Data

A. Overview of Port Contracts

Construction

.


Professional services.

B. Collection and Analysis of Contract Data

Study period.

Data sources.


Total number of Port contracts.

Contracts included in the study team’s analyses.

subindustry

Figure 3 1.Number of Port contracts included in the study

Note: Numbers rounded to nearest dollar and thus may not sum exactly to totals.The figure includes Port contracts executed on or before September 30, 2013.

Source: BBC Research & Consulting from Port contract data.

Contracts not included in the study team’s analyses.

Contract types

Construction 681 $190

Construction related Professional Services 367 52

Total 1,048 $242

Dollars(millions)Number


Prime contract and subcontract amounts.

C. Collection of Vendor Data


D. Location of Vendors Performing Port Work

—

E. Types of Work Involved in Port Contracts


Figure 3 2.Port contract dollars bysubindustry, 2010 2013

Note:

Numbers rounded to nearest dollar andthus may not sum exactly to totals.

Source:

BBC Research & Consulting from Portcontract data.

Industry

Construction

Heavy construction $61,849

Electrical work 26,042

Water, sewer, and utility lines 20,002

Vertical construction trades 18,932

Plumbing and HVAC 6,694

Vertical construction 5,898

Marine construction 5,571

Excavation and drilling 3,233

Steel building materials 2,197

Landscape services 1,482

Wrecking and demolition 1,251

Signs, installation and manufacture 777

Trucking 623

Asphalt and concete supply 593

Other construction services 14,600

Other construction equipment and supplies 4,081

Total Construction $173,826

Construction related Professional Services

Engineering $53,847

Environmental research, consulting, and testing 10,871

Construction management 1,983

Transportation consulting 1,551

Surveying and mapmaking 237

Total Engineering $68,489

Total (in thousands)


CHAPTER 4.Marketplace Conditions

A. Entry and Advancement

Sherbrooke Turf, Inc. v. Minnesota DOT Adarand Constructors, Inc.Western States Paving Co. v. Washington State DOT


Quantitative information about entry and advancement in construction.

Overall representation.

Advancement.


Quantitative information about entry into the construction related professionalservices industry.

Overall representation.


Qualitative information about entry and advancement.

Paths to starting a business.

Discriminatory work environments.

Effects of entry and advancement.


B. Business Ownership

——

Quantitative information about business ownership in construction.

Figure 4 1.Use of regression analyses of businessownership in defense of the Federal DBEProgram

State and federal courts have considereddifferences in business ownership ratesbetween minorities and women and nonHispanic whites and males when reviewing theimplementation of the Federal DBE Program,particularly when considering DBE goals. Forexample, disparity studies in California,Minnesota, and Illinois used regressionanalyses to examine the impact ofrace/ethnicity and gender on businessownership in the construction andprofessional services industries. Results fromthose analyses helped determine whetherdifferences in business ownership existbetween minorities and women and nonHispanic white males after statisticallycontrolling for race and gender neutralcharacteristics. Those analyses were includedin materials submitted to the courts insubsequent litigation concerning theimplementation of the Federal DBE Program.


Figure 4 2.Comparison of actual business ownership rates to simulated rates forSeattle Metropolitan Area construction workers, 2009 2011

Note: Because benchmarks can only be estimated for records with an observed (rather than imputed)dependent variable, comparisons are made using only that subset of the sample. For that reason, actualself employment rates may differ slightly from those shown in Figure 4 2.

Source: BBC Research & Consulting from statistical models of 2009 2011 ACS data. The raw data extract wasobtained through the IPUMS program of the MN Population Center: http://usa.ipums.org/usa/.

Quantitative information about business ownership in construction relatedprofessional services.

Group

Hispanic American 12.2% 23.5% 52

Non Hispanic white female 15.6% 23.0% 68

Business ownership rate Disparity indexActual Benchmark (100 = parity)


Figure 4 3.Comparison of actual business ownership rates to simulated rates for Seattle MetropolitanArea workers in the construction related professional services industry, 2009 2011

Note: Because benchmarks can only be estimated for records with an observed (rather than imputed)dependent variable, comparisons are made using only that subset of the sample. For that reason, actualself employment rates may differ slightly from those shown in Figure 4 3.


Qualitative information about business ownership.

Group


Business ownership rate Disparity indexActual Benchmark (100 = parity)


Effects of business ownership.

C. Access to Capital

Quantitative information about homeownership and mortgage lending.

Homeownership rates.

Mortgage lending.


——

Quantitative information about business credit.

3

Business loan approval rates.


Figure 4 4.Comparison of actual business loan approval rates to simulated rates(“benchmark”), Pacific Census Division, 2003

Source: BBC Research & Consulting analysis of 2003 NSSBF data.

Loan values and interest rates.

Experiences of MBEs, WBEs, and majority owned businesses with obtaining lines of credit andbusiness loans.

Finally,we’re interested in whether your company has experienced barriers or difficulties associated withstarting or expanding a business in your industry or with obtaining work. Think about yourexperiences in the Seattle Metropolitan Area within the past five years as we ask you thesequestions.”

Has your company experienced any difficulties in obtaining lines of creditor loans?”

Group

Black American 49.1% 69.0% 71

Loan approval rates Disparity indexActual Benchmark (100 = parity)

BBC

FiguHasexpdiffline

Sourc

BBC R2012

Qu

Bon

FiguHashadobtnee

Sourc

BBC R2012

Insu

C RESEARCH & C

ure 4 5.s your companerienced anyiculties in obtes of credit or

ce:

Research & Consultin2014 Availability Int

antitative in

nding.

Has your com

[And if so] Ha

ure 4 6.s your compand any difficultiaining bondseded for a pro

ce:


urance.

“Have a

ONSULTING— F

ny

tainingloans?

ng fromerviews.

nformation

mpany obtain

as your comp

nyies

ject?

ng fromerviews.

any insurance

FINAL REPORT

about bon

ed or tried to

any had any d

e requirement

T

ding and in

obtain a bond

difficulties ob

ts on projects

surance.

d for a projec

taining bonds

s presented a b

C

ct?

s needed for a

barrier to bid

CHAPTER 4, PAG

a project?

dding?”

GE 11

BBC

FiguHavreqprojbarr

Sourc

BBC R2012

Qu

C RESEARCH & C

ure 4 7.ve any insuranuirements onjects presenterier to bidding

ce:


alitative inf

ONSULTING— F

nce

ed ag?

ng fromerviews.

formation a

FINAL REPORT

about acces

T

s to capital..

CCHAPTER 4, PAGGE 12


Qualitative information about access to bonding.

Minority and female business owners, in general, said that they did not perceive overt racial orgender discrimination in obtaining bonding. However, the size and capitalization of businessesappears to have an effect on the ability to obtain bonding.


Qualitative information about access to insurance.


Effects of access to capital, bonding, and insurance.

D. Success of Businesses

Quantitative analysis of participation in the public and private sectors.


Quantitative analysis of relative capacity.

Quantitative analysis of business closures, expansions, and contractions.

Initiative 200.


Quantitative analysis of business receipts and earnings.

Business receipts.

Business owner earnings.


Qualitative information about success of businesses.

Disadvantages for small businesses.


Impact of the recent economic downturn.

Impact of disadvantages for small businesses on MBE/WBEs.

Stereotypes, “good ol’ boy” network, and other factors potentially affecting MBE/WBEs.


Effects of success of businesses.

BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING — FINAL REPORT CHAPTER 5, PAGE 1

CHAPTER 5. Availability Analysis

BBC analyzed the availability of minority- and women-owned business enterprises (MBE/WBEs) that are ready, willing, and able to perform on Port of Seattle (Port) construction and construction-related professional services prime contracts and subcontracts. The Port can use that and other information to help refine its implementations of the Federal Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) Program, the Small Business Enterprise (SBE) Program, and the Small Contractors and Suppliers (SCS) Program. Chapter 5 describes BBC’s availability analysis in six parts:

A. Purpose of the availability analysis;

B. Definitions of Minority- and Women-owned businesses;

C. Information collected about potentially available businesses;

D. Businesses included in the availability database;

E. MBE/WBE availability calculations; and

F. Availability results.

Appendix D provides supporting information related to the availability analysis.

A. Purpose of the Availability Analysis BBC examined the availability of MBE/WBEs for Port prime contracts and subcontracts to use as inputs in the disparity analysis. In the disparity analysis, BBC compared the percentage of Port contract dollars that went to MBE/WBEs during the study period (i.e., utilization) to the percentage of dollars that might be expected to go to those businesses based on their availability for specific types and sizes of Port contracts (i.e., availability). Comparisons between utilization and availability allowed the study team to determine whether any MBE/WBE groups were underutilized during the study period relative to their availability for Port work.

B. Definitions of Minority- and Women-Owned Businesses To interpret the availability analysis, as well as other analyses presented in the disparity study, it is useful to understand the differences between all MBE/WBEs and MBE/WBEs that are DBE-certified or could be DBE-certified. In addition, it is important to understand how BBC treated businesses owned by minority women.

MBE/WBEs. The definitions that the study team used for MBE/WBE groups in the disparity study were consistent with the definitions specified in 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 26. The study team examined utilization, availability, and disparities separately for Black American-, Asian-Pacific American-, Subcontinent Asian American-, Hispanic American-, Native American-, and non-Hispanic white women-owned businesses.


The study team analyzed the possibility that race- or gender-based discrimination affected the participation of MBE/WBEs in Port work based on the race/ethnicity and gender of business ownership and not on DBE/MBE/WBE certification status. Therefore, the study team counted businesses as minority- or women-owned regardless of whether they were, or could be, certified as DBEs and regardless of whether they were certified as MBEs or WBEs through the Washington State Office of Minority and Women’s Business Enterprises (OMWBE). Analyzing the availability and utilization of MBE/WBEs regardless of DBE/MBE/WBE certification allows one to assess whether there are disparities affecting all MBE/WBEs and not just certified businesses. Businesses may be discriminated against because of the race or gender of their owners regardless of whether they are certified.

Moreover, the study team’s analyses of whether MBE/WBEs face disadvantages include the most successful, highest-revenue MBE/WBEs. A disparity study that focused only on MBE/WBEs that are, or could be, DBE-certified would improperly compare outcomes for “economically disadvantaged” businesses with all other businesses, including both non-Hispanic white male-owned businesses and relatively successful MBE/WBEs. Limiting the analyses to low-revenue companies would have inappropriately made it more likely for the study team to observe disparities for MBE/WBE groups. Courts that have reviewed disparity studies have accepted analyses based on race/ethnicity and gender of ownership rather than on certification status.

Certified DBEs. Certified DBEs are businesses that are certified as such through OMWBE, which means that they are businesses that:

Are owned and controlled by one or more individuals who are presumed to be both socially and economically disadvantaged according to 49 CFR Part 26;1 and

Meet the gross revenue and personal net worth requirements described in 49 CFR Part 26.

Because implementation of the Federal DBE Program requires the Port to track DBE utilization, BBC reports utilization results for all MBE/WBEs and separately for those MBE/WBEs that are DBE-certified. However, BBC does not report availability or disparity analysis results separately for certified DBEs.

Businesses owned by minority women. BBC considered four options for coding businesses owned by minority women:

Coding those businesses as both minority-owned and women-owned;

Creating unique groups of minority women-owned businesses;

Grouping minority women-owned businesses with all other women-owned businesses; and

Grouping minority women-owned businesses with their corresponding minority groups.

1 The Federal DBE Program specifies that Black Americans, Hispanic Americans, Native Americans, Asian-Pacific Americans, Subcontinent Asian Americans, women of any race or ethnicity, and any additional groups whose members are designated as socially and economically disadvantaged by the Small Business Administration are presumed to be disadvantaged.


Figure 5-1. Summary of the strengths of BBC’s “custom census” approach

Federal courts have reviewed and upheld “custom census” approaches to examining availability. Compared with some other previous court-reviewed custom census approaches, BBC added several layers of screening to determine which businesses are potentially available for work in the construction and construction-related professional services contracting industry in the Seattle Metropolitan Area.

For example, the BBC analysis included discussions with businesses about their interest in local government work, contractor roles, and geographic locations of their work—items not included in some of the previous court-reviewed custom census approaches. BBC also analyzed the sizes of contracts and subcontracts on which businesses have bid on or performed in the past.

BBC chose not to code businesses as both women-owned and minority-owned to avoid double-counting certain businesses when reporting total MBE/WBE utilization and availability. Creating groups of minority women-owned businesses that were distinct from minority male-owned businesses (e.g., Black American women-owned businesses versus Black American male-owned businesses) was also unworkable because some minority groups had utilization and availability so low that further disaggregation by gender made it even more difficult to interpret the results.

After rejecting the first two options, BBC then considered whether to group minority women-owned businesses with all other women-owned businesses or with their corresponding minority groups. BBC chose the latter (e.g., grouping Black American women-owned businesses with all other Black American-owned businesses). Thus, “WBEs” in this report refers to non-Hispanic white women-owned businesses. The study team’s definition of WBE gives the Port information to answer questions that sometimes arise pertaining to the utilization of non-Hispanic white women-owned businesses, such as whether the work that goes to MBE/WBEs disproportionately goes to those businesses.

Majority-owned businesses. Majority-owned businesses are businesses that are not owned by minorities or women (i.e., businesses owned by non-Hispanic white males). In the utilization and availability analyses, the study team coded each business as minority-, women-, or majority-owned.

C. Information Collected about Potentially Available Businesses BBC’s availability analysis focused on specific areas of work (i.e., subindustries) related to the types of construction and construction-related professional services contracts that the Port awarded during the study period. BBC identified specific subindustries for inclusion in the availability analysis and identified the geographic areas in which the Port awarded most of the corresponding contract dollars (i.e., the relevant geographic market area). BBC considered the Seattle Metropolitan Area as the relevant geographic market area for the study. The Seattle Metropolitan Area includes King, Pierce, and Snohomish Counties.2 The study team then developed a database of potentially available businesses through surveys with business establishments located in the Seattle Metropolitan Area that do work within relevant subindustries. That method of examining availability is sometimes referred to as a “custom census” and has been accepted in federal court. Figure 5-1 summarizes the strengths of BBC’s custom census approach to examining availability.

2 The U.S. Census Bureau officially defines the relevant metropolitan area as the Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue, WA area.


Overview of availability surveys. The study team conducted telephone surveys with business owners and managers to identify local businesses that are potentially available for Port construction and construction-related professional services prime contracts and subcontracts.3

BBC began the survey process by collecting information about business establishments from Dun & Bradstreet (D&B) Marketplace listings.4 BBC collected information about all business establishments listed under 8-digit work specialization codes (as developed by D&B) that were most related to the construction and construction-related professional services contracts that the Port awarded during the study period. D&B provided 9,626 business listings related to those work specialization codes.5

Information collected in availability surveys. BBC worked with Customer Research International (CRI) to conduct telephone surveys with the owners or managers of identified business establishments. Survey questions covered many topics about each organization:

Status as a private business (as opposed to a public agency or not-for-profit organization);

Status as a subsidiary or branch of another company;

Primary lines of work;

Qualifications and interest in performing construction or construction-related professional services work for the Port or other local government agencies;

Qualifications and interest in performing construction or construction-related professional services work as a prime contractor or as a subcontractor;

Largest prime contract or subcontract bid on or performed in the previous five years;

Year of establishment; and

Race/ethnicity and gender of ownership.

Appendix D provides details about specific survey questions and an example of the availability survey instrument.

Considering businesses as potentially available. CRI asked successfully contacted business owners and managers several questions concerning:

The types of work that their companies performed;

Their past bidding histories;

Their qualifications and interest in working on contracts for the Port or other local government agencies; and

Other relevant topics.

3 The study team offered business representatives the option of completing surveys via fax or e-mail if they preferred not to complete surveys via telephone.

4 D&B Marketplace is accepted as the most comprehensive and complete source of business listings in the nation.

5 Seven hundred sixty-seven of those business listings did not include a phone number. Thus, BBC attempted availability surveys with 8,859 business establishments.


BBC considered businesses to be potentially available for Port construction or construction-related professional services prime contracts or subcontracts if they reported having a location in the Seattle Metropolitan Area and reported possessing all of the following characteristics:

Being a private business (as opposed to a nonprofit organization);

Having performed work relevant to Port construction or construction-related professional services contracting;

Having bid on or performed construction or construction-related professional services prime contracts or subcontracts in either the public or private sector in Washington in the past five years; and

Being qualified for and interested in work for Port or other state or local governments.6

BBC also considered the following information to determine if businesses were potentially available for specific contracts that the Port awarded during the study period:

The largest contract bid on or performed in the past; and

The year the business was established.

D. Businesses Included in the Availability Database After conducting availability surveys with thousands of local businesses, the study team developed a database of information about businesses that are potentially available for Port construction and construction-related professional services contracting work. Data from the availability surveys allowed BBC to develop a representative depiction of businesses that are qualified and interested in Port or other local agency work, but it should not be considered an exhaustive list of every business that could potentially participate in Port construction or construction-related professional services work. Appendix D provides a detailed discussion about why the database should not be considered an exhaustive list of potentially available businesses.

Figure 5-2 presents the percentage of businesses in the study team’s availability database that corresponded to each racial/ethnic and gender group. The information in Figure 5-2 solely reflects a simple count of businesses with no analysis of availability for specific Port contracts. Thus, it represents only a first step toward analyzing the availability of MBE/WBEs for Port work. The study team’s analysis included 620 businesses that were potentially available for specific construction or construction-related professional services contracts that the Port awarded during the study period. As shown in Figure 5-2, of those businesses, 24 percent were MBEs or WBEs.

6 That information was gathered separately for prime contract and subcontract work.


Figure 5-2. Percentage of firms in the availability database that corresponded to each racial/ethnic and gender group

Note:

Numbers rounded to nearest tenth of 1 percent and thus may not sum exactly to totals.

Source:

BBC Research & Consulting 2012-2014 availability analysis.

E. MBE/WBE Availability Calculations BBC analyzed information from the availability database to develop dollar-weighted availability estimates for use in the disparity analysis. Dollar-weighted availability estimates represent the percentage of Port construction and construction-related professional services contracting dollars that MBE/WBEs would be expected to receive based on their availability for specific types and sizes of Port construction and construction-related professional services prime contracts and subcontracts. BBC’s used a bottom up, contract-by-contract “matching” approach to calculate availability.

Steps to calculating availability. Only a portion of the businesses in the availability database was considered potentially available for any given Port construction or construction-related professional services prime contract or subcontract (referred to collectively as “contract elements”). BBC first examined the characteristics of each specific contract element, including type of work, contract size, and contract date. BBC then identified businesses in the availability database that perform work of that type, in that location, of that size, in that role (i.e., prime contractor or subcontractor), and that were in business in the year that the contract element was awarded.

BBC identified the specific characteristics of each of the 1,048 Port prime contracts and subcontracts that the study team examined as part of the disparity study and then took the following steps to calculate availability for each contract element:

1. For each contract element, the study team identified businesses in the availability database that reported that they:

Are qualified and interested in performing construction or construction-related professional services work in that particular role for that specific type of work for the Port and other local agencies;

Have bid on or performed work of that size; and

Were in business in the year that the Port awarded the contract.

Race/ethnicity and gender

Black American-owned 2.6 %

Asian-Pacific American-owned 3.7

Subcontinent Asian American-owned 1.3

Hispanic American-owned 3.9

Native American-owned 2.3

Total MBE 13.7 %

WBE (white women-owned) 10.2

Total MBE/WBE 23.9 %

Total majority-owned firms 76.1

Total firms 100.0 %

Percent of firms


2. The study team then counted the number of MBEs (by race/ethnicity), WBEs, and majority-owned businesses among all businesses in the availability database that met the criteria specified in Step 1.

3. The study team translated the numeric availability of businesses for the contract element into percentage availability.

BBC repeated those steps for each contract element that the study team examined as part of the disparity study. BBC multiplied the percentage availability for each contract element by the dollars associated with the contract element, added results across all contract elements, and divided by the total dollars for all contract elements. The result was a dollar-weighted estimate of overall availability of MBE/WBEs and estimates of availability for each MBE/WBE group. Figure 5-3 provides an example of how BBC calculated availability for a specific subcontract associated with a construction prime contract that the Port awarded during the study period.

Improvements on a simple “head count” of businesses. BBC used a custom census approach to calculating MBE/WBE availability for Port work rather than using a simple “head count” of MBE/WBEs (i.e., simply calculating the percentage of all local construction and construction-related professional services businesses that are minority- or women-owned). There are several important ways in which BBC’s custom census approach to measuring availability is more precise than completing a simple head count.

BBC’s approach accounts for type of work. USDOT suggests calculating availability based on businesses’ abilities to perform specific types of work. USDOT gives the following example in “Tips for Goal-Setting in the Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) Program:”

If 90 percent of an agency’s contracting dollars is spent on heavy construction and 10 percent on trucking, the agency would calculate the percentage of heavy construction businesses that are MBEs or WBEs and the percentage of trucking businesses that are MBEs or WBEs, and weight the first figure by 90 percent and the second figure by 10 percent when calculating overall MBE/WBE availability.7

7 Tips for Goals Setting in the Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) Program, http://www.osdbu.dot.gov/dbeprogram/tips.cfm.

Figure 5-3. Example of an availability calculation for a Port subcontract

On a contract that the Port awarded in 2010, the prime contractor awarded a subcontract worth $58,246 for heavy construction work. To determine the overall availability of MBE/WBEs for that subcontract, the study team identified businesses in the availability database that:

a. Were in business in 2010;

b. Indicated that they performed heavy construction work;

c. Reported bidding on work of similar or greater size in the past; and

d. Reported qualifications and interest in working as a subcontractor on Port or other local agency construction or construction-related professional services projects.

The study team found 177 businesses in the availability database that met those criteria. Of those businesses, 41 were MBEs or WBEs. Thus, MBE/WBE availability for the subcontract was 23 percent (i.e., 41/177 X 100 = 23).


The BBC study team took type of work into account by examining 22 different subindustries related to construction and construction-related professional services as part of estimating availability for Port work.

BBC’s approach accounts for qualifications and interest in construction and construction-related professional services prime contract and subcontract work. The study team collected information on whether businesses are qualified and interested in working as prime contractors, subcontractors, or both on Port or other local agency construction or construction-related professional services work, in addition to the consideration of several other factors related to Port prime contracts and subcontracts (e.g., contract types, sizes, and locations):

Only businesses that reported being qualified for and interested in working as prime contractors were counted as available for prime contracts;

Only businesses that reported being qualified for and interested in working as subcontractors were counted as available for subcontracts; and

Businesses that reported being qualified for and interested in working as both prime contractors and subcontractors were counted as available for both prime contracts and subcontracts.

BBC’s approach accounts for the size of prime contracts and subcontracts and relative capacity. BBC considered the size—in terms of dollar value—of the prime contracts and subcontracts that a business bid on or received in the previous five years (i.e., relative capacity) when determining whether to count that business as available for a particular contract element. When counting available businesses for a particular prime contract or subcontract, BBC considered whether businesses had previously bid on or received at least one contract of an equivalent or greater dollar value. BBC’s approach is consistent with many recent, key court decisions that have found relative capacity measures to be important to measuring availability (e.g., Associated General Contractors of America, San Diego Chapter vs. California Department of Transportation, et al.,8 Western States Paving Company v. Washington State DOT, Rothe Development Corp. v. U.S. Department of Defense,9 and Engineering Contractors Association of S. Fla. Inc. vs. Metro Dade County10).

BBC’s approach generates dollar-weighted results. BBC examined availability on a contract-by-contract basis and then dollar-weighted the results for different sets of contract elements. Thus, the results of relatively large contract elements contributed more to overall availability estimates than those of relatively small contract elements. BBC’s approach is consistent with USDOT’s “Tips for Goal-Setting in the Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) Program,” which suggests a dollar-weighted approach to calculating availability.

8 AGC, San Diego Chapter v. California DOT, 2013 WL 1607239 (9th Cir. April 16, 2013).

9 Rothe Development Corp. v. U.S. Department of Defense, 545 F.3d 1023 (Fed. Cir. 2008).

10 Engineering Contractors Association of S. Fla. Inc. vs. Metro Dade County, 943 F. Supp. 1546 (S.D. Fla. 1996).


F. Availability Results BBC used a custom census approach to estimate the availability of MBE/WBEs and majority-owned businesses for the 1,048 construction and construction-related professional services prime contracts and subcontracts that the Port awarded during the study period. Figure 5-4 presents overall dollar-weighted availability estimates by MBE/WBE group for those contracts.

Figure 5-4. Overall dollar-weighted availability estimates by MBE/WBE group

Note: Numbers rounded to nearest tenth of 1 percent and thus may not sum exactly to totals. For more detail and results by group, see Figure K-2 in Appendix K.

Source:

BBC Research & Consulting 2012-2014 availability analysis.

Overall, MBE/WBE availability for Port construction and construction-related professional services contracts is 18.2 percent. WBEs (4.5%) and Hispanic American-owned businesses (4.8%) exhibited the highest availability percentages among all MBE/WBE groups. Note that availability estimates varied when the study team examined different subsets of those contracts.

Race/ethnicity and gender

Black American-owned 2.4 %

Asian-Pacific American-owned 2.2

Subcontinent Asian American-owned 1.8

Hispanic American-owned 4.8

Native American-owned 2.4

Total MBE 13.7 %

WBE (white women-owned) 4.5

Total MBE/WBE 18.2 %

Availability Estimate


Figure 6 1.Defining and measuring “utilization”

“Utilization” of MBE/WBEs refers to the share ofprime contract and subcontract dollars that anagency awarded to MBE/WBEs during aparticular time period. BBC measures theutilization of all MBE/WBEs, regardless ofcertification, and separately of MBE/WBEs thatare DBE certified. BBC examines utilizationseparately for different racial/ethnic and gendergroups.

BBC measures MBE/WBE utilization as apercentage of total prime contract andsubcontract dollars that an agency awarded. Forexample, if 5 percent of prime contract andsubcontract dollars went to WBEs on a particularset of contracts, WBE utilization for that set ofcontracts would be 5 percent.

CHAPTER 6.Utilization Analysis

A. Overview of the Utilization Analysis

Definition of utilization.

—

Differences between BBC’s analysis and the Port’s Uniform Reports of DBEAwards/Commitments and Payments.


All MBE/WBEs, not only certified DBEs.

all —

Locally funded contracts, not only FAA funded contracts.

B. Overall Utilization Results

BBC

FiguOveconprofsub

Note:

Includ

Darke

The st

For m

Sourc

BBC R

FiguOvetheconprofconMB

Note:

Includ

Numband th

The stcontr

For m

Sourc

BBC Rcontr

C RESEARCH & C

ure 6 2.erall MBE/WBstruction andfessional servcontracts

:

des FAA and locally

er portion of bar pres

tudy team analyzed

more detail, see Figur

ce:


ure 6 3.erall MBE/WBPort’s constrstruction relafessional servtracts and subE/WBE group

:

des FAA and locally

bers rounded to nearhus may not sum exa



ce:

Research & Consultinacting data.

ONSULTING— F

BE utilization od constructionvices prime co


sents certified DBE u

1,048 prime contract

e K 2 in Appendix K.


BE utilization ouction andatedvices primebcontracts byp


rest tenth of 1 perceactly to totals.

1,048 prime

e K 2 in Appendix K.

ng from the Port’s

FINAL REPORT

on the Port’sn relatedontracts and

ts.

tilization.

ts/subcontracts.

ntracting data.

on

y

ts.

nt

MBE/W

Blac

Asia

Subc

Hisp

Nati

WBE

To

Majo

To

DBEs

Blac

Asia

Subc

Hisp

Nati

WBE

To

Non

To

T

WBEs

ck American owned

n Pacific American

continent Asian Am

panic American ow

ve American owne

E (white women ow

otal MBE/WBE

ority owned

otal

ck American owned

n Pacific American

continent Asian Am

panic American ow

ve American owne

E (white women ow

otal DBE

DBE

otal

d

n owned

merican owned

ned

ed

wned)

d

n owned

merican owned

ned

ed

wned)

$5

1

2

2

12

$24

217

$242

1

2

2

$8

233

$242

$ in tho

CHAPTER 6, PA

5,606 2.3

1,556 0.6

371 0.2

2,417 1.0

2,499 1.0

2,182 5.0

4,631 10.2

7,684 89.8

2,315 100.0

$782 0.3

910 0.4

301 0.1

1,791 0.7

2,081 0.9

2,453 1.0

8,319 3.4

3,996 96.6

2,315 100.0

TotalPercenousands

GE 3

%

%

%

%

%

%

nt


C. Utilization Results for Construction and Construction RelatedProfessional Services Contracts

BBC

FiguMBconrelacon

Note:

Includ

Darkeutiliza

The stcontr

For m

Sourc

BBC Rdata.

C RESEARCH & C

ure 6 4.E/WBE utilizastruction andated professiotracts

:

des FAA and locally

er portion of bar presation.



ce:


ONSULTING— F

ation on the Pd constructiononal services


sents certified DBE

1,048 prime

es K 3 and K 4 in App


FINAL REPORT

ort’sn

ts.

pendix K.

ntracting

T CHAPTER 6, PAGE 5


Figure 7 1.Calculation of disparity indices

The disparity index provides a way of assessinghow closely the actual utilization of anMBE/WBE group matches the percentage ofcontract dollars that the group might beexpected to receive based on its availability fora specific set of contracts. One can directlycompare a disparity index for one group tothat of another group and compare disparityindices across different sets of contracts. BBCcalculates disparity indices using the followingformula:

For example, if actual utilization of WBEs on aset of contracts was 2 percent and theavailability of WBEs for those contracts was 10percent, then the disparity index would be 2percent divided by 10 percent, which wouldthen be multiplied by 100 to equal 20. In thisexample, WBEs would have actually received20 cents of every dollar that they might beexpected to receive based on their availability.

CHAPTER 7.Disparity Analysis

A. Overview of Disparity Analysis

% actual utilization% availability x 100


all

Rothe Development Corp v. U.S. Dept of Defense Eng’g ContractorsAss’n of South Florida, Inc. v. Metropolitan Dade County Concrete Works of Colo.,Inc. v. City and County of Denver

BBCRE

SEAR

CH&CO

NSU

LTING—

FINAL

REPO

RTCH

APTER7,PA

GE3

Figure

72.

Exam

pleof

adisparity

analysistablefrom

Appe

ndixK(sam

eas

Figure

K2inAp

pend

ixK)

Notes:

Spreadsheetrou

ndsn

umbe

rsto

nearesttho

usanddo

llarsor

tenthof

onepe

rcen

t.WBE

iswhite

wom

enow

nedbu

sinesses.

*Unkno

wnMBE

,Unkno

wnDB

EMBE

,and

Unkno

wnDB

Edo

llarswereallocatedto

MBE

subgroup

spropo

rtionaltotheknow

ntotaldollarsof

thosegrou

ps.For

exam

ple,iftotaldollarsof

BlackAm

erican

owne

dbu

sinesses(columnb,row5)

accoun

tedfor2

5pe

rcen

toftotalMBE

dollars(colum

nb,row4),the

n25

percen

tofcolum

nb,row10

wou

ldbe

adde

dto

columnb,row5andthesum

wou

ldbe

show

nincolumnc,

row5.

Source:

BBCRe

search

&Co

nsultin

gDisparity

Analysis.

(1)Allfirm

s1,048

$228

,225

$242,315

(2)

MBE

/WBE

198

$24,15

5$2

4,631

10.2

18.2

8.0

56.0

(3)

WBE

104

$11,80

1$1

2,182

5.0

4.5

0.6

112.7

(4)

MBE

94$1

2,35

4$1

2,449

5.1

13.7

8.6

37.5

(5)

BlackAm

erican

owne

d31

$5,605

$5,606

2.3

2.4

0.1

95.6

(6)

AsianPacific

American

owne

d21

$1,482

$1,556

0.6

2.2

1.6

28.8

(7)

Subcon

tinen

tAsia

nAm

erican

owne

d13

$350

$371

0.2

1.8

1.7

8.4

(8)

HispanicAm

erican

owne

d20

$2,417

$2,417

1.0

4.8

3.8

20.8

(9)

NativeAm

erican

owned

9$2

,499

$2,499

1.0

2.4

1.4

42.3

(10)

Unknow

nMBE

0$0

(11)

DBEcertified

97$8

,035

$8,319

3.4

(12)

Wom

anow

nedDB

E36

$2,233

$2,453

1.0

(13)

Minority

ownedDB

E61

$5,802

$5,866

2.4

(14)

BlackAm

erican

owne

dDB

E16

$781

$782

0.3

(15)

AsianPacific

American

owne

dDB

E14

$848

$910

0.4

(16)

Subcon

tinen

tAsia

nAm

erican

owne

dDB

E10

$301

$301

0.1

(17)

HispanicAm

erican

owne

dDB

E15

$1,791

$1,791

0.7

(18)

NativeAm

erican

ownedDB

E6

$2,081

$2,081

0.9

(19)

Unknow

nDB

EMBE

0$0

(20)

White

maleow

nedDB

E0

$0$0

0.0

(21)

Unkno

wnDB

E0

$0

(a)

(b)

(c)

totaldollars

Num

bero

f

(tho

usan

ds)*

Estim

ated

Firm

Type

contracts

(sub

contracts)

insample

insample

Dollars

(tho

usan

ds)

%columnc,row1)

(colum

nc/

Actualutilizatio

n(d)

(e)

Utilization

benchm

ark

(availability)

%

(f)Differen

ce(colum

nd

columne)

%

(g)

Disparity

inde

x(d

/e)

x100


Utilization.

Availability (utilization benchmark).


Differences between utilization and availability.

Disparity indices.

Results when disparity indices were very large or when availability was zero.

B. Overall Disparity Analysis Results

BBC

FiguOveforandrelaserv

Note:

The stprime

For mAppe

Sourc

BBC Ravaila

C RESEARCH & C

ure 7 3.erall disparityPort construcd constructionated professiovices contract

:

tudy team analyzede contracts/subcontr

more detail, see Figurndix K.

ce:


ONSULTING— F

indicesctionnonalts

1,048racts.

e K 2 in

nganalyses.

FINAL REPORTT CHAPTER 7, PAAGE 6

BBC

C.Pro

FiguDispPortconprofcon

Note:

The stconstcontrconstserviccontr

For mand K

Sourc

BBC Ravaila

C RESEARCH & C

Disparity Aofessional

ure 7 4.parity indicest constructionstruction relafessional servtracts

:

tudy team analyzedruction primeacts/subcontracts anruction related profeces primeacts/subcontracts.

more detail, see FigurK 4 in Appendix K.

ce:


ONSULTING— F

Analysis ReServices C

forn andatedvices

681

nd 367essional

es K 3

nganalyses.

FINAL REPORT

esults for CContracts

T

Constructiion and Coonstruction

CHAPTER 7, PA

n Related

AGE 7


Figure 7 5.Statistical confidence in availability andutilization results

As part of the availability analysis, BBCconducted telephone surveys with more than1,900 business establishments—a number ofcompleted surveys that is generallyconsidered large enough to be treated as a“population,” not a sample. The confidenceinterval around BBC’s estimate of MBE/WBErepresentation among all businessesavailable for Port construction andconstruction related professional serviceswork—23.9 percent—is accurate withinabout +/ 1.6 percentage points at the 95percent confidence level (BBC applied thefinite population correction factor whendetermining confidence intervals). Bycomparison, many survey results forproportions reported in the popular pressare accurate within about +/ 5.0 percentagepoints.

D. Statistical Significance of Disparity Analysis Results

Monte Carlo analysis.

Results.


Figure 7 6.Monte Carlo Analysis

The study team began the Monte Carlo analysis by examining individual contract elements. For eachcontract element, BBC’s availability database provided information on individual businesses thatwere available for that contract element based on type of work, contractor role, contract size, andlocation of the work. The study team assumed that each available business had an equal chance ofwinning that contract element. For example, the odds of a WBE receiving that contract elementwere equal to the number of WBEs available for the contract element divided by the total numberof businesses available for the work. The Monte Carlo simulation then randomly chose a businessfrom the pool of available businesses to win the contract element.

The Monte Carlo simulation repeated the above process for all other elements in a particular set ofcontracts. The output of a single Monte Carlo simulation for all contract elements in the setrepresented simulated utilization of MBE/WBEs, by group, for that set of contract elements. Theentire Monte Carlo simulation was then repeated one million times for each set of contracts. Thecombined output from all one million simulations represented a probability distribution of theoverall utilization of MBE/WBEs if contracts were awarded randomly based on the availability ofbusinesses working in the local construction and construction related professional servicescontracting industry.

The output of the Monte Carlo simulations represents the number of runs out of one million thatproduced a simulated utilization result that was equal or below the observed utilization in the actualdata for each MBE/WBE group and for each set of contracts. If that number was less than or equalto 25,000 (i.e., 2.5% of the total number of runs), then the study team considered that disparityindex to be statistically significant at the 95 percent confidence level. If that number was less thanor equal to 50,000 (i.e., 5.0% of the total number of runs), then the study team considered thatdisparity index to be statistically significant at the 90 percent confidence level.


Figure 7 7.Monte Carlo simulation results for disparity analysis results

Note: Numbers rounded to nearest tenth of 1 percent. Numbers may not add to totals due to rounding.

Source: BBC Research & Consulting availability and utilization analyses.

MBE/WBE Group

All contracts

WBE 112 N/A N/A

MBE 37 364 <0.1 %

Construction contracts

WBE 134 N/A N/A

MBE 41 10,944 1.1 %

Professional services contracts

WBE 47 51,827 5.2 %

MBE 21 76 <0.1

Disparityindex

Number of simulationruns out of one million

that replicatedobserved utilization

Probability ofobserved disparityoccurring due to

"chance"


CHAPTER 8.Further Exploration of Disparities

A. Are there Disparities for Prime Contracts and Subcontracts?

BBC

FiguDispforandrelaconsub

Note:

The stprimesubco

For mK 9 an

Sourc

BBC Ravailaanaly

B. A

C RESEARCH & C

ure 8 1.parity indicesconstructiond constructionated primetracts andcontracts

:

tudy team analyzede contracts and 704ontracts.

more detail, see Figurnd K 12 in Appendix

ce:

Research & Consultinability and utilizationses.

Are there

ONSULTING— F

n

344

esK.

ng

Disparities

FINAL REPORT

s for Large

T

e and Smalll Prime Coontracts?

CHAPTER 8, PAAGE 2

BBC

FiguDisplargconprim

Note:

The stsmalllarge

Smallconst$2 miconstprofeworthprimeconstmoreconstprofeworth

For mK 15 a

Sourc

BBC Ravailaanaly

C. A

C RESEARCH & C

ure 8 2.parity indicesge primetracts and smme contracts

:

tudy team analyzedprime contracts andprime contracts.

prime contracts werruction contracts woillion or less andruction relatedssional services conth $500,000 or less. Lae contracts wereruction contracts wothan $2 million andruction relatedssional services conth more than $500,00

more detail, see Figurand K 16 in Appendix

ce:


Are there

ONSULTING— F

for

mall

305d 39

reorth

tractsarge

orth

tracts00.

esx K.

ng

Disparities

FINAL REPORT

s in Differe

T

ent Time PPeriods during the St

CHAPTER 8, PA

tudy Perio

AGE 3

od?

BBC

FiguDisp201201

Note:

The stprimefor 20contr2012

For mK 5 an

Sourc

BBC Ravailaanaly

D.

Con

Num

C RESEARCH & C

ure 8 3.parity indices10 2011 and12 2013

:

tudy team analyzede contracts/subcontr010 2011 and 419 practs/subcontracts fo2013.

more detail, see Figurnd K 6 in Appendix K

ce:


Do Bid/Pr

nstruction.

mber of bids

ONSULTING— F

in

629ractsimeor

esK.

ng

oposal Pro

from MBE/W

FINAL REPORT

ocesses Ex

WBEs.

T

plain Any Disparities for Prime

CHAPTER 8, PA

e Contract

AGE 4

ts?

BBC

Suc

FiguPercPortconcon

Note:

Basedcontr

Sourc

BBC RSeatt

Con

Num

C RESEARCH & C

ccess of bids.

ure 8 4.centage of bidt constructiontracts that retract awards

:

d on analysis of 576 bacts.

ce:

Research & Consultinle contract records.

nstruction r

mber of bids

ONSULTING— F

ds onnsulted in

bids on 139

ng from Port of

related prof

from MBE/W

FINAL REPORT

fessional se

WBEs.

T

ervices.

CHAPTER 8, PAAGE 5

BBC

Suc

FiguPercPortprofconcon

Note:

Based43 co

Sourc

BBC Rof Sea

C RESEARCH & C

ccess of propo

ure 8 5.centage of bidt constructionfessional servtracts that retract awards

:

d on analysis of 175 pntracts.

ce:

Research & Consultinattle contract record

ONSULTING— F

osals.

ds onn relatedvicessulted in

proposals on

ng from Ports.

FINAL REPORTT CHAPTER 8, PAAGE 6

BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING—FINAL REPORT CHAPTER 9, PAGE 1

CHAPTER 9.Race and Gender Neutral Measures

— —

——


Figure 9 1.Excerpt from Explanation of Approvalof [State] DBE Goal Setting Process forFY [Year]

You must also explain the basis for theState’s race neutral/race consciousdivision and why it is the State’s bestestimate of the maximum amount ofparticipation that can be achievedthrough race neutral means. There are avariety of types of information that canbe relied upon when determining arecipient's race neutral/race consciousdivision. Appropriate information shouldgive a sound analysis of the recipient’smarket, the race neutral measures itemploys and information on contractingin the recipient’s contracting area.Information that could be relied onincludes: the extent of participation ofDBEs in the recipient’s contracts that donot have contract goals; past primecontractors’ achievements; excess DBEachievements over past goals; how manyDBE primes have participated in thestate’s programs in the past; orinformation about state, local or privatecontracting in similar areas that do notuse contracting goals and how manyminority and women’s businessesparticipate in programs without goals.

Source: FHWA, Explanation for Approval of [State]DBE Program Goal Setting Process for FY [Year].http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/civilrights/dbe_memo_a4.htm.


A. Is there evidence of discrimination within the local construction andconstruction related professional services contracting marketplace for anyracial/ethnic or gender groups?

B. What has been the agency’s past experience in meeting its overall DBEgoal?

Figure 9 2.Past certified DBE participation in the Port’sFAA funded contracts, FFYs 2009, 2010, and 2011.

Note: The Port of Seattle did not award any USDOT funded contracts in FFY 2012,so the agency did not set an overall DBE goal for that year.

Source: Port of Seattle DBE Program, 2012.

C. What has DBE participation been when the agency did not use race orgender conscious measures?

FFY

2009 17.5 % 3.0 % 14.5 %2010 11.9 4.0 7.92011 3.3 0.0 3.3

DBEattainment

AnnualDBE goal Difference


D. What is the extent and effectiveness of race and gender neutralmeasures that the agency could have in place for the next fiscal year?

Current race and gender neutral measures.—

—

Business outreach and communication.

Meetings and relationship building.

Website and communications.


Advertisements of contract opportunities.

Technical assistance.

Business and financial management.

Technological training.

Improved contracting practices.

Potential race and gender neutral measures.

— —


Figure 9 3.Examples of race and gender neutral programs that Washington organizations have in place

Source: BBC Research & Consulting.

Neutral measure Description

Technical assistance Technical assistance programs are available throughout Washington. Those programs primarily providegeneral information and assistance for business start ups and growing businesses. Industry specificresources often take the form of checklists of issues of which businesses should be aware and easilyaccessible business forms. Examples of general support providers include SCORE, Washington StateNetwork Small Business Development Centers, and the Washington State Small Business Administration.Some large organizations that offer trade specific classes and seminars are the Associated GeneralContractors and the American Council of Engineering Companies.

Other programs focus on market development assistance and the use of electronic media andtechnology. Those programs are available through organizations such as The Foundation for theAdvancement of Marketing Excellence in Entrepreneurs. More locally focused programs include theBusiness Development Center at UW Bothell, INROADS in Seattle and Northern Idaho, the SeattleCommunity Capital Development, and the Washington State Department of Transportation.

Small business finance Washington State offers a program called the Linked Deposit Program which links the deposit of statefunds to loans made by participating financial institutions to qualified MBE/WBEs. The deposit of thestate funds is made at below market rates, and the savings are passed on by the bank to the LinkedDeposit borrowers in the form of an interest rate not to exceed 2 percent. Sound Transit currentlyparticipates in the Linked Deposit Program.

Other organizations providing financing or help finding financing in Washington include CommunityCapital Development, which provides both loans and training and technical assistance; the RuralWashington Loan Fund, which provides loans to businesses that would create jobs or help retain existingjobs in specific areas, especially for low income persons; the Coastal Revolving Loan Fund/TechnicalAssistance Loan Fund, which provides loans to businesses that would create jobs in regions affected bydeclines in fishing and timber industries; Evergreen Community Development; and organizations such asACCION USA. Other local organizations, including minority and regional chambers, provide training andsupport on how to obtain financing and prepare funding documents.

Bonding programs Bonding programs offering bonding and finance assistance and training have become more popular.Programs such as the SBA Bond Guarantee Program provide bid, performance, and payment bondguarantees for individual contracts. The USDOT Bonding Assistance Program also provides bondingassistance in the form of bonding fee cost reimbursements for DBEs performing transportation work andis a major bonding source for Washington DBE firms.

The Washington Economic Development Finance Authority offers resources, bonds, and information forobtaining bond financing in Washington, particularly for smaller manufacturing and processing facilitiesand environmental preservation, energy, technology, and applied biological sciences as they overlap withwaste disposal.

Mentor protégé programs The City of Tacoma’s Historically Underutilized Business Program (HUB) offers a mentor protégé programthat connects HUB certified businesses with a successful business owner mentor.

Community Capital Development and the City of Shoreline, through their contracts with ShorelineCommunity College Small Business Accelerator, both provide free business mentoring.

The Small Business Administration 8(a) Business Development Mentor Protégé Program is an example ofa mentor protégé program that pairs subcontractors with prime contractors to assist in management,financial, and technical assistance and exploration of joint ventures and subcontractor opportunities forfederal contracts.


CHAPTER 10.Implementation of the Federal DBE Program,the SCS Program, and the SBE Program

Reporting to DOT – 49 CFR Part 26.11 (b)

Uniform Reports of DBEAwards or Commitments and Payments

Bidders List – 49 CFR Part 26.11 (c)


Improving vendor data.

Information from availability telephone surveys.

Prompt Payment Mechanisms – 49 CFR Part 26.29

DBE Directory – 49 CFR Part 26.31


Overconcentration – 49 CFR Part 26.33

Business Development Programs – 49 CFR Part 26.35 and Mentor ProtégéPrograms – 49 CFR Appendix D to Part 26


Responsibilities for Monitoring the Performance of Other ProgramParticipants – 49 CFR Part 26.37

Uniform Report of DBEAwards or Commitments and Payments

Fostering Small Business Participation – 49 CFR Part 26.39


Prohibition of DBE Quotas and Set asides for DBEs Unless in Limited andExtreme Circumstances – 49 CFR Part 26.43

Setting Overall DBE Goals – 49 CFR Part 26.45

Analysis of Reasons for not Meeting Overall DBE Goal – 49 CFR Part26.47(c)


Need for separate accounting for participation of potential DBEs.

potentially

Uniform Reports of DBE Awards or Commitments and Payments

Other steps to evaluate how the Port might better meet its overall goal.

Maximum Feasible Portion of Goal Met through Race and Gender NeutralMeasures – 49 CFR Part 26.51(a)


Use of DBE Contract Goals – 49 CFR Part 26.51(d)


Flexible Use of any Race and Gender Conscious Measures –49 CFR Part 26.51(f)

Good Faith Effort Procedures – 49 CFR Part 26.53


Counting DBE and MBE/WBE Participation – 49 CFR Part 26.55

Uniform Report of DBE Awards or Commitments andPayments


DBE Certification – 49 CFR Part 26 Subpart D

,

Monitoring Changes to the Federal DBE Program


Locally Funded Contracts

BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING— FINAL REPORT APPENDIX A, PAGE 1

APPENDIX A.Definitions of Terms

Anecdotal information.


Business.

Business listing.

Business establishment.

Certified minority owned business enterprise (certified MBE).

Certified women owned business enterprise (certified WBE).

Contract.

Contract element.

Contractor.

Control.


Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE).

Disparity.

Disparity analysis.

Disparity index.

Dun & Bradstreet (D&B).

Employer firms.

Enterprise.


Establishment.

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).

Federal DBE Program.

Firm.

Federally funded contract.

Industry.

Locally funded contract.

Majority owned business.

MBE.

Minorities.


Minority owned business enterprise (MBE).

North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes.

Non DBEs.

Non response bias.

Owned.

Port of Seattle (the Port).

Potential DBE.

Prime consultant.

Prime contract.

Prime contractor.

Project.

Race and gender conscious measures.


Race and gender neutral measures.

Relevant geographic market area.

Small business enterprise (SBE).

Small Business Administration (SBA).

Statistically significant difference.

Subconsultant.

Subcontract.

Subcontractor.

United States Departments of Transportation (USDOT).

Utilization.


Washington State Office of Minority and Women’s Business Enterprises (OMWBE).

WBE.

Women owned business enterprise (WBE).

HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP

APPENDIX B

PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIALATTORNEY CLIENT PRIVILEGEATTORNEY WORK PRODUCTNOT FOR PUBLIC DISSEMINATION

CONFIDENTIALFINAL REPORT

PORT OF SEATTLE, WASHINGTON

REPORT ON LEGAL FRAMEWORKAND ANALYSIS

Keith M. WienerPartner

Holland & Knight LLPOne Atlantic Center1201 West Peachtree Street, N.E.Suite 2000Atlanta, Georgia 30309 3473(404) 817 8515

I

Table of Contents

City of Richmond v. J.A. Croson Co.,

Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Pena (“Adarand I”),

Associated General Contractors of America, San Diego Chapter, Inc. v. CaliforniaDepartment of Transportation

Associated General Contractors of America, San Diego Chapter, Inc. v. CaliforniaDepartment of Transportation, et al.

appeal dismissed based on standing, on othergrounds Ninth Circuit held Caltrans' DBE Program constitutional, AssociatedGeneral Contractors of America, San Diego Chapter, Inc. v. California Department ofTransportation, et al., 713 F.3d 1187 (9th Cir. April 16, 2013)

Western States Paving Co. v. Washington State DOTcert. denied

Western States Paving Co. v. Washington DOT, US DOT & FHWA

M.K. Weeden Construction v. State of Montana, Montana Department ofTransportation, et al.

Monterey Mechanical v. Wilson

Associated Gen. Contractors of California, Inc. v. Coalition for Econ. Equity (“AGCC”)

Coral Construction Co. v. King County

Northern Contracting, Inc. v. Illinois

Northern Contracting, Inc. v. Illinoisaff’d

Northern Contracting, Inc. v. State of Illinois, Illinois DOT, and USDOT

II

Sherbrooke Turf, Inc. v. Minnesota DOT, and Gross Seed Company v. NebraskaDepartment of Road cert. denied

Sherbrooke Turf, Inc. v. Minnesota DOTaff’d

Gross Seed Co. v. Nebraska Department of Roadsaff’d

Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Slater cert. grantedthen dismissed as improvidently granted sub nom. Adarand Constructors, Inc. v.Mineta

Geod Corporation v. New Jersey Transit Corporation et. al

Geod Corporation v. New Jersey Transit Corporation et. seq

South Florida Chapter of the Associated General Contractors v. Broward County,Florida

Klaver Construction, Inc. v. Kansas DOT

Recent Decisions in Federal Circuit Courts of Appeal

H. B. Rowe Co., Inc. v. W. Lyndo Tippett, NCDOT et al.,

Jana Rock Construction, Inc. v. New York State Dept. of Economic Development

Rapid Test Prods., Inc. v. Durham Sch. Servs., Inc.

Virdi v. DeKalb County School District

Concrete Works of Colorado, Inc. v. City and County of Denvercert. denied

Kornhass Construction, Inc. v. State of Oklahoma, Department of Central Services

In re City of Memphis

Builders Ass’n of Greater Chicago v. County of Cook

Associated Gen. Contractors v. Drabik affirming

W.H. Scott Constr. Co. v. City of Jackson,

Eng’g Contractors Ass’n of S. Florida v. Metro. Dade County

H.B. Rowe Corp., Inc. v. W. Lyndo Tippett, North Carolina DOT et alaffirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded

Thomas v. City of Saint Paul affirmed

cert. denied

III

Thompson Building Wrecking Co. v. Augusta, Georgia

Hershell Gill Consulting Engineers, Inc. v. Miami Dade County

Florida A.G.C. Council, Inc. v. State of Florida

The Builders Ass’n of Greater Chicago v. The City of Chicago

Associated Utility Contractors of Maryland, Inc. v. Mayor and City Council ofBaltimore

Associated Utility Contractors of Maryland, Inc. v. The Mayor and City Council ofBaltimore

Webster v. Fulton County a’ffd per curiam

Associated Gen. Contractors v. Drabik

Phillips & Jordan, Inc. v. Watts

Rothe Development Corp. v. U.S. Department of Defense

DynaLantic Corp. v. United States Dept. of Defense, et al.appeal pending

DynaLantic Corp. v. United States Dept. of Defense

BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING – FINAL REPORT APPENDIX B, PAGE 1

APPENDIX B.Report on Legal Analysis

A. Introduction

Cityof Richmond v. J.A. Croson Croson

Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Pena Adarand ICroson

Adarand I Croson

Croson Adarand I

Associated General Contractors of America, SanDiego Chapter, Inc. v. California Department of Transportation (“Caltrans”), et al. WesternStates Paving Co. v. Washington State DOT6.

Associated General Contractors of America, San Diego Chapter, Inc. v. California Department ofTransportation (“Caltrans”), et al.

Western States Paving

City of Richmond v. J.A. Croson

Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Pena

Associated General Contractors of America, San Diego Chapter, Inc. v. California Department of Transportation, et al.AGC, SDC v. Caltrans

Western States Paving Co. v. Washington State DOT cert. denied


Northern Contracting, Inc. v. Illinois DOT,7 Sherbrooke Turf, Inc. v. MinnDOT and Gross Seed v. Nebraska Department of Roads, Adarand Construction, Inc. v. Slater9(“Adarand VII”) Geod Corporation v. New Jersey Transit Corporation10, South Florida Chapterof the A.G.C. v. Broward County, Florida.

AGC, SDC v. Caltrans Western States Paving,


cert. denied

Adarand VII

See AGC, SDC v. Caltrans Northern Contracting, Inc. v. Illinois DOTWestern States Paving Sherbrooke Turf, Inc. v. Minn. DOT

cert. denied Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Slater Adarand VII

Western States Paving Company v. Washington State Department ofTransportation available at

see see also

Id

Id.



AGC, SDC v. Caltrans( AGC,SDC v. Caltrans

WesternStates Paving

Western States Paving see also

Associated General Contractors of America, San Diego Chapter, Inc. v. California DOT (Caltrans ,Associated General Contractor of America, San Diego Chapter, Inc. v. California DOT (Caltrans U.S.D.C. E.D. Cal.,

appeal dismissed based on standing, on other groundsNinth Circuit held Caltrans' DBE Program constitutional, Associated General Contractors of America, San Diego Chapter, Inc. v.California DOT (Caltrans , et al.,

Id Associated General Contractors of America, San Diego Chapter, Inc. v. California DOT (Caltrans),


B. U.S. Supreme Court Cases1. City of Richmond v. J.A. Croson Co., 488 U.S. 469 (1989)

Croson


2. Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Pena (“Adarand I”), 515 U.S. 200 (1995)

Adarand I Croson

Adarand I


C. The Legal Framework Applied to the Federal DBE Program and Stateand Local Government MBE/WBE Programs

1. The Federal DBE Program

Adarand

Appendix The Compelling Interest for Affirmative Action in Federal Procurementsee Adarand VII citing The Compelling

Interest

Pub


Id

Id

Id


MAP 21 (July 2012).

U.S. DOT Final Rule, 76 Fed. Reg. 5083 (January 28, 2011).

Id


See

Id

Id

Id

Id


e.g.

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) for the Disadvantaged Business Enterprise:Program Implementation Modifications for 49 CFR Part 26 (September 6, 2012)

Id

Id

Id


Id

Id

Id

Id


2. Strict Scrutiny Analysis

Id

Id

Id

Id

roson Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Pena Adarand I See, Fisher v. Universityof Texas,

Adarand I AGC, SDC v. Caltrans Northern ContractingWestern States Paving Sherbrooke Turf Adarand VII

Associated Gen. Contractors of Ohio, Inc. v. Drabik (“Drabik II”) Eng’g Contractors Ass’n of SouthFlorida, Inc. v. Metro. Dade County Contractors Ass’n of E. Pa. v. City of Philadelphia (“CAEP I”)


a. The Compelling Governmental Interest Requirement

e.g.

Barriers to minority business formation.

See e.g

Id

N. Contracting Western States Paving Sherbrooke Turf Adarand VII

Id Rothe Dev. Corp. v. U.S. Dept. of Defense

i.e.

RotheN.

Contracting Sherbrooke Turf Adarand VII Western States Paving

Rothe Rothe’s

Rothe Devel. Corp. v. U.S. Dept. of Defense

Sherbrooke TurfAdarand VII Western States Paving

Rothe See alsoDynaLantic Corp. v. U.S. Department of Defense, et al

Sherbrooke Turf citing Adarand VII Western States Paving

See e.g Adarand VII see also Western States Paving


Barriers to competition for existing minority enterprises.

Local disparity studies.

Results of removing affirmative action programs.

MAP 21

Burden of proof.

Adarand VII Western States Paving see DynaLantic,

Adarand VII see DynaLantic,

Id see DynaLantic,

Id


77

Statistical evidence.


See Rothe Development Corp. v. Department of Defense N. Contracting, Inc. IllinoisWestern States Paving Co. v. Washington State DOT

Sherbrooke Turf, Inc. v. Minnesota DOTAdarand Constructors Inc. v. Slater (“Adarand VII”)

Eng’g Contractors Ass’n Monterey Mechanical Co. v. WilsonDynaLantic Hershell Gill Consulting Engineers, Inc. v. Miami Dade County

Adarand VII Eng’g Contractors Ass’n

See e.g Adarand VII Eng’g Contractors Ass’n see also Sherbrooke TurfN. Contracting

See e.g. Croson AGC, SDC v. Caltrans . ContractingWestern States Paving Adarand VII

Croson quoting Hazelwood School Dist. v. United States

Croson see AGC, SDC v. Caltrans Rothe Concrete Works ofColo., Inc. v. City and County of Denver Concrete Works II Drabik II

See e.g Croson AGC, SDC v. Caltrans Rothe Concrete Works IIsee Western States Paving


See e.g Croson AGC, SDC V. Caltrans RotheN. Contracting Western States Paving

Contractors Ass’n of Eastern Pennsylvania, Inc. v. City of Philadelphia (“CAEP II”)


Utilization analysis.

Disparity index.

Two standard deviation test.

Anecdotal evidence.

Id

See, e.g. AGC, SDC v. Caltrans ; Eng’g Contractors Ass’n N. ContractingSherbrooke Turf

Eng’g Contractors Ass’n W.H. Scott Constr. Co. v. City of JacksonContractors Ass’n of Eastern Pennsylvania, Inc. v. City of Philadelphia

See e.g Ricci v. DeStefano AGC, SDC v. Caltrans RotheEng’g Contractors Ass’n Concrete Works I

Eng’g Contractors Ass’n

Peightal v. Metropolitan Eng’g Contractors Ass’nKadas v. MCI Systemhouse Corp

See e.g AGC, SDC v. Caltrans, Eng’g Contractors Ass’n Coral Constr. Co. v.King County O’Donnell Constr. Co. v. District of Columbia

See e.g AGC, SDC v. Caltrans, ; Eng’g Contractors Ass’n Concrete WorksContractors Ass’n Coral Constr. Co. v. King County

Concrete Works I


b. The Narrow Tailoring Requirement

See e.g AGC, SDC v. Caltrans, Northern Contracting affirmede.g Concrete Works Adarand VII

see Eng’g Contractors Ass’n Concrete Works Cone Corp. v.Hillsborough County DynaLantic, Florida A.G.C.Council, Inc. v. State of Florida

See e.g Concrete Works II Eng’g Contractors Ass’n Cone CorpNorthern Contracting, Inc. v. Illinois aff’d

See e.g See e.g AGC, SDC v. Caltrans, Rothe Western States PavingSherbrooke Turf Adarand VII Eng’g Contractors Ass’n


Northern ContractingMilwaukee County Pavers v. Fielder

Western States PavingSherbrooke Turf

Northern Contracting


Western StatesPaving


Western States Paving Sherbrooke Turf

Id

Id

Id

Id , e.g., Geod Corp. v. New Jersey Transit Corp., et al South Florida Chapter of the A.G.C.v. Broward County, Florida


Id Northern Contracting WesternStates Paving Milwaukee County Pavers


Associated Gen. Contractors v. Drabik (“Drabik II”)Adarand

Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District110

106 See, e.g., See e.g AGC, SDC v. Caltrans, Western States PavingAdarand VII Kornhass Construction, Inc. v. State of Oklahoma, Department of Central Services

Eng’g Contractors Ass’n see also Virdi v. DeKalb County School DistrictWebster v. Fulton County

aff’d per curiam

See Grutter v. Bollinger Richmond v. J.A. Croson Co AGC, SDC v.Caltrans Western States Paving see also Adarand I

Associated Gen. Contractors of Ohio, Inc. v. Drabik


Race , ethnicity , and gender neutral measures.

Croson

see also Grutter v. Bollinger

See e.g AGC, SDC v. Caltrans, ; Western States Paving Sherbrooke TurfAdarand VII Eng’g Contractors Ass’n Coral Constr

See Croson Drabik I see also Eng’g ContractorsAss’n Virdi

Croson

See e.g Adarand VII Western States PavingSherbrooke Turf

AdarandAdarand

AdarandAdarand

See e.g Northern Contracting Western States Paving citing


AGC, SDC v. Caltrans

Western States PavingAGC, SDC v. Caltrans

See see e.g Croson N. Contracting Adarand VIIEng’g Contractors Ass’n


AGC, SDC v. Caltran ,

AGC, SDC v. Caltrans

AGC, SDC v. Caltrans citing Grutter v. Bollinger


Additional factors considered under narrow tailoring.

3. Intermediate Scrutiny Analysis

Eng’g Contractors Ass’n

CAEP I Associated Gen. Contractors of Ca., Inc. v. Coalition for Economic Equality (“AGC of Ca.”)Coral Constr. Co. v. King County Cone Corp. v. Hillsborough

County

CAEP Cone Corp

CAEP AGC of Ca. Cone Corp

Id

Id

Western States Paving AGC of Ca

Peightal

Coral Constr

See generally AGC, SDC v. Caltrans Western States Paving Coral Constr. Co.Equal. Found. v. City of Cincinnati Eng’g Contractors Ass’n

Ensley Branch N.A.A.C.P. v. Seibels see also U.S. v. Virginia

Id

Id Builders Ass’n of Greater Chicago v. County of Cook, Chicago

Builders Ass’n Engineering Contractors


4. Washington State Civil Rights Act: RCW 49.60.400

5. Pending Cases (at the time of this report)

Midwest Fence Corporation v. United States Department of Transportation and FederalHighway Administration, the Illinois Department of Transportation, the Illinois State TollHighway Authority, et al. In Midwest Fence Corporation v. USDOT, the FHWA, the Illinois DOTand the Illinois State Toll Highway Authority,

Coral Constr. Co. See Eng’g Contractors Ass’n


Midwest Fence Corp. v. United States DOT, IllinoisDOT, et al

Geyer Signal, Inc., et al. v. Minnesota DOT, the United States DOT, the Federal HighwayAdministration, et al. Geyer Signal, Inc., et al. v. Minnesota DOT, U.S. DOT, Federal HighwayAdministration, et al.


Dunnet Bay Construction Company v. Gary Hannig, in its official capacity as Secretary ofTransportation for the Illinois DOT and the Illinois DOT. Dunnet Bay Construction Companyv. Gary Hannig, in its official capacity as Secretary of the Illinois DOT and the Illinois DOT,

See Dunnet BayConstruction Company v. Hannig

See also, Dunnet Bay 2011

Mountain West Holding Co., Inc. v. The State of Montana, Montana DOT, et al. MountainWest Holding Co., Inc. v. The State of Montana, Montana DOT, et al.


Ongoing Review.



D. Recent Decisions Involving the Federal DBE Program and State orLocal Government MBE/WBE Programs In The Ninth Circuit.

1. Associated General Contractors of America, San Diego Chapter, Inc. v.California Department of Transportation, et al., 713 F.3d 1187 (9th Cir. April16, 2013)

Id.

Id.

Western States Paving Co. v. Washington State DOT.Western States Paving Co. v. Washington State Department of Transportation

Id. Western States Paving

Id

Id Western States Paving Co



Id Western States Paving Co

Evidence Gathering and the 2007 Disparity Study.

Western States PavingId

Id

IdId

Id.

Id

Id

Id

Id

Id

Id

Idevery

IdId.

Id


Id.Id

Caltrans’ DBE Program.Id

Id

Id

Id

Id

District Court Proceedings.

Id

Subsequent Caltrans Study and Program.

Id

Id

IdId

Jurisdiction Issue.

Id


Id

IdId

Caltrans’ DBE Program Held Constitutional on the Merits.Id

Id

Id AdarandConstructors, Inc. v. Peña, Adarand III Adarand III

Id. ( Adarand III

Id.Western States Paving,

Id

A. Application of Strict Scrutiny Standard Articulated inWestern States Paving.

Western States Paving. Western States Paving

Id. WesternStates Paving,

1. Evidence of Discrimination in California Contracting Industry

IdId City

of Richmond v. J.A. Croson Co.,

Id Int'l Bhd. of Teamsters v.United States,


Id.


Id WesternStates Paving,

Id.

Id

IdWestern States Paving

Western States,

see Croson,

Id

Id CrosonId.

Croson

CrosonId. Croson

Id.

Id.Id.

Id. quoting Croson

everyWestern States Paving


Id. quoting Croson

Id.Id.

Id.

Id.

Id.

Id citing Western States AGCC II

Id.every

Id.Id

Id.

Id.

Id.

Id.

Id.


2. Program Tailored to Groups Who Actually Suffered Discrimination.Western States Paving

IdId

IdId.

Id

Id.Western

States. Id.

Id.

Id.

not Id.

and Id.

B. Consideration of Race–Neutral Alternatives.

Id. Western States Paving

Id.

Id. citing Grutter v. Bollinger,

Id.

C. Certification Affidavits for Disadvantaged Business Enterprises.

in California. Id.


Id.

D. Application of Program to Mixed State and Federally Funded Contracts.

Id.

Id.

E. CONCLUSION.

Id.Id

2. Associated General Contractors of America, San Diego Chapter, Inc. v.California Department of Transportation, et al., U.S.D.C., E.D. Cal. CivilAction No. S 09 1622, Slip Opinion (E.D. Cal. April 20, 2011), appealdismissed based on standing, on other grounds Ninth Circuit held Caltrans'DBE Program constitutional, Associated General Contractors of America,San Diego Chapter, Inc. v. California Department of Transportation, et al.,713 F.3d 1187 (9th Cir. April 16, 2013)

Id

Id

Id


Western States Paving Company v. Washington State DOT

quoting WesternStates Paving citing City of Richmond v. J.A. Croson Company





IdWestern States

Paving Id



Western States Paving Id Western States Paving

Id


Id

Id

AGC, SDC v. Cal. DOT

3. Western States Paving Co. v. Washington State DOT, 407 F.3d 983 (9th Cir.2005), cert. denied, 546 U.S. 1170 (2006)



Id

IdId

Id

Id

Id

Id

e.g.Id

Id

Id

Id

Id

Id

Id

Id


Id

Id

Id

IdId

IdId

Facial challenge (Federal Government).

Id citing City of Richmond v. J.A. Croson Co.Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Slater (“Adarand VII”)

Id

Id

Id

IdId

As applied challenge (State of Washington).

IdId

Id see also Br. for the United States


onlyonly

Sherbrooke Turf, Inc. v. Minnesota DOT cert.denied Id

IdId

nationalId

Id

Id

Id

Id

IdTennessee Asphalt Co. v. Farris

Id

Id citing Croson MontereyMechanical Co. v. Wilson

Id Monterey Mechanical

Idciting Monterey Mechanical Id

citing Builders Ass’n of Greater Chi. v. County of CookAssociated Gen. Contractors of Ohio, Inc. v. Drabik O’DonnellConstr. Co. v. District of Columbia

Id

Id


Id

Id

IdId

Id

i.e.Id

Id

Id

Id

supra Id

Id Id

Id

Id

Id

IdId

Id

Id


4. Western States Paving Co. v. Washington DOT, US DOT & FHWA, 2006 WL1734163 (W.D. Wash. June 23, 2006) (unpublished opinion)

WesternStates Paving Co. Washington DOT, US DOT, and FHWA cert. denied

supra

Western States


5. M.K. Weeden Construction v. State of Montana, Montana Department ofTransportation, et al., 2013 WL 4774517 (D. Mont.) (September 4, 2013)

Factual Background and Claims.

Id

Id

Id


Idpro forma

Id

Id.

No proof of irreparable harm and balance of equities favor Montana DOT.

Id

IdId

Id

Id

No Standing.

Id

itId

Id


Court applies AGC v. California DOT case; evidence supports narrowly tailored DBE program.

Id citing Associated General Contractors v. CaliforniaDept. of Transportation

Id citing Associated General Contractors v. California DOT

quoting AGC v. California DOTAGC v. California DOT

Idquoting AGC v. California DOT

AGC v. California DOTId

Due Process claim.

responsible

Id.

Holding and Voluntary Dismissal.


6. Monterey Mechanical v. Wilson, 125 F.3d 702 (9th Cir. 1997)

Id

Id

Id

IdId

Id

Idde minimis Id

Id

Id

IdConcrete

Works of Colorado v. DenverId

Id


e.g. Id

IdId

e.g. Id citing Wygant v. Jackson Board of EducationCity of Richmond v. J.A. Croson, Co.

Id citing Hopwood v.State of Texas

7. Associated Gen. Contractors of California, Inc. v. Coalition for Econ. Equity(“AGCC”), 950 F.2d 1401 (9th Cir. 1991)

Associated Gen. Contractors of California, Inc. v. Coalition for Econ. Equity (“AGCC”)

AGCC

Id.

Id

Id

Id

Id

City of Richmond v. CrosonCroson


Id citingCroson

Id quoting Coral Construction Company v. King County

Idquoting Coral Construction

Id

Id

Id

Id

IdId

IdId

Coral Construction

Id citing Coral Construction Croson

Id quoting CoralConstruction

Id

IdId

quoting Coral Construction


Id

Id

Id

Croson

IdId

Id

IdId quoting Coral Construction

Id quoting Coral Construction

IdId

Id

Id


Id

CrosonId

Id

Id quoting Coral Construction

Id

8. Coral Construction Co. v. King County, 941 F.2d 910 (9th Cir. 1991)

Coral Construction Co. v. King County

City of Richmond v. J.A. Croson Co.

i.e.

Id Croson

Id quoting Hazelwood SchoolDist. v. United States Croson

Id

Id


Id

IdId

quoting International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. United States

Idciting Cone Corp. v. Hillsborough County

Id

someId

some

Id

Id

Id

Id

Croson

Id citing CrosonCroson

Id

Id

Id citing


IdId

Id

Idevery

Id

IdId

Id

IdId

Id

Id

Id

Id

Id

Id

Id

Id


IdId

Id

Id

Id

Id

Id

Id

Id

Id

Id

Id


E. Recent Decisions Involving the Federal DBE Program and itsImplementation in Other Jurisdictions

1. Northern Contracting, Inc. v. Illinois, 473 F.3d 715 (7th Cir. 2007)

Northern Contracting, Inc. v. Illinois

(“

Id

IdId

Id

IdId

IdId

IdId

Id

IdId

IdAdarand

Id citing WesternStates Paving Co., Inc. v. Washington State DOT cert. denied

Sherbrooke Turf, Inc. v. Minnesota DOT


cert. denied

Id quoting Milwaukee County Pavers Association v. Fielder

Id Milwaukee

Id AdarandConstructors v. Pena

Id

MilwaukeeWestern States Sherbrooke Id

Western States MilwaukeeMilwaukee Id

SherbrookeMilwaukee

Id

Id

Id

Id

IdId

Id

Id citing

Id

Id


Id

Id

Id

Id

Id

Id

Id

Id

Id

2. Northern Contracting, Inc. v. Illinois, 2005 WL 2230195 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 8,2005), aff’d 473 F.3d 715 (7th Cir. 2007)

Northern Contracting, Inc. v. State of Illinois, Illinois DOT, and USDOTinfra.


Id

Id

Statistical evidence

Id

Id

Marketplace

Id

Id Id

IdIdId

Id

Id

Id

Id


IdId

Id

Id

Id

Id

e.g.

Id

Id

Id

Id

Id


Id

Anecdotal evidence Id

Id

IdId

IdId

Id

Id

Id

Strict scrutiny Id

before

IdId

Id

Id

Id

Id

Id


IdId

IdId

Id

Id

because

Id citing Concrete Works of Colorado, Inc. v. City and County of Denver,

IdId

IdId

Id

Id

private


Id Builders Ass’n of Greater Chicago v. County of Cookaff’dId

Id

Id

Id

Id

Id

Id citing Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Slater “Adarand VII”

3. Northern Contracting, Inc. v. State of Illinois, Illinois DOT, and USDOT, 2004WL 422704 (N.D. Ill. March 3, 2004)

Northern Contracting, Inc.see

i.e.



Sherbrooke Turf, Inc. v.Minnesota Department of Transportation Adarand Constructors,Inc. v. Slater Adarand VII cert. granted then dismissed asimprovidently granted

Adarand VII Sherbrooke Turf

citingAdarand VII

Sherbrooke TurfAdarand VII

citing quoting Sherbooke Turfquoting Grutter v. Bollinger

Adarand VII Sherbrooke Turf


Sherbooke Turf

Sherbrooke Turf

Sherbrooke Turf


4. Sherbrooke Turf, Inc. v. Minnesota DOT, and Gross Seed Company v.Nebraska Department of Road, 345 F.3d 964 (8th Cir. 2003), cert. denied, 541U.S. 1041 (2004)

Sherbrooke Turf, Inc. v. Minnesota DOT Gross Seed Company v. Nebraska Department ofRoad,

Adarand

Adarand


Id

Id

See

See

See

See

SeeSee

citing Grutter v. Bollinger


See

Id

See

Id

Sherbrooke


Id

Id

Gross Seed Sherbrooke Seeinfra

5. Sherbrooke Turf, Inc. v. Minnesota DOT, 2001 WL 1502841, No. 00 CV 1026(D. Minn. 2001) (unpublished opinion), aff’d 345 F.3d 964 (8th Cir. 2003)

Sherbrooke

Sherbrooke

Sherbrooke

SherbrookeAdarand Constructors, Inc. v. Slater


Sherbrooke, 2001

Croson’s

Id

Id

Id

6. Gross Seed Co. v. Nebraska Department of Roads, Civil Action File No.4:00CV3073 (D. Neb. May 6, 2002), aff’d 345 F.3d 964 (8th Cir. 2003)

Gross Seed Co. v. Nebraska

Sherbrooke Turf


7. Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Slater, 228 F.3d 1147 (10th Cir. 2000) cert.granted then dismissed as improvidently granted sub nom. AdarandConstructors, Inc. v. Mineta, 532 U.S. 941, 534 U.S. 103 (2001)

Adarand

See Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Pena

Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Slater

see also


Id

Id

Id

Id

8. Geod Corporation v. New Jersey Transit Corporation, et. al., 746 F. Supp.2d642, 2010 WL 4193051 (D. N. J. October 19, 2010)

NJT

NJT’s

Id


New Jersey Transit Program and Disparity Study

Id

Id

IdId Id

Id

Id

Id

Id

Id

Id

Id

Id

Id

IdId


Id

Id

IdId

Id

Id

Id

IdId

Id

Id

Id

Id

Id citing Geod v. N.J. Transit Corp

Id citing Northern Contracting, Inc. v. IllinoisDepartment of Transportation


Applying Northern Contracting v. Illinois

seeNorthern Contracting, Inc. v. Illinois

Id quoting Northern ContractingGeod

Idciting Northern Contracting

Id quoting Northern Contractingciting also Tennessee Asphalt Co. v. Farris

Northern ContractingSherbrooke Turf, Inc. v. Minnesota Department of

Transportation Id

Id citing Sherbrooke Turf

Id quoting Western States Paving Co., Inc. v. Washington State Department ofTransportation

citing South Florida Chapter of the Associated General Contractors v. Broward County

Id

Id

IdId

Id

Id


IdId

Id citingId

Id

Id citing Northern Contracting

Id

Id citingId

Id

Id

Id WesternStates Paving

Id quoting Western States Paving

Id

IdNorthern Contracting, Inc. v. Illinois

Id


Western States Paving Co., Inc. v.Washington State DOT Id

Northern Contracting, Inc. v. IllinoisWestern States Paving Co. v. Washington State DOT IdWestern States Paving

Id quoting Western States Paving

ApplyingWestern States Paving


Id citing Western States Paving

IdWestern States Paving

i.e. Id

Id

Id

Id

Id

Id

Id citing Sherbrook Turf quoting Grutter v. Bollinger

Id

IdId

Idciting Western States Paving


Id citing Western States Paving


Id citing WesternStates Paving

Id


9. Geod Corporation v. New Jersey Transit Corporation, et. seq. 678 F.Supp.2d276, 2009 WL 2595607 (D.N.J. August 20, 2009)

Id

Id


Id

Id

Western States Paving Company v.Washington State DOT

IdNorthern Contracting, Inc. v. State of Illinois

Id

Id

Western States PavingNorthern Contracting Western States Paving

Id

Id


Id citing Northern ContractingNorthern Contracting

Id

Id

Sherbrook Turf, Inc. v.Minnesota DOT

Sherbrook

Id


Id citing Western States Paving Company

Id citing

Id

Id

Id

IdId

Id

Id

Id

Id Id


Id

Id

Id

Id

Id

Id

10. South Florida Chapter of the Associated General Contractors v. BrowardCounty, Florida, 544 F. Supp.2d 1336 (S.D. Fla. 2008)

Western States Paving Company v. Washington State Department of Transportation


Id

citingNorthern Contracting v. Illinois

citing Western States PavingId

Ninth Circuit Approach:Western States

Western States PavingMilwaukee County Pavers Association v. Fiedler

Northern Contracting Broward CountyWestern States Paving


Broward County WesternStates Paving

citing Western States Paving

Broward County


Western StatesWestern States Paving

quoting Western States Paving

Sherbrooke Turf, Inc. v.Minnesota Department of Transportation

Western States Paving SherbrookeWestern States Paving


Seventh Circuit Approach:Milwaukee County and Northern Contracting

Broward CountyBroward County

Id

Milwaukee County Pavers Association v. FiedlerNorthern Contracting

quoting Milwaukee County Pavers

Milwaukee County Pavers Western States Paving

Milwaukee County PaversWestern States Paving Northern

Contracting Id Northern ContractingWestern States Paving Milwaukee County Pavers

Sherbrooke citing Northern Contracting


citing Northern Contracting

Broward CountyTennessee Asphalt Company v.

Farris Broward CountyEllis v. Skinner

Broward County

Broward CountyMilwaukee County Pavers Northern Contracting


Broward CountyId

11. Klaver Construction, Inc. v. Kansas DOT, 211 F. Supp.2d 1296 (D. Kan. 2002)


F. Recent Decisions Involving State or Local Government MBE/WBEPrograms in Other Jurisdictions

Recent Decisions in Federal Circuit Courts of Appeal

1. H. B. Rowe Co., Inc. v. W. Lyndo Tippett, NCDOT, et al., 615 F.3d 233 (4th Cir.2010)

Id

Id citing Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Slater

Id


Idquoting

Id

Id

Id quoting

Id

Id

Strict scrutiny.

Idquoting Alexander v. Estepp

Id., quoting Shaw v. Hunt

quoting CrosonWygant v. Jackson Board of Education

Crosonquoting Rothe Dev. Corp. v. Department of Defense,

Id


citing Concrete Works

Id citing Croson

Id quotingMaryland Troopers Association, Inc. v. Evans

Id citing Concrete Works

Id

Idciting Concrete Works

citing Alexander citing Adarand

Intermediate scrutiny. Id

quotingMississippi University for Women v. Hogan,

Id

Id

i.e.

quoting Engineering ContractorsConcrete Works

Id quoting Hogan


Plaintiff’s burden.

Statistical evidence.

Id

IdId.

Croson

Id

IdId

quoting Eng’g Contractors

Id citing Eng’gContractors

Id


Id

IdId

IdId

Id

not Id

Id

Id


IdId

Id

Id Concrete Works

Id citing Concrete WorksSherbrooke Turf, Inc. v. Minn. Department of Transportation

number

dollars

IdId

Id

Id Rothe II

Id


Id citing Adarand v. Slater

Id

Anecdotal evidence.

Id.

IdId

Id


quotingConcrete Works

Id

IdId

Id

Strong basis in evidence that the minority participation goals were necessary to remedydiscrimination.

Id

Id

Id

IdId


Narrowly tailored.

Neutral measures.

Id.

Id.

citing

Id

Duration.

Id

Program’s goals related to percentage of minority subcontractors.

Id


Flexibility.

Id.Id

Id.

Burden on non MWBE/DBEs.

Id.

Overinclusive.

Id.

Id

Women owned businesses overutilized.

Id.

Id

Id

Id


Id

Id

Id

Id

Id

Holding.

IdId

Concurring opinions.


2. Jana Rock Construction, Inc. v. New York State Dept. of EconomicDevelopment, 438 F.3d 195 (2d Cir. 2006)

i.e.

Id

Id

IdId

Id

Id

City of Richmond v. J.A. Croson Co.

Id

Id

Id

Id


Id

3. Rapid Test Prods., Inc. v. Durham Sch. Servs., Inc., 460 F.3d 859 (7th Cir.2006)

Rapid Test Products, Inc. v. Durham School Services Inc


4. Virdi v. DeKalb County School District, 135 Fed. Appx. 262, 2005 WL 138942(11th Cir. 2005) (unpublished opinion)

Virdi v. DeKalb County School District

Virdi

Id

Id

Id

Id

Id

IdId

IdId

Id

Id


Id

Id

IdId

Id

Id

Id

Id

Id Id

IdId

Id

Id

Id citing Grutter v.Bollinger Richmond v. J.A. Croson Co.

IdId

Id Id citing GrutterWalker v. City of Mesquite, TX

Id


Id

Id

Id

Id

5. Concrete Works of Colorado, Inc. v. City and County of Denver, 321 F.3d 950(10th Cir. 2003), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 1027, 124 S. Ct. 556 (2003) (Scalia,Justice with whom the Chief Justice Rehnquist, joined, dissenting from thedenial of certiorari)

Concrete Works

Concrete Works

Case history.

Id

IdId


Id

Id

IdId

Id IdId

Id Richmond v.J.A. Croson Co.

societal

Idquoting Shaw v. Hunt

Id

Id quoting Croson

Id

Id

Id

Id

Id


Id quoting Miss. Univ. forWomen v. Hogan

The studies.

Id Id

Id

Id

IdId

,Id

Id

Id

Id

Id


Id

inter alia,

Id

Id

IdId

Id

Id

Id

Id

Id


Id

Id

Id

Id

Id

Id

Id


Id

Id

The legal framework applied by the court.

Id quoting Concrete Works II

Id.quoting Concrete Works II

Id.quoting Croson

Id., quoting AdarandVII

IdCroson.

Croson

Id quoting Croson

Id

Id citing Croson

Id


Id

Id

Concrete Works II Croson.Id

and privateId quoting Concrete Works II,

Concrete Works II,Id

quoting Concrete Works II,

Id

Id

Id quoting Concrete WorksII,

Id

The Court’s rejection of CWC’s arguments and the district court findings

Use of marketplace data.

Id.

Id., citing Adarand VII

Croson

Shaw v. Hunt. Id Shaw,Croson

Id quoting Shaw Shaw

Id quoting Shaw


public or private, Id citing Shawquoting Croson,

Id.Shaw

Id

Adarand VII,

Id citing Adarand VII

any findingsCongress has made as to the entire construction industry are relevant.

Id quoting Concrete Works II,

private construction market in the Denver MSAId quoting Concrete Works II,

Concrete Works II,

Id

Id quoting Croson,

Adarand VII,

Id quoting Adarand VII

at the outset

existing

Id


IdAdarand VII,


Adarand VII


supra,

Id

Adarand VII

Idquoting Adarand VII


Id

Variables.

Id.

because Id

Id

Idinter alia,

Id

Specialization.


Id.

IdId

Id

Id

Utilization of MBE/WBEs on City projects.

Id

Concrete Works II,

Id quotingConcrete Works II

Id

Id

Id


Id

Anecdotal evidence.

Id.

Id

Id quoting Concrete Works III

Id citing Int’l Bhd. of Teamsters v.United States,

Summary.

Id quoting ConcreteWorks II,

Id quoting Adarand VII,hypothesized

Id


Narrow tailoring.

Id

Concrete Works II.

Croson’si.e.

Id citing Concrete WorksII,

6. Kornhass Construction, Inc. v. State of Oklahoma, Department of CentralServices, 140 F.Supp.2d 1232 (W.D. OK. 2001)

Id

Adarand Constructors, Inc.v. Slater Adarand VII

Id

citing Adarand VII


Compelling state interest. Adarand VII

Id.

Id.

Id.

Id

Id

Id citing Associated General Contractors of Ohio, Inc. v.Drabik City of Richmond v. J.A. Croson Company

Id

Id Adarand VII

Id

Id

Id


Id

Id

Id

Id

Id

Drabik

IdDrabik

Id

Id

Narrow tailoring.

Adarand VII

Id

Id


IdAdarand VII


Adarand VII CrosonId

Id

all


Id

Id

Id

IdAdarand VII

IdId


Id

Id

Id

Id

Id

Id

Adarand VII

IdAdarand VII

Id

Idciting Adarand VII

Adarand VII

Id

Adarand VII

Id

Id


allId

Id

Id

Id

Id

Id

7. In re City of Memphis, 293 F.3d 345 (6th Cir. 2002)

8. Builders Ass’n of Greater Chicago v. County of Cook, Chicago, 256 F.3d 642(7th Cir. 2001)

Builders Ass’n of Greater Chicago v. County of Cook, Chicago


United States v. Virginia VMICook County

IdVMI

quoting VMIEngineering Contract Association of South Florida, Inc. v. Metropolitan

Dade County

Id

before

Id

IdId


IdId

IdId

Id

Id

9. Associated Gen. Contractors v. Drabik, 214 F.3d 730 (6th Cir. 2000),affirming Case No. C2 98 943, 998 WL 812241 (S.D. Ohio 1998)


Ritchie Produce

10. W.H. Scott Constr. Co. v. City of Jackson, 199 F.3d 206 (5th Cir. 1999)

11. Eng’g Contractors Ass’n of S. Florida v. Metro. Dade County, 122 F.3d 895(11th Cir. 1997)

Engineering Contractors Association of South Florida v. Metropolitan Engineering ContractorsAssociation

Engineering Contractors Association

IdId

Id

IdId


Id

Id

Id

Id

Id

Id

1.

2.

3.

4.

Id

City of Richmond v. J.A. Croson Co.Id

Id

Id


Id citing Croson

Id citing Ensley Branch, NAACP v. SeibelsCroson

Id

United States v. Virginia

Id

Id

Id

i.e.Id

Idmight Id

The statistical evidence.

Id

Id

Id

County contracting statistics.

Id

more


Id

Id

IdId

Id

Id citing

Id citingConcrete Works v. City & County of Denver

Contractors Ass’n v. City of Philadelphia

IdId

Id

IdId


Id

Id

Id

Id

Id

Id

Id

Id

Id

Ide.g.


IdId

Id

Id

i.e.Id

Id

Id Id

Id

Id

Id

IdId

Id

IdId

i.e.Id

Id


Id

Id

County subcontracting statistics.

Id.

Id

IdId

Marketplace data statistics. Id

Id

Id

Id.

Id.


Id

Id

Idquoting Croson quoting Hazelwood Sch. Dist. v. United States

Id

supra Id

The Wainwright Study.

Id.

Id

Id.

Id

IdId

Id

CrosonId Croson

as well as both black and white career and entrepreneurial choices.Blacks may be disproportionately attracted to industries other than construction. Id quotingCroson Croson

Id quoting Croson


Id

Id

Id

The Brimmer Study. Id

Id

Id

Id

IdId

Id

Anecdotal evidence.

Id

Id

Id

IdId


Id

Id

Id

Id

Id Crosonif supported by

appropriate statistical proofId quoting Croson

IdId

Id

i.e.

Id

Narrow tailoring. Id., quoting Hayes v. North Side Law


Enforcement Officers Ass’n citing Croson

Id citing Ensley BranchId

Id

Idciting Croson

Id

Id

Id

Id

Id


Id

IdId

Croson

Id quoting Croson

Id

Id

Id

Id

Id

Substantial relationship.

Id

Id


Recent District Court Decisions

12. H.B. Rowe Corp., Inc. v. W. Lyndo Tippett, North Carolina DOT, et al., 589 F.Supp.2d 587 (E.D.N.C. 2008), affirmed in part, reversed in part, andremanded, 615 F.3d 233 (4th Cir. 2010)

H.B. Rowe Company v. Tippett, North Carolina Department of Transportation, et al Rowe

Rowe

Background.

IdId

Id


March 29, 2007 Order of the District Court.

Ex Parte Young

September 28, 2007 Order of the District Court.


December 9, 2008 Order of the District Court (589 F.Supp.2d 587).

North Carolina’s MWBE program.


IdId

Compelling interest.

Croson

citing Croson


Narrowly tailored.

quoting Belk v. Charlotte Mecklenburg Board of Education

Id


See

13. Thomas v. City of Saint Paul, 526 F. Supp.2d 959 (D. Minn 2007), affirmed,321 Fed. Appx. 541, 2009 WL 777932 (8th Cir. March 26, 2009) (unpublishedopinion), cert. denied, 130 S.Ct. 408 (2009)

Thomas v. City of Saint Paul

IdId

IdId

Id


The VOP. Id

Id

IdId

Id

Id

Analysis and Order of the Court.

Id

Id

IdId

Id

IdId

Id

Id

Id

IdId

Plaintiff’s claims.

IdId

Id


Id

Id

Id

Id

IdId

Thomas v. City ofSaint Paul

14. Thompson Building Wrecking Co. v. Augusta, Georgia, No. 1:07CV019, 2007WL 926153 (S.D. Ga. Mar. 14, 2007)(Slip. Op.)

Id

Id

Id


Id

Croson Engineering ContractorsAssociation

Crosonciting Croson

Id

Id

e.g.

Id

Id

Id

Adarand


15. Hershell Gill Consulting Engineers, Inc. v. Miami Dade County, 333 F.Supp.2d 1305 (S.D. Fla. 2004)

Hershell Gill Consulting Engineers, Inc. v. Miami Dade CountyEngineering Contractors Association

Hershell Gill

Hershell Gill

Concrete Works of Colorado, Inc. v. City and County of DenverSee infra



Id

IdId

IdId

Id

Id

Id


Id

IdId

IdGratz v.

Bollinger Grutter v. Bollinger Id

Gratz GrutterAdarand Croson Id

Id

Id

Id

Id

Id

Id

Id


Id

IdId

Id

Id

Id

IdId

Id

Id

Id

Id

Id

Id

Concrete Works ofColorado, Inc. v. City and County of Denver

Id

Id


Id

Id

Engineering Contractors AssociationId

Engineering Contractors AssociationId

Id

Id

Id

EngineeringContractors Association Id Id

Id

Id

IdId

Id

Id

Id citing GrutterId


Id

Id

Id

Id

Croson Adarand Engineering ContractorsAssociation Id

Croson Adarand Id

IdId

IdId

16. Florida A.G.C. Council, Inc. v. State of Florida, 303 F. Supp.2d 1307 (N.D. Fla.2004)



et seq.

et seq.

Florida A.G.C. Councilquoting Eng’g Contractors Ass’n quoting Croson


Florida A.G.C. Council

17. The Builders Ass’n of Greater Chicago v. The City of Chicago, 298 F. Supp.2d725 (N.D. Ill. 2003)


Id

18. Associated Utility Contractors of Maryland, Inc. v. Mayor and City Council ofBaltimore, 218 F. Supp.2d 749 (D. Md. 2002)

Associated Utility Contractors of Maryland, Inc. v. Mayorand City Council of Baltimore


19. Associated Utility Contractors of Maryland, Inc. v. The Mayor and CityCouncil of Baltimore, 83 F. Supp.2d 613 (D. Md. 2000)

20. Webster v. Fulton County, 51 F. Supp.2d 1354 (N.D. Ga. 1999), a’ffd percuriam 218 F.3d 1267 (11th Cir. 2000)



citing Engineering Contractors Association of S. Florida, Inc. v. Metro. EngineeringContractors Association

Id

Engineering Contractors AssociationId Engineering Contractors Association

Id

Id

Id citingEng’g Contractors Ass’n


Id citing Eng’gContractors Assoc.

Id

Id City of Richmond v. J.A. Croson Co.

Id

Id

IdId

Id

Id


Id

IdId

IdId

Id

IdId

Id

Engineering ContractorsAssociation

Id quoting Eng’g Contractors Ass’nId

Id

IdId

Id citing Eng’g Contractors Assoc.

Id


quoting Eng’g Contractors Ass’nId

Id

Id

Id

IdId

Id

Engineering Contractors Association Id

Id

Id

IdWebster v. Fulton County,

Georgia

21. Associated Gen. Contractors v. Drabik, 50 F. Supp.2d 741 (S.D. Ohio 1999)

F. BuddieContracting v. Cuyahoga Community College

Ritchey Produce


22. Phillips & Jordan, Inc. v. Watts, 13 F. Supp.2d 1308 (N.D. Fla. 1998)

Phillips & Jordan


G. Recent Decisions and Authorities Involving Federal ProcurementThat May Impact DBE and MBE/WBE Programs

1. Rothe Development Corp. v. U.S. Department of Defense, et al., 545 F.3d1023 (Fed. Cir. 2008)

Rothe

RotheDevelopment Corp. v. U.S. Dept. of Defense

Rothe,


Concrete Works AdarandConstructors Sherbrooke Turf Western States Paving

2007 Order of the District Court (499 F.Supp.2d 775).

Rothe,

Id

Id

Sherbrooke Turf Western States Paving Concrete Works Adarand VIIRothe

Adarand VII Sherbrooke TurfWestern States Paving

The Compelling Interest

Rothe

Adarand VII Sherbrooke Turf Western States PavingId

Concrete Works IV


Id

Concrete Works IV

Id

Id

IdId

IdId

Id

Appendix

IdAppendix


Id quoting 61 Fed.Reg.

IdId

Id

Sherbrooke Turf Adarand VII Western StatesPaving Id

Appendix

Id

,

Id

Id

Id

Id

Id

Rothe IIIId quoting Rothe III


Id

Id

Id

Id

Id

IdId

November 4, 2008 decision by the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals.

Strict scrutiny framework.

Croson

quoting Croson


quoting Croson

Id

Id

Compelling interest – strong basis in evidence.

citing Rothe VI

Id

Six state and local disparity studies.

Croson

quoting CrosonW.H. Scott

Constr. Co. v. City of Jackson Croson

quoting W.H. Scott


Staleness. Rothe

WesternStates Paving v. Washington State Department of Transportation

Sherbrooke Turf, Inc. v. Minnesota Department of Transportation

RotheId

Before Congress.

quoting Rothe V

Id

Id

quotingDean v. City of Shreveport

Methodology.

i.e.

Rothe VI citing EngineeringContractors Association of South Florida, Inc. v. Metropolitan Dade County


Croson

Id

Id

quoting Engineering Contractors Association

Id

Id


Id

citing Engineering Contractors Association

Id

Id

Id

Id

Id

Geographic coverage.

Id

Id

Anecdotal evidence.

Croson

citing Croson


quoting Concrete Works

Crosonquoting W.H. Scott Constr. Co

Narrowly tailoring.

i.e.,

2. DynaLantic Corp. v. United States Dept. of Defense, et al., 885 F.Supp.2d237, 2012 WL 3356813 (D.D.C. Aug. 15, 2012), appeal pending, UnitedStates Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, Docket Number 125330

Id

Id

Id

DynaLantic Corp. v. United States Department of Defense


The Section 8(a) Program.

see

see also

see also DynaLantic Corp ,

Id quoting see also

Id see

See DynaLantic

See IdId

DynaLantic

DynaLantic, at 245; 13 C.F.R. 124.501(b).

Plaintiff's Business and the Simulation and Training Industry.

DynaLantic .

Compelling Interest.

DynaLantic, .Id

quoting Sherbrooke Turf v. Minn. DOT.,


DynaLantic, quoting Sherbrooke

DynaLantic, quoting Concrete Works of Colorado, Inc. v. City and County ofDenver,

DynaLantic Rothe Dev. Corp. v. U.S. Dep't of Def. Rothe III

DynaLantic

DynaLantic

DynaLantic citing Western States Paving v. Washington State DOT

DynaLantic quoting City of Richmond v. J. A. CrosonCo., 488 U.S. 469, 492 (1995), and Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Slater,

DynaLantic, 252, quoting Adarand VII,

DynaLantic, citing Concrete Works IV,

Evidence before Congress.

DynaLantic,

DynaLantic,


IdAdarand VII

DynaLantic,

DynaLantic,

Id

DynaLantic,

Id

State and Local Disparity Studies.

DynaLantic,

utilizedavailable DynaLantic,

DynaLantic,

availability capacityDynaLantic,

DynaLantic,

Croson O'Donnell Construction Co. v.District of Columbia, et al.,

DynaLantic,


Analysis: Strong Basis in Evidence.

DynaLantic,

DynaLantic,

DynaLantic,DynaLantic,

DynaLantic,

DynaLantic, citing

DynaLantic,

DynaLantic,

Rejection of DynaLantic's Rebuttal Arguments.

DynaLantic,

DynaLantic,

Croson

DynaLantic,


DynaLantic, citing Concrete Work IV

prima facieId, citing Crowson,

Id. DynaLantic,

DynaLantic,

Id

DynaLantic,

DynaLantic,

DynaLantic,

DynaLantic,

DynaLantic,

Facial Challenge: Conclusion

DynaLantic,

DynaLantic,Id

Id

Id


As Applied Challenge DynaLantic

DynaLantic,

Id.

DynaLantic,

Id

DynaLantic,

DynaLantic,

Croson, O'DonnellConstruction Company, Croson's DynaLantic,

CrosonDynaLantic,

Croson's DynaLantic,citing Croson

DynaLantic,

DynaLantic,citing Cortez III Service Corp. v. National Aeronautics & Space Administration

Cortez

DynaLantic,

Croson Adarand DynaLantic,

Croson, Adarand O'Donnell

DynaLantic,Croson

Id


DynaLantic,

Id.

DynaLantic,

Narrowly Tailoring

DynaLantic,

DynaLantic,

DynaLantic,

DynaLantic,

DynaLantic,

DynaLantic,

DynaLantic,

DynaLantic,

DynaLantic,

DynaLantic,

DynaLantic,


Id

DynaLantic,

DynaLantic,

Id

Id.

Conclusion

DynaLantic DynaLantic,

Appeal Pending

3. DynaLantic Corp. v. United States Dept. of Defense, et al., 503 F. Supp.2d262 (D.D.C. 2007)

DynaLantic Corp.


Id

Id

Id

Id

Id


Rothe

Id


4. “Federal Procurement After Adarand” (USCCR Report September, 2005)

AdarandAdarand

Adarand available atciting Adarand

Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Pena,

Adarand

Scope and methodology of the Commission’s report.

Adarand


Findings and recommendations.

Adarand

Serious consideration [P. 71]

Finding:

Recommendation:


Antidiscrimination policy and enforcement [P. 72]

Finding:

Recommendation:

Finding:

Recommendation:

Finding:

Recommendation:


Ongoing review [P. 73]

Finding:

Recommendation:

Data and measurement [P. 73 75]

Finding:

Recommendation:

Finding:

Recommendation:

Finding:

Recommendation:e.g.,

Communication and collaboration [P. 75]

Finding:

Recommendation:


Outreach [P. 76]

Finding:

Recommendation:

Conclusion

Adarand

i.e.

Rothe Development Corp. v. US DODreversed Rothe see

Rothedeleted

Rothe

BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING— FINAL REPORT APPENDIX C, PAGE 1

APPENDIX C.Utilization Analysis Methodology

all

A. Collection of the Port’s Contract Data

Prime contract data collection.


Subcontract data collection.

Surveys of professional services prime contractors.

2013 professional services invoice records.


Methodology for construction related professional services contract data.

B. Collection of Vendor Information


C. Collection of the Port’s Bid and Proposal Data

Construction contracts.

Professional services contracts.

D. Port Review

BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING— FINAL REPORT APPENDIX D, PAGE 1

APPENDIX D.General Approach to Availability Analysis

A. General Approach to Collecting Availability Information


B. Development of the Business Establishments List

——

BBCRE

SEAR

CH&CO

NSU

LTING—

FINAL

REPO

RTAP

PENDIXD,

PAGE

3

Figure

D1.

Constructio

nan

dconstructio

nrelatedprofession

alservices

workspecializations

includ

edintheavailabilityan

alysis

Indu

stry

code

Indu

stry

descrip

tion

Indu

stry

code

Indu

stry

descrip

tion

Constructio

n

Excavatio

n,grad

ing,draina

ge,d

rillin

g,an

dde

molition

Water,sew

er,and

utility

lines

1611

0203

Grading

1623

0000

Water,sew

er,and

utility

lines

1629

0400

Land

prep

arationconstructio

n16

230200

Commun

icationlineandtransm

issiontower

constructio

n1629

9902

Earthm

ovingcontractor

1623

0203

Teleph

oneandcommun

icationlineconstructio

n1794

0000

Excavatio

nwork

1623

0300

Water

andsewer

lineconstructio

n17

949901

Excavatio

nandgrading,bu

ildingconstructio

n1623

0303

Water

mainconstructio

n1795

0000

Wreckingandde

molition

work

1623

9904

Pipe

lineconstructio

n,nsk

1795

9901

Concrete

breaking

forstreetsandhighways

1623

9906

Und

ergrou

ndutilitie

scon

tractor

1795

9902

Demolition

,buildings

andothe

rstructures

1731

0302

Fibe

ropticcableinstallatio

n17

990900

Buildingsiteprep

aration

1799

0901

Borin

gforb

uildingconstructio

nElectricalwork,lighting,an

dsig

nals

1799

9906

Core

drillingandcutting

1731

0000

Electricalwork

1731

0100

Electricpo

wer

system

scon

tractors

Constructio

n,sand

,and

gravel

1731

0103

Standb

yor

emergencypo

wer

specialization

1442

0000

Constructio

nsand

andgravel

1731

0200

Electron

iccontrolsinstallatio

n14

420201

Gravelmining

1731

9903

Gene

ralelectric

contractor

5211

0506

Sand

andgravel

1731

9904

Lightin

gcontractor

Paintin

g,strip

ing,an

dmarking

Trucking

andha

uling

1721

0200

Commercialpaintin

g4212

0000

Localtrucking,with

outstorage

1721

0300

Indu

stria

lpainting

4212

9905

Dumptruckhaulage

1721

0303

Pavemen

tmarking

contractor

4212

9908

Heavymachine

rytransport,local

4212

9912

Steelhauling,local

Heavyconstructio

neq

uipm

entren

tal

4213

9905

Heavymachine

rytransport

3531

9908

Road

constructio

nandmainten

ance

machine

ry7353

0000

Heavyconstructio

neq

uipm

entren

tal

Marineworkan

ddred

ging

7389

9909

Craneandaeria

llift

service

1629

0106

Dred

ging

contractor

BBCRE

SEAR

CH&CO

NSU

LTING—

FINAL

REPO

RTAP

PENDIXD,

PAGE

4

Figure

D1.

Constructio

nan

dconstructio

nrelatedprofession

alservices

workspecializations

includ


alysis(con

tinue

d)

Constructio

n(con

tinue

d)

Heavyconstructio

nHe

avyconstructio

n(con

tinue

d)1611

0000

Highway

andstreet

constructio

n1771

9902

Concrete

repair

1611

0200

Surfacingandpaving

1771

9904

Foun

datio

nandfootingcontractor

1611

0202

Concrete

constructio

n;roads,highways,sid

ewalks,etc.

1791

9902

Concrete

reinforcem

ent,placingof

1611

0204

Highway

andstreet

paving

contractor

1611

0205

Resurfacingcontractor

Land

scap

ingan

derosioncontrol

1611

0207

Gravelor

dirtroad

constructio

n0781

0200

Land

scapeservices

1611

9901

Gene

ralcon

tractor,highway

andstreet

constructio

n0782

9903

Land

scapecontractors

1611

9902

Highway

andstreet

mainten

ance

1622

0000

Bridge,tun

nel,andelevated

highway

constructio

nAsph

alta

ndconcrete

supp

ly1622

9901

Bridge

constructio

n2951

0000

Asph

altp

avingmixturesa

ndblocks

1622

9902

Highway

constructio

n,elevated

2951

0200

Paving

mixtures

1622

9903

Tunn

elconstructio

n2951

0201

Asph

alta

ndasph

altic

paving

mixtures

1622

9904

Viaductcon

struction

2951

0203

Concrete,asphaltic

1629

0105

Drainage

system

constructio

n3272

0000

Concrete

prod

ucts,nec

1629

9904

Piledrivingcontractor

3273

0000

Readymixed

concrete

1741

0100

Foun

datio

nandretainingwallcon

struction

3531

0401

Asph

altp

lant,including

gravel

mixtype

1741

0102

Retainingwallcon

struction

5032

0100

Paving

materials

1771

0000

Concrete

work

5211

0502

Cemen

t1771

0100

Stucco,gun

ite,and

grou

tingcontractors

5211

0503

Concrete

andcind

erblock

1771

0102

Grou

tingwork

1771

0103

Gunite

contractor

Fencing,guardrails,

barriers,and

signs

1771

0201

Curb

constructio

n16

110100

Highway

signs

andguardrails

1771

0202

Side

walkcontractor

1611

0101

Guardrailcon

struction,

highways

1771

0300

Drivew

ay,parking

lot,andblacktop

contractors

1611

0102

Highway

andstreet

signinstallatio

n1771

0301

Blacktop

(asphalt)

work

1799

9912

Fenceconstructio

n1771

0303

Parkinglotcon

struction

3993

0100

ElectricSigns

1771

9901

Concrete

pumping

3993

9907

Signs,no

tmadeincustom

paintin

gshop

s73

599912

Workzone

traffic

equipm

ent(flags,con

es,barrels,

etc.)

BBCRE

SEAR

CH&CO

NSU

LTING—

FINAL

REPO

RTAP

PENDIXD,

PAGE

5

Figure

D1.

Constructio

nan

dconstructio

nrelatedprofession

alservices

workspecializations

includ


alysis(con

tinue

d)

Constructio

n(con

tinue

d)

Other

constructio

nservices

Other

constructio

nsupp

lies

1542

0101

Commercialandofficebu

ildings,n

ewconstructio

n32

720300

Precastterrazo

orconcrete

prod

ucts

1542

0103

Commercialandofficebu

ildings,ren

ovationandrepair

3312

0405

Structuralshapes

andpilings,steel

1711

0000

Plum

bing,heatin

g,aircond

ition

ing

3449

0000

Misc

ellane

ousm

etalwork

1711

0401

Mechanicalcon

tractor

3449

0101

Bars,con

cretereinforcing:fabricated

steel

1731

0201

Compu

terized

controlinstallatio

n5039

9912

Soilerosioncontrol fabrics

1731

0300

Commun

ications

specialization

5051

0209

Form

s,concrete

constructio

n(steel)

1742

0000

Plasterin

g,dryw

all,andinsulatio

n50

630202

Cablecond

uit

1761

0000

Roofing,sid

ing,andsheetm

etalwork

5063

0504

Signalingeq

uipm

ent,electrical

1791

9907

Precastcon

cretestructuralfram

ingor

pane

ls,placingof

3441

0000

Fabricated

structuralmetal

1796

0000

Installingbu

ildingeq

uipm

ent

3441

9901

Buildingcompo

nents,structuralsteel

1799

0302

Servicestationeq

uipm

entinstallatio

n,maint.,andrepair

3699

0500

Securityde

vices

1799

0500

Exterio

rcleaning,includ

ingsand

blastin

g50

510214

Pipe

andtubing,steel

1799

0801

Absestorsrem

ovalanden

capsulation

5063

0205

Electricalconstructio

nmaterials

4959

0100

Road,airp

ort,andparkinglotm

ainten

ance

service

7699

2501

Elevators:Inspectio

n,service,andrepair

Traffic

controland

flaggingservices

7389

9921

Flagging

services

(trafficcontrol)

Structuralsteelerection

1791

0000

Structuralsteelerection

Railroa

dconstructio

n17

919905

Ironwork,structural

1629

0200

Railroadandsubw

ayconstructio

n

Constructio

nrelatedprofession

alservices

Surveying

Environm

entalresearch,

consultin

gan

dtesting

7389

0800

Mapmakingservices

7389

0200

Inspectio

nandtestingservices

7389

0801

Mapmakingor

draftin

g,includ

ingaeria

l87

340300

Pollutio

ntesting

7389

0802

Photogrammetric

mapping

8734

0301

Hazardou

swaste

testing

8713

0000

Surveyingservices

8734

9909

Soilanalysis

8748

9905

Environm

entalcon

sulta

nt

BBCRE

SEAR

CH&CO

NSU

LTING—

FINAL

REPO

RTAP

PENDIXD,

PAGE

6

Figure

D1.

Constructio

nan

dconstructio

nrelatedprofession

alservices

workspecializations

includ


alysis(con

tinue

d)

Source:

BBCRe

search

&Co

nsultin

g.

Constructio

nrelatedprofession

alservices

(con

tinue

d)

Engine

ering

Engine

ering(con

tinue

d)8711

0000

Engine

eringservices

8742

0410

Transportatio

nconsultant

8711

0400

Constructio

nandcivilengineerin

g8748

0204

Traffic

consultant

8711

0402

Civilengineerin

g8711

9901

Acou

sticalen

gine

ering

Other

profession

alservices

8711

9902

Aviatio

nand/or

aeronauticalen

gine

ering

0781

0201

Land

scapearchite

cts

8711

9903

Consultin

gen

gine

er87

330201

Archeo

logicalexped

ition

s8711

9905

Electricalor

electron

icen

gine

ering

8711

9908

Marineen

gine

ering

Constructio

nman

agem

ent

8712

0100

Archite

cturalen

gine

ering

8741

9902

Constructio

nmanagem

ent

8712

0101

Archite

cturalen

gine

ering

8742

0402

Constructio

nprojectm

anagem

entcon

sulta

nt


C. Development of the Survey Instrument

Survey structure

1. Identification of purpose.

2. Verification of correct business name.

3. Verification of work related to relevant projects.

4. Verification of for profit business status.

5. Confirmation of main lines of business.


6. Sole location or multiple locations.

7. Past bids or work with government agencies and private sector organizations.

8. Qualifications and interest in future work.

9. Geographic areas.

10. Year established.

11. Largest contracts.

12. Ownership.

13. Business size.

14. Potential barriers in the marketplace.


15. Contact information.

D. Execution of Surveys

Establishments that the study team successfully contacted.

Figure D 2.Disposition ofattempts to surveybusinessestablishments

Note:

CRI made up to five attempts tocomplete a survey with eachestablishment.

Source:

BBC Research & Consulting from2012 2014 availability surveys.

Non working or wrong phone numbers.

Working phone numbers.

Beginning list 8,859Less duplicate numbers 203Less non working phone numbers 1,759Less wrong number/business 418

Unique business listings with working phone numbers 6,479 100.0 %Less no answer 796 12.3Less could not reach responsible staff member 2,431 37.5Less language barrier 48 0.7Less unreturned fax/email 314 4.8

Establishments successfully contacted 2,890 44.6 %

Percent ofbusinessNumber of

establishments listings


Establishments included in the availability database.

Figure D 3.Disposition ofsuccessfullycontacted businessestablishments

Source:

BBC Research & Consulting from2012 2014 availability surveys.

Establishments successfully contacted 2,890Less establishments not interested in discussing availability for 973local public agency work

Establishments that completed interviews about firm characteristics 1,917Less no relevant work 1,137Less not a for profit business 16Less line of work outside scope 32Less no past bid/award 44Less no interest in future work 21Less established after the study period (2013) 1Less multiple establishments 46

Establishments available for Port work 620

Number ofestablishments


Establishments not interested in discussing availability for Port work.

Establishments available for Port work.

Coding responses from multi location businesses.


E. Additional Considerations Related to Measuring Availability

Not providing a count of all businesses available for Port work.

Not basing the availability analysis on MBE/WBE or DBE directories,prequalification lists, or bidders lists.

.


Using D&B lists as the sample frame.

Selection of specific subindustries.


Non response bias.

Research sponsorship.

Work specializations.

Language barriers.


Response reliability.


Port of Seattle Disparity Study —Availability Survey Instrument [Construction]Hello. My name is [interviewer name] from Customer Research International. We arecalling on behalf of the Port of Seattle, which operates harbor facilities in the Seattle areaand the Seattle Tacoma International Airport.

This is not a sales call. The Port of Seattle is developing a list of companies involved inconstruction, maintenance, or design on a wide range of port and airport relatedprojects. Who can I speak with to get the information we need from your firm?

[After reaching an appropriately senior staff member, the interviewer should re introduce thepurpose of the survey and begin with questions]

[IF ASKED, THE INFORMATION DEVELOPED IN THESE INTERVIEWS WILL ADD TO THE PORT OFSEATTLE’S EXISTING DATA ON COMPANIES INTERESTED IN WORKING WITH THE PORT]

X1. I have a few basic questions about your company and the type of work you do. Can youconfirm that this is [firm name]?

SKIP TO A1

TERMINATE

Y1. Can you give me any information about [firm name]?

SKIP TO Y4

SKIP TO Y4

TERMINATE

TERMINATE

Y3. Can you give me the complete address or city for [firm name]? – SKIP TO Y5

(NOTE TO INTERVIEWER RECORD IN THE FOLLOWING FORMAT:

. STREET ADDRESS

. CITY

. STATE

. ZIP


Y4. And what is the new name of the business that used to be [firm name]?

(ENTER UPDATED NAME)

Y5. Can you give me the name of the owner or manager of the new business?

(ENTER UPDATED NAME)

Y6. Can I have a telephone number for him/her?

(ENTER UPDATED PHONE)

Y7. Can you give me the complete address or city for [new firm name]?

Y8. Do you work for this new company?

TERMINATE

A1. First, I want to confirm that your firm does work or provides materials related toconstruction, maintenance, or design on transportation related projects. Is this correct?

(NOTE TO INTERVIEWER – includes any work related to construction, maintenance or design suchas building and parking facilities, paving and concrete, tunnels, bridges, roads, rail, and othertransportation related projects. it also includes trucking and hauling and any construction orengineering work for the Port of Seattle.)

(NOTE TO INTERVIEWER includes having done work, trying to sell this work, or providingmaterials)

TERMINATE

A2. Let me confirm that [firm name / new firm name] is a business, as opposed to a nonprofit organization, a foundation, or a government office. Is that correct?

TERMINATE


A3. Next, we’re interested in the types of work that [firm name / new firm name]performs. Does your firm do work in the area of:

NOTE TO INTERVIEWER: IF ASKED, THIS WORK AREA INCLUDES CEMENT CONCRETECURB AND GUTTER; ASPHALT CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER; CEMENT CONCRETEPAVING; ASPHALT CONCRETE PAVING; CONCRETE RESTORATION; CONCRETE SAWING,CORING, AND GROOVING; CONCRETE SURFACE TREATMENT; PRODUCTION ANDPLACING OF CRUSHED MATERIALS; BITUMINOUS SURFACE TREATMENT; AND DRILLEDLARGE DIAMETER SLURRY SHAFTS]

[NOTE TO INTERVIEWER: IF ASKED, THIS WORK AREA INCLUDES BRIDGES ANDSTRUCTURES; STEEL FABRICATION; BRIDGE DECK REPAIR; PILEDRIVING; AND DECKSEAL]

[NOTE TO INTERVIEWER: IF ASKED, THIS WORK AREA INCLUDES CLEARING, GRUBBING,GRADING, AND DRAINING; DEMOLITION; TUNNELS AND SHAFT EXCAVATION; GROUNDMODIFICATION; ASBESTOS ABATEMENTS; DRILLING AND BLASTING; ANDWELLDRILLING]

[NOTE TO INTERVIEWER: IF ASKED, THIS WORK AREA INCLUDES SEWER ANDWATERMAINS; ANDWATER DISTRIBUTION AND IRRIGATION]

[NOTE TO INTERVIEWER: IF ASKED, THIS WORK AREA INCLUDES PAINTING; PAVEMENTMARKING (EXCLUDING PAINTING); SANDBLASTING AND STEAM CLEANING; PAINTSTRIPING; AND STRUCTURAL TILE CLEANING]

[NOTE TO INTERVIEWER: IF ASKED, THIS WORK AREA INCLUDES CONCRETESTRUCTURES EXCEPT BRIDGES; RIPRAP AND ROCKWALLS; SIGNING; FENCING; PRECASTMEDIAN BARRIERS; WIRE MESH SLOPE PROTECTION; PERMENANT TIE BACK ANCHOR;GUARDRAIL; GABION AND GABION CONSTRUCTION; IMPACT ATTENUATORS; ANDSLURRY DIAPHRAGM AND CUT OFF WALLS]


[NOTE TO INTERVIEWER: IF ASKED, THIS WORK AREA INCLUDES ILLUMINATION ANDGENERAL ELECTRIC; TRAFFIC SIGNALS; ELECTRONICS FIBER OPTIC BASEDCOMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS; AND INTELLIGENT TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS (ITS)]

[NOTE TO INTERVIEWER: IF ASKED, THIS WORK AREA INCLUDES MATERIALSTRANSPORTING; HAZARDOUS WASTE REMOVAL; AND SEWAGE DISPOSAL]

[NOTE TO INTERVIEWER: IF ASKED, THIS WORK AREA INCLUDES PLUMBING, HVAC, ANDOTHER MECHANICAL WORK]

[NOTE TO INTERVIEWER: IF ASKED, THIS WORK AREA INCLUDES EROSION CONTROL;LANDSCAPING; AND STREET CLEANING]

[NOTE TO INTERVIEWER: IF ASKED, THIS WORK AREA INCLUDES BUILDINGCONSTRUCTION AND REMODELING]

[NOTE TO INTERVIEWER: IF ASKED, THIS WORK AREA INCLUDES RAILROAD SUBGRADECONSTRUCTION; PLACING OF BALLAST, TIES, AND TRACK; AND OTHER RAILROADRELATEDWORK]

A4a. Let me also confirm what kind of business this is. The information we have from Dun& Bradstreet indicates that your main line of business is [SIC Code description]. Is thiscorrect?

(NOTE TO INTERVIEWER IF ASKED, DUN & BRADSTREET OR D&B, IS A COMPANY THATCOMPILES BUSINESS INFORMATION THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY)

SKIP TO A5


A4b. What would you say is the main line of business at [firm name / new firm name]?

(NOTE TO INTERVIEWER: IF RESPONDENT INDICATES THAT FIRM’S MAIN LINE OF BUSINESS IS“GENERAL CONSTRUCTION” OR GENERAL CONTRACTOR,” PROBE TO FIND OUT IF MAIN LINE OFBUSINESS IS CLOSER TO INDUSTRIAL BUILDING CONSTRUCTION OR HIGHWAY AND ROADCONSTRUCTION.)

(ENTER VERBATIM RESPONSE)

A5. Is this the sole location for your business, or do you have offices in other locations?

A8. Is your company a subsidiary or affiliate of another firm?

SKIP TO B1

SKIP TO B1

SKIP TO B1

A9. What is the name of your parent company?

A9. ENTER NAME OF PARENT COMPANY


B1. Next, I have a few questions about your company’s role in transportation relatedconstruction, maintenance, or design. During the past five years, has your companysubmitted a bid or a price quote for any part of a contract for a state or local governmentagency in Washington?

SKIP TO B3

SKIP TO B3

SKIP TO B

B2. Were those bids or price quotes to work as a prime contractor, a subcontractor, atrucker/hauler, or as a supplier?

[MULTIPUNCH]

B3. During the past five years, has your company worked on any part of a contract for astate or local government agency inWashington?

SKIP TO B5

SKIP TO B5

B4. Did your company work on those contracts as a prime contractor, a subcontractor, atrucker/hauler, or as a supplier?

[MULTIPUNCH]


B5. During the past five years, has your company submitted a bid or a price quote for anypart of a contract for a private sector organization inWashington?

SKIP TO B7

SKIP TO B7

B6. Were those bids or price quotes to work as a prime contractor, a subcontractor, atrucker/hauler, or as a supplier?

[MULTIPUNCH]

B7. During the past five years, has your company worked on any part of a contract for aprivate sector organization in Washington?

SKIP TO B10

SKIP TO B10

SKIP TO B10

B8. Did your company work on those contracts as a prime contractor, a subcontractor, atrucker/hauler, or as a supplier?

[MULTIPUNCH]


B10. Is your company qualified and interested in working with the Port of Seattle as aprime contractor?

B12. Is your company qualified and interested in working with the Port of Seattle as asubcontractor, trucker/hauler, or supplier?

Now I want to ask you about the geographic areas your company serves withinWashington. As you answer, think about whether your company could be involved inpotential transportation related projects in that region.

C1a. Could your company do work in the Tacoma area?

[NOTE TO INTERVIEWER: IF ASKED, TACOMA IS IN PIERCE COUNTY.]

C1c. Could your company do work in the Seattle and Everett areas?

[NOTE TO INTERVIEWER: IF ASKED, THE SEATTLE AND EVERETT AREAS INCLUDES KING ANDSNOHOMISH COUNTIES.]


D1. About what year was your firm established?

(RECORD FOUR DIGIT YEAR, e.g., '1977')

D2. In rough dollar terms, what was the largest transportation related contract orsubcontract your company won in Washington during the past five years?

(NOTE TO INTERVIEWER – IF ASKED, INCLUDES EITHER PRIVATE SECTOR OR PUBLIC SECTOR)

(NOTE TO INTERVIEWER INCLUDES CONTRACTS NOT YET COMPLETE)

(NOTE TO INTERVIEWER READ CATEGORIES IF NECESSARY)

D3. Was that the largest transportation related contract or subcontract that yourcompany bid on or submitted quotes for in Washington during the past five years?

SKIP TO E1

SKIP TO E1

SKIP TO E1


D4. What was the largest transportation related contract or subcontract that yourcompany bid on or submitted quotes for in Washington during the past five years?

(NOTE TO INTERVIEWER – IF ASKED, INCLUDES EITHER PRIVATE SECTOR OR PUBLIC SECTOR)

(NOTE TO INTERVIEWER – READ CATEGORIES IF NECESSARY)

E1. My next questions are about the ownership of the business. A business is defined aswoman owned if more than half — that is, 51 percent or more— of the ownership andcontrol is by women. By this definition, is [firm name / new firm name] a woman ownedbusiness?


E2. A business is defined as minority owned if more than half — that is, 51 percent ormore— of the ownership and control is African American, Asian, Hispanic, NativeAmerican or another minority group. By this definition, is [firm name || new firm name] aminority owned business?

SKIP TO F1

SKIP TO F1

SPECIFY

E2. OTHER GROUP SPECIFY

E3. Would you say that the minority group ownership of your company is mostly AfricanAmerican, Asian Pacific American, Subcontinent Asian American, Hispanic American, orNative American?


E3. OTHER SPECIFY

F1. Dun & Bradstreet indicates that your company has about [number] employeesworking out of just your location. Is that an accurate estimate of your company’s averageemployees during the most recent three year period?

(NOTE TO INTERVIEWER INCLUDES EMPLOYEES WHOWORK AT THAT LOCATION AND THOSEWHOWORK FROM THAT LOCATION)

SKIP TO F3

SKIP TO F3

SKIP TO F3

F2. About howmany employees did you have working out of just your location, onaverage, during the most recent three year period?

(RECORD NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES)

F3. Dun & Bradstreet lists the average annual gross revenue of your company, justconsidering your location, to be [dollar amount]. Is that an accurate estimate for yourcompany’s average annual gross revenue during the most recent three year period?

SKIP TO F5

SKIP TO F5

SKIP TO F5


F4. Roughly, what was the average annual gross revenue of your company, justconsidering your location, during the most recent three year period?Would you say . . .(READ LIST)

F5. About howmany employees did you have, on average, for all of your locations duringthe most recent three year period? – ONLY ASK IF A5 = 2

F5. RECORD NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES – ONLY ASK IF A5 = 2

F6. Roughly, what was the average annual gross revenue of your company, for all of yourlocations during the most recent three year period? Would you say . . . (READ LIST) – ONLYASK IF A5 = 2


Finally, we're interested in whether your company has experienced barriers ordifficulties associated with starting or expanding a business in your industry or withobtaining work. Think about your experiences in the Seattle Metropolitan area within thepast five years as we ask you these questions.

G1a. Has your company experienced any difficulties in obtaining lines of credit or loans?

G1b. Has your company obtained or tried to obtain a bond for a project?

SKIP TO G1d

SKIP TO G1d

SKIP TO G1

G1c. Has your company experienced any difficulties obtaining bonds needed for aproject?

G1d. Have any insurance requirements on projects presented a barrier to bidding?


G1e. Has the size of projects presented a barrier to bidding?

G1f. Has your company experienced any difficulties learning about bid opportunities withthe Port of Seattle?

G1h. Has your company experienced any difficulties with learning about bidopportunities in the private sector in the Seattle Metropolitan area?

G1i. Has your company experienced any difficulties learning about subcontractingopportunities in the Seattle Metropolitan area?


G1j. Has your company experienced any difficulties receiving payment in a timelymanner?

G2. Finally, we're asking for general insights on starting and expanding a business in yourindustry or winning work in the Seattle Metropolitan area. Do you have any thoughts tooffer on these topics?

G3. Would you be willing to participate in a follow up interview about any of these issues?

H1. Just a few last questions. What is your name?

(RECORD FULL NAME)

H2. What is your position at [firm name / new firm name]?


H2. OTHER SPECIFY

H3. For purposes of receiving information from the Port of Seattle, is your mailingaddress [firm address]:

SKIP TO H5

H4. What mailing address should they use to get any materials to you?

H5. What fax number could the Port of Seattle use to fax any materials to you?

H6. What e mail address could the Port of Seattle use to get any materials to you?

H6. (RECORD EMAIL ADDRESS) (VERIFY ADDRESS LETTER BY LETTER: EXAMPLE:'John@CRI RESEARCH.COM' SHOULD BE VERIFIED AS: J O H N at C R I hyphen R E S E AR C H dot com)

Thank you very much for your participation. If you have any questions, please contactMian Rice at Port of Seattle at 206 787 7951 or via email at [email protected].

BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING—FINAL REPORT APPENDIX E, PAGE 1

APPENDIX E.Entry and Advancement in the SeattleMetropolitan Area Construction andEngineering Industries

Construction Industry

Education.

Race/ethnicity.


Gender.

Apprenticeship and training.

Employment.

areer Guide to Industries.


Figure E 1.Demographics of workers in construction and all industries, 1980, 2000, and 2009 2011

Note: ** Denotes that the difference in proportions between workers in the construction industry and all industries for the given Census/ACS

year is statistically significant at the 95% confidence level.

Source: BBC Research & Consulting from 1980 and 2000 U.S. Census 5% sample and 2009 2011 ACS Public Use Microdata samples. The raw dataextracts were obtained through the IPUMS program of the MN Population Center: http://usa.ipums.org/usa/.

Seattle Metropolitan Area

Race/ethnicityBlack American 4.0 % 5.0 % 5.8 % 2.2% ** 2.9 % ** 3.1 % **Asian Pacific American 3.5 8.5 11.7 0.9 ** 2.8 ** 4.1 **Subcontinent Asian American 0.1 0.7 1.7 0.1 ** 0.1 0.2 **Hispanic American 2.0 4.8 7.9 1.6 6.3 ** 13.3 **Native American 1.0 1.9 1.7 1.1 1.9 2.1Other minority group 0.1 0.6 0.2 0.2 0.7 0.2Total minority 10.7 % 21.5 % 29.2 % 6.1 % 14.5 % 23.0 %

Non Hispanic white 89.3 78.5 70.8 93.9 ** 85.5 ** 77.0 **Total 100.0 % 100.0 % 100.0 % 100.0 % 100.0 % 100.0 %

GenderFemale 41.7 % 45.7 % 46.2 % 8.3 % ** 12.8 % ** 11.8 % **Male 58.3 54.3 53.8 91.7 ** 87.2 ** 88.2 **Total 100.0 % 100.0 % 100.0 % 100.0 % 100.0 % 100.0 %

Washington

Race/ethnicityBlack American 2.5 % 3.4 % 4.0 % 1.4% ** 1.8 % ** 2.0 % **Asian Pacific American 2.4 5.9 8.0 0.5 ** 1.9 ** 2.7 **Subcontinent Asian American 0.1 0.5 1.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 **Hispanic American 2.7 6.4 9.9 2.0 ** 5.7 11.0Native American 1.3 2.3 2.2 1.5 2.7 2.5Other minority group 0.1 0.5 0.2 0.1 0.6 0.3Total minority 9.0 % 19.0 % 25.3 % 5.7 % 12.6 % 18.7 %



United States

Race/ethnicityBlack American 10.1 % 10.9 % 11.9 % 7.4 % ** 6.2 % ** 6.0 % **Asian Pacific American 1.4 3.4 4.3 0.6 ** 1.2 ** 1.6 **Subcontinent Asian American 0.2 0.7 1.1 0.1 ** 0.2 ** 0.3 **Hispanic American 5.7 10.7 15.4 5.9 ** 15.0 ** 23.8 **Native American 0.6 1.2 1.1 0.9 ** 1.6 ** 1.3 **Other minority group 0.1 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.4 0.2Total minority 18.1 % 27.3 % 34.1 % 14.9 % 24.5 % 33.2 %



All industries Construction

All industries Construction

2009 111980 2000 2009 11 1980 2000(n=6,938)(n= 99,341) (n=7,147) (n=10,598)(n=148,859) (n=102,372)

1980(n=5,287,471)

2000(n=6,832,970)

2009 11(n=1,521,561)

1980(n=330,464) (n=480,280) (n=98,508)

2000 2009 11

All industries Construction1980 2000 2009 11 1980 2000 2009 11

(n=3,423)(n= 53,471) (n=74,555) (n=53,463) (n=3,441) (n=5,076)


Race/ethnicity.

Gender.

Politics & Society


Academic research concerning the affect of race and gender based discrimination.

Importance of unions to entry in the construction industry.

Journal of Career Development

Feminist Economics

Politics & Society


Ibid

Ibid

UnitedSteelworkers of America v. Weber Taylor v. United States Department of Labor

Social Problems


Education& Training,

International Journal of Manpower

Journalof Labor Research, 57(1).


Advancement.

Racial/ethnic composition of construction occupations.

BBC

FiguMinSea

Note

Sourc

C RESEARCH & C

ure E 2.norities as a pattle Metropo

e: ** Denotes thatstatistically sign

Crane and toweoperators; and

ce: BBC Research &the IPUMS prog

CONSULTING—F

percentage ofolitan Area, 20

t the difference in prnificant at the 95% co

er operators; dredge,miscellaneous const

& Consulting from 20gram of the MN Popu

INAL REPORT

selected cons000

roportions betweenonfidence level.

, excavating and loadruction equipment o

000 U.S. Census 5% saulation Center: http:/

struction occu

all workers in the co

ding machine and draoperators were comb

ample Public Use Mi//usa.ipums.org/usa

upations in th

nstruction industry a

agline operators; pavbined into the single

cro sample data. Thea/.

he

and those in specific

ving, surfacing and tcategory of equipme

e raw data extract w

APPENDIX E, PA

occupations is

amping equipmentent operators.

was obtained through

AGE 9

h

BBC

FiguMinAre

Note

Sourc

C RESEARCH & C

ure E 3.norities as a pea, 2009 2011



ce: BBC Research &program of the

CONSULTING—F

percentage of1



& Consulting from 20MN Population Cent

INAL REPORT

selected cons

roportions betweenonfidence level.


009 2011 American Cter: http://usa.ipums

struction occu



Community Survey das.org/usa/.

upations in th



ata. The raw data ext

A

he Seattle Met



tract was obtained t

APPENDIX E, PAG

tropolitan

occupations is


hrough the IPUMS

GE 10


Gender composition of construction occupations.

BBC

FiguWoMe

Note

Sourc

C RESEARCH & C

ure E 4.omen as a peretropolitan Ar



ce: BBC Research &the IPUMS prog

CONSULTING—F

centage of coea, 2000



& Consulting from 20gram of the MN Popu

INAL REPORT

onstruction wo

roportions between aonfidence level.


000 U.S. Census 5% saulation Center: http:/

orkers in selec



ample Public Use Mi//usa.ipums.org/usa

cted occupati



cro sample data. Thea/.

A

ions in the Se


ving, surfacing and tacategory of equipme

e raw data extract w

APPENDIX E, PAG

attle

occupations is


was obtained through

GE 12

h

BBC

FiguWoMe

Note

Sourc

C RESEARCH & C

ure E 5.omen as a peretropolitan Ar




CONSULTING—F

centage of coea, 2009 2011




INAL REPORT

onstruction wo1

roportions between aonfidence level.



orkers in selec




cted occupati




A

ions in the Se




APPENDIX E, PAG

attle

occupations is


hrough the IPUMS

GE 13


Percentage of minorities and women who are managers.

Racial/ethnic composition of managers.

Gender composition of managers.

Engineering Industry

Education.


Figure E 6.Percentage of constructionworkers who worked as amanager, 1980, 2000, and2009 2011

Note:

** Denotes that the difference inproportions between the minoritygroup and non Hispanic whites (orbetween females and males) for thegiven Census/ACS year is statisticallysignificant at the 95% confidence level.

Source:

BBC Research & Consulting from the2000 U.S. Census 5% sample and 20092011 ACS Public Use Microdatasamples. The raw data extracts wereobtained through the IPUMS programof the MN Population Center:http://usa.ipums.org/usa/.

Social Problems


Race/ethnicityBlack American 5.3 % 1.9 % ** 6.5 %Asian Pacific American 3.2 6.0 7.1Subcontinent Asian American 0.0 0.0 0.0Hispanic American 5.6 1.2 ** 2.2 **Native American 2.6 7.5 8.5Other minority group 0.0 8.8 0.0Non Hispanic white 5.6 10.3 11.2

GenderFemale 7.4 % 5.4 % ** 6.0 % **Male 5.4 9.8 10.1All individuals 5.5 % 9.3 % 9.6 %

Washington

Race/ethnicityBlack American 5.0 % 1.9 % ** 5.3 %Asian Pacific American 2.6 5.5 5.6 **Subcontinent Asian American 0.0 0.0 0.0Hispanic American 2.8 1.9 ** 1.9 **Native American 1.9 ** 4.3 5.1 **Other minority group 0.0 8.4 0.0Non Hispanic white 5.2 9.2 10.3

GenderFemale 6.4 % 4.7 % ** 5.2 % **Male 4.9 8.9 9.5All individuals 10.1 % 8.4 % 9.0 %

United States

Race/ethnicityBlack American 1.5 % ** 3.1 % ** 4.2 % **Asian Pacific American 4.2 7.7 7.4 **Subcontinent Asian American 5.7 11.7 8.1Hispanic American 2.0 ** 2.5 ** 2.7 **Native American 2.5 ** 4.6 ** 5.7 **Other minority group 4.8 6.2 5.2Non Hispanic white 4.9 7.5 8.7

GenderFemale 5.7 % ** 4.1 % ** 5.0 % **Male 4.4 6.7 7.1All individuals 4.5 % 6.5 % 6.9 %

1980 2000 2009 2011

1980 2000 2009 2011

1980 2000 2009 2011


Figure E 7.Percentage of all workers 25 andolder with at least a four yeardegree, 2000 and 2009 2011

Note:

** Denotes that the difference in proportionsbetween the minority and non Hispanic whitegroups (or female and male gender groups) for thegiven Census/ACS year is statistically significant atthe 95% confidence level.

Source:

BBC Research & Consulting from 2000 U.S. Census5% sample and 2009 2011 ACS Public Use Microsample data. The raw data extracts were obtainedthrough the IPUMS program of the MN PopulationCenter: http://usa.ipums.org/usa/.


Race/ethnicityBlack American 24.1 % ** 25.4 % **Asian Pacific American 41.4 44.9Subcontinent Asian American 65.5 ** 77.6 **Hispanic American 19.6 ** 19.0 **Native American 21.9 ** 25.7 **Other minority group 30.9 36.6Non Hispanic white 39.0 43.0

GenderFemale 36.7 % ** 41.4 % **Male 38.2 40.3

Washington

Race/ethnicityBlack American 24.5 % ** 26.2 % **Asian Pacific American 39.7 ** 42.9 **Subcontinent Asian American 64.7 ** 76.4 **Hispanic American 12.8 ** 13.7 **Native American 17.7 ** 21.1 **Other minority group 27.2 33.4Non Hispanic white 33.7 36.9


United States

Race/ethnicityBlack American 19.1 % ** 23.1 % **Asian Pacific American 45.4 ** 48.9 **Subcontinent Asian American 68.4 ** 74.2 **Hispanic American 13.4 ** 15.5 **Native American 17.3 ** 20.6 **Other minority group 30.0 ** 37.2Non Hispanic white 32.5 36.9


2000 2009 2011

2000 2009 2011

2000 2009 2011


Race/ethnicity.

—

Gender.

Additional indices of educational attainment.

Reading.

Mathematics.


College readiness.

College participation.

Engineering related degrees.

Engineering Industry Employment.


Figure E 8.Demographic distribution of engineering related workers and workers 25 and olderwith a four year college degree in all industries, 1980, 2000, and 2009 2011

Note: ** Denotes that the difference in proportions between engineers and workers in all industry groups for the given Census/ACS year is

statistically significant at the 95% confidence level.

The engineering–related industry in 2000 and 2009 2011 is “architectural, engineering, and related services,” and in 1980 is “engineering,architectural and surveying services.” Though closely related, the groups are not exactly comparable.

Source: BBC Research & Consulting from 1980 and 2000 U.S. Census 5% sample and 2009 2011 ACS Public Use Micro sample data. The raw dataextracts were obtained through the IPUMS program of the MN Population Center: http://usa.ipums.org/usa/.


Race/ethnicity

# Black American 2.0 % 3.1 % 3.4 % 1.0 % ** 1.6 % 1.2 % **

# Asian Pacific American 4.9 9.2 12.9 6.9 9.8 9.7 **

# Subcontinent Asian American 0.2 1.2 3.4 0.2 1.1 1.0 **

# Hispanic American 1.2 2.2 3.4 1.0 2.5 4.6

# Native American 0.3 1.1 1.1 0.6 0.6 0.7

# Other minority group 0.1 0.5 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.3

Total minority 8.8 % 17.2 % 24.4 % 10.0 % 16.0 % 17.5 %

# Non Hispanic white 91.2 82.8 75.6 90.0 84.0 82.5 **

7 Total 100.0 % 100.0 % 100.0 % 100.0 % 100.0 % 100.0 %

Gender

8 Female 33.7 % 44.3 % 46.4 % 21.4 % ** 31.7 %** 32.6 % **

9 Male 66.3 55.7 53.6 78.6 ** 68.3 ** 67.4 **

Total 100.0 % 100.0 % 100.0 % 100.0 % 100.0 % 100.0 %

Washington

Race/ethnicity

# Black American 1.5 % 2.4 % 2.8 % 0.9 % 1.1 %** 1.3 % **

# Asian Pacific American 3.6 7.1 9.9 5.6 ** 7.1 7.4 **

# Subcontinent Asian American 0.2 1.0 2.4 0.1 1.0 0.9 **

# Hispanic American 1.2 2.2 3.5 1.1 2.7 4.2

# Native American 0.5 1.2 1.3 0.9 1.1 1.5

# Other minority group 0.1 0.4 0.2 0.5 0.4 0.3

Total minority 7.1 % 14.4 % 20.0 % 9.3 % 13.4 % 15.7 %

# Non Hispanic white 92.9 85.6 80.0 90.7 ** 86.6 84.3 **

7 Total 100.0 % 100.0 % 100.0 % 100.0 % 100.0 % 100.0 %

Gender

8 Female 33.0 % 44.5 % 46.6 % 20.8 % ** 28.5 %** 29.4 % **

9 Male 67.0 55.5 53.4 79.2 ** 71.5 ** 70.6 **

Total 100.0 % 100.0 % 100.0 % 100.0 % 100.0 % 100.0 %

United States

Race/ethnicity# Black American 5.3 % 6.8 % 8.1 % 3.1 % ** 4.2 %** 4.7 % **# Asian Pacific American 2.7 5.2 6.6 2.8 4.6 ** 6.0 **# Subcontinent Asian American 0.6 1.7 2.7 1.1 ** 1.3 ** 1.8 **# Hispanic American 2.5 4.4 6.9 3.5 ** 5.5 ** 7.6 **# Native American 0.3 0.7 0.7 0.3 ** 0.7 0.8# Other minority group 0.1 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.4 0.2

Total minority 11.4 % 19.1 % 25.2 % 10.9 % 16.7 % 21.3 %

# Non Hispanic white 88.6 80.9 74.8 88.9 83.3 ** 78.7 **Total 100.0 % 100.0 % 100.0 % 99.8 % 100.0 % 100.0 %

Gender8 Female 34.7 % 45.6 % 48.8 % 21.1 % ** 26.0 %** 27.1 % **9 Male 65.3 54.4 51.2 78.9 ** 74.0 ** 72.9 **

Total 100.0 % 100.0 % 100.0 % 100.0 % 100.0 % 100.0 %

(n=1,306)

Workers 25+ with college degree Engineering industry workforce1980 2000 2009 11 1980 2000 2009 11

(n=18,139) (n=38,976) (n=32,701) (n=744) (n=1,745)

(n=15,919)


(n=858,511) (n=1,631,919) (n=452,049) (n=28,869) (n=58,221)


(n=741)(n=11,042) (n=23,656) (n=20,211) (n=481) (n=994)


Race/ethnicity.

Gender.

Civil Engineering Employment.


Figure E 9.Demographics of civil engineers and workers 25 and older with a college degree,1980, 2000, and 2009 2011

Note: ** Denotes that the difference in proportions between civil engineers and workers 25+ with a college degree for the given Census/ACSyear is statistically significant at the 95% confidence level.

Source: BBC Research & Consulting from the 1980 and 2000 U.S. Census 5% sample s and 2009 2011 ACS Public Use Micro sample data. The rawdata extracts were obtained through the IPUMS program of the MN Population Center: http://usa.ipums.org/usa/.


Race/ethnicity# Black American 2.0 % 3.1 % 3.4 % 1.4 % 3.2 % 3.5 %# Asian Pacific American 4.9 9.2 12.9 5.8 14.1 13.2# Subcontinent Asian American 0.2 1.2 3.4 0.7 1.1 3.0# Hispanic American 1.2 2.2 3.4 1.4 2.5 6.2# Native American 0.3 1.1 1.1 0.0 0.6 2.3# Other minority group 0.1 0.5 0.2 0.0 0.7 0.0

Total minority 8.8 % 17.2 % 24.4 % 9.4 % 22.1 % 28.3 %

# Non Hispanic white 91.2 82.8 75.6 90.6 77.9 71.77 Total 100.0 % 100.0 % 100.0 % 100.0 % 100.0 % 100.0 %

Gender8 Female 33.7 % 44.3 % 46.4 % 4.3 % ** 18.1 % ** 17.5 % **9 Male 66.3 55.7 53.6 95.7 ** 81.9 ** 82.5 **

Total 100.0 % 100.0 % 100.0 % 100.0 % 100.0 % 100.0 %

Washington

Race/ethnicity

# Black American 1.5 % 2.4 % 2.8 % 0.7 % 2.3 % 2.4 %

# Asian Pacific American 3.6 7.1 9.9 4.5 9.4 9.9

# Subcontinent Asian American 0.2 1.0 2.4 0.7 0.8 2.2

# Hispanic American 1.2 2.2 3.5 0.7 3.2 5.9 **

# Native American 0.5 1.2 1.3 1.1 1.2 2.6# Other minority group 0.1 0.4 0.2 0.0 0.4 0.0

Total minority 7.1 % 14.4 % 20.0 % 7.9 % 17.4 % 23.1 %

# Non Hispanic white 92.9 85.6 80.0 92.1 82.6 76.97 Total 100.0 % 100.0 % 100.0 % 100.0 % 100.0 % 100.0 %

Gender8 Female 33.0 % 44.5 % 46.6 % 4.5 % ** 14.4 % ** 15.7 % **9 Male 67.0 55.5 53.4 95.5 ** 85.6 ** 84.3 **

Total 100.0 % 100.0 % 100.0 % 100.0 % 100.0 % 100.0 %

United States

Race/ethnicity

# Black American 5.3 % 6.8 % 8.1 % 2.5 % ** 3.7 % ** 4.4 % **

# Asian Pacific American 2.7 5.2 6.6 4.0 ** 6.2 ** 8.6 **

# Subcontinent Asian American 0.6 1.7 2.7 2.0 ** 2.6 ** 3.1

# Hispanic American 2.5 4.4 6.9 2.9 ** 4.4 6.0

# Native American 0.3 0.7 0.7 0.3 0.8 0.8

# Other minority group 0.1 0.4 0.2 0.2 ** 0.4 0.7 **Total minority 11.4 % 19.1 % 25.2 % 11.8 % 18.2 % 23.7 %

# Non Hispanic white 88.6 80.9 74.8 88.2 81.8 76.3Total 100.0 % 100.0 % 100.0 % 100.0 % 100.0 % 100.0 %

Gender

8 Female 34.7 % 45.6 % 48.8 % 3.0 % ** 10.3 % ** 13.5 % **

9 Male 65.3 54.4 51.2 97.0 ** 89.7 ** 86.5 **Total 100.0 % 100.0 % 100.0 % 100.0 % 100.0 % 100.0 %

(n=3,295)(n=858,511) (n=1,631,919) (n=452,049) (n=10,088) (n=12,912)

Workers 25+ with college degree Civil engineering workforce1980 2000 2009 11 1980 2000 2009 11


(n=358)(n=18,139) (n=38,976) (n=32,701) (n=267) (n=437)


(n=204)(n=11,042) (n=23,656) (n=20,211) (n=139) (n=253)


Summary

BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING— FINAL REPORT APPENDIX F, PAGE 1

APPENDIX F.Business Ownership in the SeattleMetropolitan Area Construction andEngineering Industries

Business Ownership Rates

Construction industry.

Ethnicity and Entrepreneurship.Ethnic and Racial Self Employment Differences and Possible

Explanations. Whyare Black Owned Businesses Less Successful than White Owned Businesses? The Role of Families, Inheritances and BusinessHuman Capital. Race, Familiesand Business Success: A Comparison of African American , Asian , and White Owned Businesses.


Figure F 1.Percentage of workers in the construction industry who were self employed,1990, 2000, and 2009 2011

Note: Other race minority includes Subcontinent Asian Americans.

*, ** Denotes that the difference in proportions between the minority and non Hispanic white groups (or female and male groups) forthe given Census/ACS year is statistically significant at the 90% or 95% confidence level, respectively.

Source: BBC Research & Consulting from 1990 and 2000 U.S. Census 5% sample and 2009 2011 ACS Public Use Microdata samples. The rawdata extract was obtained through the IPUMS program of the MN Population Center: http://usa.ipums.org/usa/.


Race/ethnicity

Black American 5.8 % ** 8.1 % ** 15.6 % 79 128 76

Asian Pacific American 18.3 21.5 22.6 66 143 131

Hispanic American 9.1 ** 8.9 ** 12.0 ** 79 322 359

Native American 6.6 ** 16.9 10.8 ** 80 115 67

Other race minority 0.0 4.3 ** 26.8 6 37 13

Non Hispanic white 18.0 21.0 21.5 3,711 4,332 2,777

Gender

Female 14.9 % 12.4 % ** 13.9 % ** 483 651 430

Male 17.6 20.7 20.7 3,538 4,426 2,993

All individuals 17.3 % 19.7 % 19.9 % 4,021 5,077 3,423

Washington

Race/ethnicity

Black American 5.8 % ** 7.8 % ** 13.9 % * 97 157 102


Hispanic American 7.0 ** 9.1 ** 13.3 ** 163 566 570

Native American 8.8 ** 12.9 ** 8.3 ** 179 366 195

Other race minority 0.0 11.9 30.8 9 66 24


Gender

Female 16.6 % 16.1 % ** 15.9 % ** 883 1,228 850

Male 18.4 22.0 21.0 6,913 9,376 6,088

All individuals 18.2 % 21.3 % 20.4 % 7,796 10,604 6,938

United States

Race/ethnicity

Black American 10.5 % ** 15.2 % ** 18.9 % ** 25,166 26,752 4,847

Asian Pacific American 14.5 ** 21.3 ** 25.0 * 3,889 5,297 1,488

Hispanic American 11.1 ** 12.2 ** 17.4 ** 36,411 66,531 18,084

Native American 12.6 ** 19.2 ** 18.0 ** 4,397 8,089 1,580

Other race minority 11.3 ** 22.2 * 24.7 844 2,648 416


Gender

Female 13.5 % ** 16.8 % ** 16.4 % ** 39,376 46,791 9,567

Male 19.7 23.3 25.2 370,676 433,678 88,941

All individuals 19.1 % 22.6 % 24.4 % 410,052 480,469 98,508

1990 2000 2009 2011200019902009 2011Sample sizeSelf Employment Rate

1990 2000 1990 2000 2009 20112009 2011Sample sizeSelf Employment Rate

Sample size1990 2000 2009 2011 1990 2000 2009 2011

Self Employment Rate


Business ownership rates in 2000.

Changes in business ownership rates since 2000.


Engineering industry.

Figure F 2.Percentage of workers in the engineering industry who were self employed,1990, 2000, and 2009 2011

Note: Other race minority includes Black Americans, Subcontinent Asian Americans, Hispanic Americans, Native Americans and other minorities.

*, ** Denotes that the difference in proportions between the minority and non Hispanic white groups (or female and male groups) for thegiven Census/ACS year is statistically significant at the 90% or 95% confidence level, respectively.

Source: BBC Research & Consulting from 1990 and 2000 U.S. Census 5% sample and 2009 2011 ACS Public Use Microdata samples. The raw dataextract was obtained through the IPUMS program of the MN Population Center: http://usa.ipums.org/usa/.


Race/ethnicity


Other race minority 18.4 7.4 9.9 27 61 46

Non Hispanic white 14.7 13.8 17.6 487 840 613

Gender

Female 7.6 % ** 6.6 % ** 10.3 % ** 152 322 249

Male 17.4 15.5 19.3 392 672 492

All individuals 14.7 % 12.7 % 16.4 % 544 994 741

Washington

Race/ethnicity

Asian Pacific American 9.8 5.9 * 9.4 33 117 109

Other race minority 20.1 6.9 7.3 ** 39 108 96

Non Hispanic white 13.8 13.8 13.5 728 1,520 1,155

Gender

Female 6.6 % ** 7.0 % ** 8.7 % ** 208 497 412

Male 16.5 15.1 14.4 592 1,248 948

All individuals 13.9 % 12.8 % 12.7 % 800 1,745 1,360

United States

Race/ethnicity

Asian Pacific American 10.0 ** 8.5 ** 8.3 ** 1,249 2,620 876

Other race minority 9.9 ** 7.6 ** 7.2 ** 2,846 6,781 2,084


Gender

Female 6.8 % ** 7.5 % ** 7.1 % ** 7,901 15,191 4,369

Male 17.7 15.1 13.8 25,138 43,033 12,101

All individuals 15.1 % 13.2 % 12.1 % 33,039 58,224 16,470

1990 2000 2009 2011 2009 20111990 2000Sample sizeSelf Employment Rate

1990 2000 2009 2011 1990 2000Sample size

2009 2011Self Employment Rate

Sample size1990 2000 2009 2011 1990 2000 2009 2011

Self Employment Rate


Business ownership rates in 2000.

Changes in business ownership rates since 2000.

Potential causes of differences in business ownership rates.

Hispanic Self Employment: A Dynamic Analysis of Business Ownership.

Race, Families and Business Success: A Comparison of African American , Asian , and White Owned Businesses.


Business Ownership Regression Analysis

Hispanic Self Employment: A Dynamic Analysis of Business Ownership.

Ethnic and Racial Self Employment Differences and Possible Explanations.Ethnicity and

Entrepreneurship in America: Toward an Explanation of Racial and Ethnic Group Variations in Self Employment.

Race, Families and Business Success: A Comparison of African American ,Asian , and White Owned Businesses. Why are BlackOwned Businesses Less Successful than White Owned Businesses? The Role of Families, Inheritances and Business Human Capital.

Ethnic and Racial Self Employment Differences and Possible Explanations.Ethnicity and

Entrepreneurship in America: Toward an Explanation of Racial and Ethnic Group Variations in Self Employment.


—

—

Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Availability Study

Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Availability Study



Construction industry in 2000.

Simulations of business ownership rates.


Figure F 3.Seattle Metropolitan Areaconstruction industry businessownership model, 2000

Note:

Other race minority includes Subcontinent AsianAmericans.

*,** Denote statistical significance at the 90% and 95%confidence levels, respectively.

Source:

BBC Research & Consulting from 2000 Census data. Theraw data extract was obtained through the IPUMS programof the MN Population Center: http://usa.ipums.org/usa/.

—

Variable

Constant 3.0748 **

Age 0.0553 **

Age squared 0.0003 *

Married 0.0158

Disabled 0.0589

Number of children in household 0.0766 **

Number of people over 65 in household 0.1527 *

Owns home 0.1321

Home value ($000s) 0.0014 **

Monthly mortgage payment ($000s) 0.0086

Interest and dividend income ($000s) 0.0049 **

Income of spouse or partner ($000s) 0.0012

Speaks English well 0.3960 **

Less than high school education 0.1041

Some college 0.0511

Four year degree 0.1696 **

Advanced degree 0.0182

Hispanic American 0.1043

Black American 0.3504 *

Native American 0.0444

Asian Pacific American 0.0734

Other race minority 0.9032 *

Female 0.4651 **

Coefficient


Figure F 4.Comparison of actual business ownership rates to simulated ratesfor Seattle Metropolitan Area construction workers, 2000

Note: As the benchmark figure can only be estimated for records with an observed (rather than imputed)dependent variable, comparison is made with only this subset of the sample. For this reason, actual selfemployment rates may differ slightly from those in Figure F 1.

Other race minority includes Subcontinent Asian Americans.

Source: BBC Research & Consulting from statistical models of 2000 Census data. The raw data extract wasobtained through the IPUMS program of the MN Population Center: http://usa.ipums.org/usa/.

Construction industry in 2009 through 2011.

Group


Other race minority 3.2% 16.6% 19


(100 = parity)Disparity indexSelf employment rate

Actual Benchmark


Figure F 5.Seattle Metropolitan Area constructionindustry business ownership model,2009 2011

Note:

Other race minority includes Subcontinent Asian Americans.


Source:

BBC Research & Consulting from 2009 2011 ACS data. The rawdata extract was obtained through the IPUMS program of theMN Population Center: http://usa.ipums.org/usa/.


Figure F 6.Comparison of actual business ownership rates to simulated ratesfor Seattle Metropolitan Area construction workers, 2009 2011

Note: As the benchmark figure can only be estimated for records with an observed (rather than imputed)dependent variable, comparison is made with only this subset of the sample. For this reason, actual selfemployment rates may differ slightly from those in Figure F 1.


Variable

Constant 2.3850 **

Age 0.0662 **

Age squared 0.0005 **

Married 0.0876

Disabled 0.0848

Number of children in household 0.0392

Number of people over 65 in household 0.1504

Owns home 0.1766 *

Home value ($000s) 0.0003 **

Monthly mortgage payment ($000s) 0.0833 **

Interest and dividend income ($000s) 0.0026


Speaks English well 0.3604 *


Some college 0.0270

Four year degree 0.0294


Hispanic American 0.2594 *

African American 0.0337

Native American 0.3516


Other race minority (incl subcont asian) 0.3147

Female 0.3713 **

Coefficient

Group



Self employment rate Disparity indexActual Benchmark (100 = parity)



Engineering industry in 2000.



Figure F 7.Seattle Metropolitan Area engineeringindustry business ownership model,2000

Note:

Other race minority includes Black Americans,Subcontinent Asian Americans, Hispanic Americans, NativeAmericans and other minorities.


“Speaks English Well” was excluded from the modelbecause all engineering business owners spoke Englishwell.

Source:

BBC Research & Consulting from 2000 Census data. Theraw data extract was obtained through the IPUMS programof the MN Population Center: http://usa.ipums.org/usa/.

Figure F 8.Comparison of actual business ownership rates to simulated ratesfor Seattle Metropolitan Area workers in the engineering industry, 2000

Note: As the benchmark figure can only be estimated for records with an observed (rather than imputed)dependent variable, comparison is made with only this subset of the sample. For this reason, actualself employment rates may differ slightly from those in Figure F 2.

Source: BBC Research & Consulting from statistical models of 2000 Census data. The raw data extract wasobtained through the IPUMS program of the MN Population Center: http://usa.ipums.org/usa/.

Engineering industry in 2009 through 2011.

Variable

Constant 4.6570 **

Age 0.0949 **

Age squared 0.0008 *

Disabled 0.3255

Married 0.2146


Number of people over 65 in household 0.3197 **

Owns home 0.1184

Home value ($000s) 0.0012 **


Interest and dividend income ($000s) 0.0042


Speaks English well


Some college 0.6483

Four year degree 0.8631 *



Other race minority 0.1212

Female 0.3298 **

Coefficient

excluded

Group




Figure F 9.Seattle Metropolitan Area engineeringindustry business ownership model,2009 2011

Note:

Other race minority includes Black Americans, SubcontinentAsian Americans, Hispanic Americans, Native Americans andother minorities.


“Less than High School” was excluded from the modelbecause only one engineering business owners had notcompleted high school.

Source:

BBC Research & Consulting from 2009 2011 ACS data. The rawdata extract was obtained through the IPUMS program of theMN Population Center: http://usa.ipums.org/usa/.


Figure F 10.Comparison of actual business ownership rates to simulated rates forSeattle Metropolitan Area workers in the engineering industry, 2009 2011

Note: As the benchmark figure can only be estimated for records with an observed (rather than imputed)dependent variable, comparison is made with only this subset of the sample. For this reason, actualself employment rates may differ slightly from those in Figure F 2.


Variable

Constant 2.4936 *

Age 0.0778 *

Age squared 0.0005

Disabled 0.1145

Married 0.1702


Number of people over 65 in household 0.0551

Owns home 0.0953

Home value ($000s) 0.0002


Interest and dividend income ($000s) 0.0108 **


Speaks English well 1.5775 **

Less than high school education

Some college 0.4099




Other race minority 0.3814

Female 0.4111 **

excluded

Coefficient

Group




Summary

BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING— FINAL REPORT APPENDIX G, PAGE 1

APPENDIX G.Access to Capital for Business Formationand Success

Race and Entrepreneurial Success

Ibid.



Homeownership and Mortgage Lending

Homeownership.

Homeownership rates.

California Building Industry Association.

Social Forces.

Journal of Banking and Finance.

Journal ofBusiness.

The American Economic Review

Signs.

BBC

FiguHomrate200

Note

The shous

** Dediffefromfor thstatisthe 9

Sourc

BBCfrom2009raw dobtaIPUMPopuhttp:

C RESEARCH & C

ure G 1.meownershipes, 2000 and09 2011

e:

sample universe is aleholds.

enotes that therence in proportionsnon Hispanic whitehe given year isstically significant at95% confidence level

ce:

Research & Consultin2000 U.S. Census an

9 2011 ACS data. Thedata extract wasined through theMS program of the Mulation Center://usa.ipums.org/usa

CONSULTING—

p

l

s

.

ngnde

N

a/.

FINAL REPORTT AAPPENDIX G, PAAGE 3


Home values.

BBC

FiguMe

Note

Sourc

Mo

C RESEARCH & C

ure G 2.edian home va

e: The sample univ

ce: BBC Research &Population Cen

ortgage lend

CONSULTING—

alues, 2000

verse is all owner oc

& Consulting from 20ter: http://usa.ipum

ding.

FINAL REPORT

ccupied housing units

000 U.S. Census data.s.org/usa/.

T

s.

. The raw data extracct was obtained thro

A

ough the IPUMS prog

NYTimes.c

APPENDIX G, PA

gram of the MN

com

AGE 5

BBC

FiguMe

Note

Sourc

C RESEARCH & C

ure G 3.edian home va

e: The sample univ


CONSULTING—

alues, 2009 20

verse is all owner oc


FINAL REPORT

011

ccupied housing units


T

s.



A


APPENDIX G, PA

hrough the IPUMS

AGE 6


Mortgage denials.

Federal Reserve Bulletin

BBC

FiguDenconpurhighou200201

Note

Highthosemoremedi

Sourc

FFIECand 2

Add

C RESEARCH & C

ure G 4.nial rates ofnventionalrchase loans th incomeuseholds,06, 2009, and12

e:

income borrowers ae households with 12e than the HUD areaian family income (M

ce:

C HMDA data 2006, 22012.

ditional resea

The Am

CONSULTING—

to

are20% or

MFI).

2009

arch.

merican Economic

FINAL REPORT

Review

T

The Journal of

A

of Economic Persp

APPENDIX G, PA

pectives

AGE 8


Subprime lending.

Closed Doors, Opportunities Lost: The Continuing Costs of Housing Discrimination

Southern Economic Journal

American Journal of Economics and Sociology


Subprime home purchase loans.

Federal Reserve Bank of Boston

BBC

FiguPerconpurwe200201

Sourc

FFIECand 2

C RESEARCH & C

ure G 5.rcent ofnventional horchase loans tre subprime,06, 2009, and12

ce:

C HMDA data 2006, 22012.

CONSULTING—

methat

2009

FINAL REPORTT AAPPENDIX G, PAGGE 11

BBC

Sub

FiguPerconrefiwe200201

Sourc

FFIECand 2

C RESEARCH & C

bprime refin

ure G 6.rcent ofnventionalinance loans tre subprime,06, 2009, and12

ce:

C HMDA data 2006, 22012.

CONSULTING—

ance loans.

that

2009

FINAL REPORTT AAPPENDIX G, PAGGE 12


Additional research.

Implications of the recent mortgage lending crisis.

HUD Fannie MaeFoundation

Freddie Mac.Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco


Ibid.

Federal Reserve Bank of Boston

Testimony before the Committee on Small Business,U.S. House of Representative on November 20

Presented at the Federal Reserve Meeting Series:Addressing the Financing Needs of Small Businesses on July 12.


—

Redlining.

——

Annals of the Association of American Geographers.

The Journal of Economic Perspectives.

The Journal of Finance.


Steering by real estate agents.

Gender discrimination in mortgage lending.

Access to Business Capital

Economic Geography.

The American Economic Review


Pacific region


Center for Policy Research, Syracuse University.

BBC

Loa

FiguBusden199

Note

** Dediffefrommalestatisthe 9

Sourc

BBCCons2003Busin

Oth

C RESEARCH & C

an denial ra

ure G 7.siness loannial rates,98 and 2003

e:

enotes that therence in proportionnon Hispanic white

e owned businesses istically significant at95% confidence level

ce:

Research &ulting from 1998 and3 Survey of Smallness Finances.

her researche

CONSULTING—

ates.

s

.

d

ers’ regressio

Journal

FINAL REPORT

on analyses of

l of Business.

T

f loan denial rates.

AAPPENDIX G, PAGGE 18


BBC regression model for denial rates.

The Journal of Business and Entrepreneurship.

FEDS WorkingPaper No. 2002 35.

The Review of Economics and Statistics.

Prepared for Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority.


1998 SSBF regression results.

?” Center for Policy Research, Syracuse University

The Review of Economics and StatisticsPrepared for the City of Austin, Texas

Prepared for Santa ClaraValley Transportation Authority.

BBCRE

SEAR

CH&CO

NSU

LTING—

FINAL

REPO

RTAP

PENDIXG,

PAGE

21

Figure

G8.

Likelih

oodof

busine

ssloan

denial(probitregression)

intheU.S.inthe19

98SSBF

,De

pend

entv

ariable:loan

denial

Note:

*Statisticallysig

nificanta

t90%

confiden

celevel.

**Statisticallysig

nificanta

t95%

confiden

celevel.

Fore

aseof

interpretatio

nthemarginaleffe

ctso

fthe

prob

itcoefficientsa

redisplayedinthefigure.Significanceiscalculated

usingtstatisticsfromtheprob

itcoefficientsa

ssociatedwith

themarginaleffe

cts.

"NativeAm

erican

orothe

rminority

"and

"Miningindu

stry"p

erfectlypred

ictedloan

outcom

eandwereexclud

edfrom

thefin

alregressio

n.

Source:

BBCRe

search

&Co

nsultin

ganalysisof

1998

SSBF

data.

Race/ethnicity

andgend

erFirm

'scharacteristics,cred

itandfin

ancialhealth

Firm

andlend

eren

vironm

enta

ndloan

characteristics

African

American

0.357

**D&

Bcred

itscore=mod

eraterisk

0.09

4Partne

rship

0.01

5AsianAm

erican

0.015

D&Bcred

itscore=averagerisk

0.11

0Scorporation

0.02

2HispanicAm

erican

0.213

**D&

Bcred

itscore=sig

nificantrisk

0.06

3Ccorporation

0.03

0Female

0.024

D&Bcred

itscore=high

risk

0.06

6Co

nstructio

nindu

stry

0.098

**Pacific

region

0.012

Totalemployees

0.00

0Manufacturin

gindu

stry

0.005

African

American

inPacific

region

0.064

Percen

tofb

usinesso

wne

dby

principal

0.000

Transportatio

n,commun

ications

AsianAm

erican

inPacific

region

0.041

Family

owne

dbu

siness

0.076

**andutilitie

sind

ustry

0.074

HispanicAm

erican

inPacific

region

0.008

Firm

purchased

0.03

9Finance,insuranceand

FemaleinPacific

region

0.093

Firm

inhe

rited

0.02

2realestate

indu

strie

s0.02

2

Firm

age

0.00

2Engine

eringindu

stry

0.12

2Owne

r'scharacteristics,cred

itandresources

Firm

hasc

heckingaccoun

t0.030

Other

indu

stry

0.03

5Ag

e0.002

*Firm

hassavings

accoun

t0.029

Herfindahlinde

x=.10to

.18

0.39

0**

Owne

rexperience

0.001

Firm

haslineof

cred

it0.124

**He

rfindahlinde

x=.18or

above

0.36

9**

Lessthan

high

scho

oled

ucation

0.075

Existingcapitalleases

0.00

8LocatedinMSA

0.006

Somecollege

0.017

Existingmortgageforb

usiness

0.04

5*

Salesm

arketlocalon

ly0.02

1Four

year

degree

0.061

**Existingvehicleloans

0.06

7**

Loan

amou

nt0.00

0Ad

vanced

degree

0.043

Existingeq

uipm

entloans

0.05

6**

Capitallease

application

0.02

4Logof

HomeEq

uity

0.010

**Existingloansfrom

stockholde

rs0.111

**Bu

sinessm

ortgageapplication

0.06

6**

Bankruptcy

inpast7years

0.315

**Other

existingloans

0.01

0Ve

hicleloan

application

0.09

3**

Judgem

enta

gainstinpast3years

0.228

**Firm

used

tradecred

itinpastyear

0.038

Equipm

entloanapplication

0.07

2**

Logof

netw

orth

exclud

ingho

me

0.001

Logof

totalsales

inpriory

ear

0.00

0Loan

foro

ther

purposes

0.03

6Owne

rhas

negativene

tworth

0.025

Negativesalesinpriory

ear

0.07

3Logof

costof

doingbu

sinessinpriory

ear

0.00

2Logof

totalassets

0.00

5Negativetotalassets

0.04

5Logof

totalequ

ity0.015

Negativetotalequ

ity0.241

Firm

bankruptcy

inpast7years

0.22

8*

Firm

delinqu

ency

inbu

sinesstransactio

ns0.258

**

Varia

ble

Margina

lEffe

ctVa

riable

Margina

lEffe

ctVa

riable

Margina

lEffe

ct


owner


—

Figure G 9.Comparison of actual loan approval rates to simulated loan approval rates, 1998

Note: Actual approval rates presented here and denial rates in Figure G 7 do not sum to 100% becausesome observations were excluded from the probit regression.

“Loan approval” means that a business owner always or at least sometimes had his or her businessloan applications approved over the previous three years.


Group






BBCRE

SEAR

CH&CO

NSU

LTING—

FINAL

REPO

RTAP

PENDIXG,

PAGE

25

Figure

G10.

Likelih

oodof

busine

ssloan

denial(probitregression)

intheU.S.inthe20

03SSBF

,De

pend

entv

ariable:loan

denial

Note:

*Statisticallysig

nificanta

t90%

confiden

celevel.

**Statisticallysig

nificanta

t95%

confiden

celevel.

Fore

aseof

interpretatio

nthemarginaleffe

ctso

fthe

prob

itcoefficientsa



itcoefficientsa

ssociatedwith

themarginaleffe

cts.

"Lessthanhigh

scho

oled

ucation,""


ear"and"M

iningindu

stry"p

erfectlypred

ictedloan

outcom

eandwereexclud

edfrom

thefin

alregressio

n;"O

wne

rhas

negativ

ene

tworth"a

nd"N

egative

totalassets"drop

pedbe

causeof

colinearity.

Source:

BBCRe

search

&Co

nsultin

ganalysisof

2003

SSBF

data.

Margina

lEffe

ctMargina

lEffe

ctMargina

lEffe

ct

Race/ethnicity

andgend

erFirm


itan

dfin

ancialhe

alth

Firm

andlend

eren

vironm

enta

ndloan

characteristics

BlackAm

erican

0.25

6**

D&Bcred

itscore=mod

eraterisk

0.007

Partne

rship

0.00

6AsianAm

erican

0.01

7D&

Bcred

itscore=averagerisk

0.03

6*

Scorporation

0.03

0**

Hispan

icAm

erican

0.01

1D&

Bcred

itscore=sig

nificantrisk

0.01

7Ccorporation

0.040

*NativeAm

erican

orothe

rminority

0.03

1D&

Bcred

itscore=high

risk

0.05

9**

Constructio

nindu

stry

0.02

9Female

0.01

9Totalemployees

0.00

0Man

ufacturin

gindu

stry

0.01

3Pacific

region

0.05

7**

Percen

tofb

usinesso

wne

dby

principa

l0.00

0Tran

sportatio

n,commun

ications

African

American

inPacific

region

0.03

2Family

owne

dbu

siness

0.023

andutilitie

sind

ustry

0.17

7**

AsianAm

erican

inPacific

region

0.03

3Firm

purcha

sed

0.00

2Finance,insurancean

dHispan

icAm

erican

inPacific

region

0.02

6Firm

inhe

rited

0.036

**realestate

indu

strie

s0.01

6

0.01

7Firm

age

0.001

**En

gine

eringindu

stry

0.00

3FemaleinPacific

region

0.03

0*

Firm

hasc

heckingaccoun

t0.147

*Other

indu

stry

0.00

3Firm

hassavings

accoun

t0.025

**He

rfinda

hlinde

x=.10to

.18

0.00

0Owne


itan

dresources

Firm

haslineof

cred

it0.085

**He

rfinda

hlinde

x=.18or

above

0.02

8Ag

e0.00

1Existingcapitalleases

0.006

LocatedinMSA

0.023

*Owne

rexperience

0.00

2**

Existingmortgageforb

usiness

0.02

1Salesm

arketlocalon

ly0.01

4Somecollege

0.01

0Existingvehicleloan

s0.01

8Loan

amou

nt0.00

0Four

year

degree

0.00

3Existingeq

uipm

entloa

ns0.012

Capitallease

application

0.01

7Ad

vanced

degree

0.02

6*

Existingloan

sfrom

stockholde

rs0.02

1Bu

sinessm

ortgageap

plication

0.03

2**

Logof

homeeq

uity

0.00

1Other

existingloan

s0.03

0*

Vehicleloan

application

0.05

1**

Bankruptcy

inpa

st7years

0.09

8*

Firm

used

trad

ecred

itinpastyear

0.00

0Eq

uipm

entloanap

plication

0.01

9Judgem

enta

gainstinpa

st3years

0.017

Logof

totalsales

inpriory

ear

0.012

*Loan

foro

ther

purposes

0.02

2*

Logof

netw

orth

exclud

ingho

me

0.000

Logof

costof

doingbu

sinessinpriory

ear

0.002

Logof

totalassets

0.00

1Logof

totalequ

ity0.001

Negativetotalequ

ity0.01

0Firm

bankruptcy

inpa

st7years

0.026

Firm

delinqu

ency

inbu

sinesstransactio

ns0.01

2

NativeAm

erican

orothe

rminority

inPacific

region

Varia

ble

Varia

ble

Varia

ble


Figure G 11.Comparison of actual loan approval rates to simulated loan approval rates, 2003

Note: Actual approval rates presented here and denial rates in Figure G 7 do not sum to 100% because someobservations were excluded from the probit regression.

“Loan approval” means that a business owner always or at least sometimes had his or her business loanapplications approved over the previous three years.


Applying for loans.

Other researchers’ regression analyses of fear of denial.

Group



BBC

FiguBusneedidto f199

Note

** Dediffefrommalestatisthe 9

Sourc

BBCfromof Sm

BBC

C RESEARCH & C

ure G 12.sinesses thateded loans bunot apply dufear of denial,98 and 2003

e:

enotes that therence in proportionsnon Hispanic white

e owned businesses istically significant at95% confidence level

ce:

Research & Consultin1998 and 2003 Surv

mall Business Finance

C regression

Jou

Prepa

CONSULTING—

ute,

s

s

.

ngveyes.

model for fea

urnal of Developm

ared for Santa Cla

FINAL REPORT

ar of denial.

mental Entreprene

ara Valley Transpo

T

urship

ortation Authorityty.

AAPPENDIX G, PAGGE 27



BBCRE

SEAR

CH&CO

NSU

LTING—

FINAL

REPO

RTAP

PENDIXG,

PAGE

29

Figure

G13.

Likelih

oodof

forgoing

aloan

applicationdu

eto

fear

ofde

nial(probitregression)

intheU.S.inthe19

98SSBF

,De

pend

entv

ariable:ne

eded

aloan

butd

idno

tapp

lydu

eto

fear

ofde

nial

Note:

*Statisticallysig

nificanta

t90%

confiden

celevel.

**Statisticallysig

nificanta

t95%

confiden

celevel.

Fore

aseof

interpretatio

nthemarginaleffe

ctso

fthe

prob

itcoefficientsa



itcoefficientsa

ssociatedwith

themarginaleffe

cts.

Source:

BBCRe

search

&Co

nsultin

ganalysisof

1998

SSBF

data.

Race/ethnicity

andgend

erFirm


itandfin

ancialhe

alth

Firm

andlend

eren

vironm

enta

ndloan

characteristics

BlackAm

erican

0.29

4**

D&Bcred

itscore=mod

eraterisk

0.07

9Partne

rship

0.00

8AsianAm

erican

0.04

9D&

Bcred

itscore=averagerisk

0.103

**Scorporation

0.001

Hispan

icAm

erican

0.02

5D&

Bcred

itscore=sig

nificantrisk

0.16

3**

Ccorporation

0.03

6NativeAm

erican

0.06

9D&

Bcred

itscore=high

risk

0.209

**Miningindu

stry

0.07

8Female

0.00

6Totalemployees

0.001

Constructio

nindu

stry

0.03

4Pacific

region

0.07

4**

Percen

tofb

usinesso

wne

dby

principal

0.000

Man

ufacturin

gindu

stry

0.00

6African

American

inPacific

region

0.11

0*

Family

owne

dbu

siness

0.02

2Transportatio

n,commun

ications

AsianAm

erican

inPacific

region

0.09

9*

Firm

purchased

0.07

0**

andutilitie

sind

ustry

0.048

Hispan

icAm

erican

inPacific

region

0.03

4Firm

inhe

rited

0.00


NativeAm

erican

inPacific

region

0.02

5Firm

age

0.00

3**

realestate

indu

strie

s0.03

1FemaleinPacific

region

0.06

6Firm

hasc

heckingaccoun

t0.050

Engine

eringindu

stry

0.00

1Firm

hassavings

accoun

t0.05

6**

Other

indu

stry

0.03

4Owne


itandresources

Firm

haslineof

cred

it0.062

**He

rfinda

hlinde

x=.10to

.18

0.00

0Ag

e0.00

1Existingcapitalleases

0.03

7He

rfinda

hlinde

x=.18or

above

0.01

1Owne

rexperience

0.00

1Existingmortgageforb

usiness

0.10

5**

LocatedinMSA

0.03

1Lessthan

high

scho

oled

ucation

0.08


s0.04

9**

Salesm

arketlocalon

ly0.01

7Somecollege

0.00

3Existingeq

uipm

entloans

0.034

Four

year

degree

0.01

4Existingloansfrom

stockholde

rs0.097

**Ad

vanced

degree

0.02

9Other

existingloan

s0.06

7**

Logof

homeeq

uity

0.00

7**

Firm

used

tradecred

itinpastyear

0.01

6Ba

nkruptcy

inpa

st7years

0.32

4**

Logof

totalsales

inpriory

ear

0.02

2**

Judgem

enta

gainstinpast3years

0.09

3**


ear

0.16

7**

Logof

netw

orth

exclud

ingho

me

0.03

4**

Logof

costof

doingbu

sinessinpriory

ear

0.00

2Owne

rhas

negativ

ene

tworth

0.16

8Logof

totalassets

0.02

0**

Negativetotalassets

0.11

5Logof

totalequ

ity0.00

9Negativetotalequ

ity0.01

0Firm

bankruptcy

inpast7years

0.56

7**

Firm

delinqu

ency

inbu

sinesstransactio

ns0.237

**

Margina

lEffe

ctVa

riable

Margina

lEffe

ctVa

riable

Margina

lEffe

ctVa

riable



BBCRE

SEAR

CH&CO

NSU

LTING—

FINAL

REPO

RTAP

PENDIXG,

PAGE

31

Figure

G14.

Likelih

oodof

forgoing

aloan

applicationdu

eto

fear

ofde

nial(probitregression)

intheU.S.inthe20

03SSBF

,De

pend

entv

ariable:ne

eded

aloan

butd

idno

tapp

lydu

eto

fear

ofde

nial

Note:

*Statisticallysig

nificanta

t90%

confiden

celevel.

**Statisticallysig

nificanta

t95%

confiden

celevel.

Fore

aseof

interpretatio

nthemarginaleffe

ctso

fthe

prob

itcoefficientsa



itcoefficientsa

ssociatedwith

themarginaleffe

cts.

"Miningindu

stry"p

erfectlypred

ictedloan

outcom

eandwas

exclud

edfrom

theregressio

n;"O

wne

rhas

negativ

ene

tworth"a

nd"N

egativetotalassets"

drop

pedbe

causeof

colinearity.

Source:

BBCRe

search

&Co

nsultin

ganalysisof

2003

SSBF

data.

Race/ethnicity

andgend

erFirm


itandfin

ancialhe

alth

Firm

andlend

eren

vironm

enta

ndloan

characteristics

BlackAm

erican

0.21

4**

D&Bcred

itscore=mod

eraterisk

0.01

1Partne

rship

0.00

4AsianAm

erican

0.04

9D&

Bcred

itscore=averagerisk

0.040

Scorporation

0.014

Hispan

icAm

erican

0.07

1*

D&Bcred

itscore=sig

nificantrisk

0.04

6*

Ccorporation

0.02

0NativeAm

erican

orothe

rminority

0.02

6D&

Bcred

itscore=high

risk

0.104

**Co

nstructio

nindu

stry

0.03

3Female

0.04

6**

Totalemployees

0.00

0Man

ufacturin

gindu

stry

0.01

2Pacific

region

0.03

7Pe

rcen

tofb

usinesso

wne

dby

principal

0.001

**Transportatio

n,commun

ications

African

American

inPacific

region

0.08

1Family

owne

dbu

siness

0.00

9andutilitie

sind

ustry

0.04

9AsianAm

erican

inPacific

region

0.00

0Firm

purchased

0.01


Hispan

icAm

erican

inPacific

region

0.04

7Firm

inhe

rited

0.03

3realestate

indu

strie

s0.04

1NativeAm

erican

orothe

rminority

inPacific

region

0.42

4**

Firm

age

0.003

**En

gine

eringindu

stry

0.02

8FemaleinPacific

region

0.05

1Firm

hasc

heckingaccoun

t0.01

0Other

indu

stry

0.01

0Firm

hassavings

accoun

t0.010

Herfindahlinde

x=.10to

.18

0.00

5Owne


itandresources

Firm

haslineof

cred

it0.005

Herfinda

hlinde

x=.18or

above

0.02

4Ag

e0.00

2**


0.03

0LocatedinMSA

0.04

7**

Owne

rexperience

0.00


usiness

0.05

0**

Salesm

arketlocalon

ly0.06

3**

Lessthan

high

scho

oled

ucation

0.04


s0.03

1*

Somecollege

0.00

2Existingeq

uipm

entloans

0.043

*Four

year

degree

0.03

6*

Existingloansfrom

stockholde

rs0.074

**Ad

vanced

degree

0.02

1Other

existingloan

s0.10

6**

Logof

homeeq

uity

0.00

4**

Firm

used

tradecred

itinpastyear

0.01

8Ba

nkruptcy

inpa

st7years

0.22

7**

Logof

totalsales

inpriory

ear

0.02

2**

Judgem

enta

gainstinpast3years

0.25

6**


ear

0.09

2*

Logof

netw

orth

exclud

ingho

me

0.02

5**

Logof

costof

doingbu

sinessinpriory

ear

0.01

2*

Logof

totalassets

0.00

5Logof

totalequ

ity0.00

8Negativetotalequ

ity0.03

3Firm

bankruptcy

inpast7years

0.21

0**

Firm

delinqu

ency

inbu

sinesstransactio

ns0.142

**

Margina

lEffe

ctVa

riable

Varia

ble

Varia

ble

Margina

lEffe

ctMargina

lEffe

ct

BBC

Loa

FiguMe

Note

Sourc

C RESEARCH & C

an values.

ure G 15.ean value of a

e: ** Denotes thatlevel.

ce: BBC Research &

CONSULTING—

pproved busin

t the difference in m

& Consulting from 19

FINAL REPORT

ness loans, 19

means from non Hispa

98 and 2003 Survey

T

998 and 2003

anic white male own

of Small Business Fin

ned businesses is sta

nances.

A

tistically significant a

APPENDIX G, PAG

at the 95% confidenc

GE 32

ce

BBC

Int

FiguMe

Noteconfi

Sourc

Oth

C RESEARCH & C

terest rates.

ure G 16.ean interest ra

e: ** Denotes tidence level.

ce: BBC Research &

her researche

CONSULTING—

.

ate for busine

that the difference in


ers’ regressio

FINAL REPORT

ss loans, 1998

n means from non H

98 and 2003 Survey

on analyses of

T

8 and 2003

ispanic white male o

of Small Business Fin

f interest rate

owned businesses is

nances.

es.

A

statistically significa

APPENDIX G, PAG

nt at the 95%

GE 33


BBC regression model for interest rates in the SSBF.


Prepared for Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority.

BBCRE

SEAR

CH&CO

NSU

LTING—

FINAL

REPO

RTAP

PENDIXG,

PAGE

35

Figure

G17.

Interestrate

(line

arregression

)intheU.S.inthe1998

SSBF

,De

pend

entv

ariable:interestrate

onmostrecen

tapp

rovedloan

Note:

*Statisticallysig

nificanta

t90%

confiden

celevel.

**Statisticallysig

nificanta

t95%

confiden

celevel.

Coefficientsa

represen

tedinpe

rcen

tage

form

.

Source:

BBCRe

search

&Co

nsultin

ganalysisof

1998

SSBF

data.

Race/ethnicity

andgend

erFirm


itan

dfin

ancialhe

alth

Firm

andlend

eren

vironm

enta

ndloan

characteristics

Constant

14.625

**D&

Bcred

itscore=mod

eraterisk

0.27

0Partne

rship

0.06

0BlackAm

erican

1.46

4D&

Bcred

itscore=averagerisk

0.16

1Scorporation

0.24

6AsianAm

erican

1.25

8D&

Bcred

itscore=sig

nifican

trisk

0.14

5Ccorporation

0.225

Hispan

icAm

erican

0.30

3D&

Bcred

itscore=high

risk

0.50

2Miningindu

stry

0.07

9NativeAm

erican

0.60

9To

talemployees

0.00

2Co

nstructio

nindu

stry

0.06

4Female

0.30

4Pe

rcen

tofb

usinesso

wne

dby

principal

0.00

5Manufacturin

gindu

stry

0.02

0Pacific

region

0.09

3Family

owne

dbu

siness

0.305

Transportatio

n,commun

ications

African

American

inPacific

region

2.66

8Firm

purchased

0.40

4*

andutilitie

sind

ustry

0.131

AsianAm

erican

inPacific

region

2.00

1Firm

inhe

rited

0.05


dHispan

icAm

erican

inPacific

region

0.14

1Firm

age

0.00

1realestate

indu

strie

s0.52

8FemaleinPacific

region

0.51

5Firm

hasc

heckingaccoun

t0.080

Engine

eringindu

stry

0.13

4Firm

hassavings

accoun

t0.35

9Other

indu

stry

0.42

3Firm

haslineof

cred

it0.31

5He

rfindahlinde

x=.10to

.18

0.09

9Owne


itan

dresources


0.11

2He

rfindahlinde

x=.18or

above

0.22

9Ag

e0.00


usiness

0.04

4LocatedinMSA

0.06

0Owne

rexperience

0.01


s0.13

8Salesm

arketlocalon

ly0.16

5Lessthan

high

scho

oled

ucation

1.19

2**

Existingeq

uipm

entloans

0.08

0Ap

proved

Loan

amou

nt0.00

0Somecollege

0.18

2Existingloansfrom

stockholde

rs0.234

Capitallease

application

1.26

7**

Four

year

degree

0.15

4Other

existingloans

0.60

1**

Busin

essm

ortgageap

plication

0.27

2Ad

vanced

degree

0.05

9Firm

used

tradecred

itinpa

styear

0.20

0Ve

hicleloan

application

0.47

8Logof

homeeq

uity

0.04

9Logof

totalsales

inpriory

ear

0.20

6*

Equipm

entloa

nap

plication

0.06

8Ba

nkruptcy

inpa

st7years

0.98

5Negativesalesinpriory

ear

3.22

2**

Loan

foro

ther

purposes

0.45

2Judgem

enta

gainstinpast3years

0.33

0Logof

costof

doingbu

sinessinpriory

ear

0.01

9Loan

guaran

teed

0.07

1Logof

netw

orth

exclud

ingho

me

0.04

9Logof

totalassets

0.02

7Co

llateralreq

uired

0.38

8*

Owne

rhas

negativ

ene

tworth

0.05

8Negativetotalassets

1.99

0Length

ofloan

(mon

ths)

0.00

2Logof

totalequ

ity0.17

3**

Fixedrate

0.03

7Negativetotalequ

ity2.23

6**

Firm

bankruptcy

inpa

st7years

0.59

7Firm

delinqu

ency

inbu

sinesstransactio

ns0.43

0

Coefficient

Varia

ble

Coefficient

Varia

ble

Coefficient

Varia

ble



BBCRE

SEAR

CH&CO

NSU

LTING—

FINAL

REPO

RTAP

PENDIXG,

PAGE

37

Figure

G18.

Interestrate

(line

arregression

)intheU.S.inthe2003

SSBF

,De

pend

entv

ariable:interestrate

onmostrecen

tapp

rovedloan

Note:

*Statisticallysig

nificanta

t90%

confiden

celevel.

**Statisticallysig

nificanta

t95%

confiden

celevel.

"Owne

rhas

negativ

ene

tworth"a

nd"N

egativetotalassets"

drop

pedou

tofthe

regressio

nbe

causeof

colinearity.

Source:

BBCRe

search

&Co

nsultin

ganalysisof

2003

SSBF

data.

Race/ethnicity

andgend

erFirm


itan

dfin

ancialhe

alth

Firm

andlend

eren

vironm

enta

ndloan

characteristics

Constant

11.993

**D&

Bcred

itscore=mod

eraterisk

0.24

1Partne

rship

0.51

0BlackAm

erican

1.78

7D&

Bcred

itscore=averagerisk

0.19

2Scorporation

0.14

2AsianAm

erican

0.11

9D&

Bcred

itscore=sig

nifican

trisk

0.27

9Ccorporation

0.11

3Hispan

icAm

erican

1.09

6*

D&Bcred

itscore=high

risk

1.01

3**

Miningindu

stry

0.22

8NativeAm

erican

orothe

rminority

0.43

7To

talemployees

0.00

2Co

nstructio

nindu

stry

0.55

5*

Female

0.21

2Pe

rcen

tofb

usinesso

wne

dby

principal

0.00

1Manufacturin

gindu

stry

0.23

5Pacific

region

1.22

4**

Family

owne

dbu

siness

0.51

6Transportatio

n,commun

ications

African

American

inPacific

region

2.90

6*

Firm

purchased

0.00

1an

dutilitie

sind

ustry

1.36

7**

AsianAm

erican

inPacific

region

0.23

5Firm

inhe

rited

0.06


dHispan

icAm

erican

inPacific

region

0.13

9Firm

age

0.01

2realestate

indu

strie

s0.03

6NativeAm

erican

orothe

rminority

inPacific

region

0.97

2Firm

hasc

heckingaccoun

t0.35

4En

gine

eringindu

stry

0.51

5FemaleinPacific

region

0.40

3Firm

hassavings

accoun

t0.01

7Other

indu

stry

0.372

Firm

haslineof

cred

it0.02

8He

rfindahlinde

x=.10to

.18

0.55

0Owne


itan

dresources


0.13

2He

rfinda

hlinde

x=.18or

above

0.87

6Ag

e0.01


usiness

0.02

8LocatedinMSA

0.11

1Owne

rexperience

0.01


s0.344

Salesm

arketlocalon

ly0.14

8Lessthan

high

scho

oled

ucation

0.28

4Existingeq

uipm

entloa

ns0.56

3Ap

proved

Loan

amou

nt0.00

0Somecollege

0.23

9Existingloansfrom

stockholde

rs0.191

Capitallease

application

1.22

1*

Four

year

degree

0.32

4Other

existingloans

0.38

0Bu

sinessm

ortgageap

plication

0.54

7Ad

vanced

degree

0.57

2*

Firm

used

tradecred

itinpa

styear

0.25

2Ve

hicleloan

application

1.06

2**

Logof

homeeq

uity

0.00

6Logof

totalsales

inpriory

ear

0.15

7Eq

uipm

entloa

nap

plication

0.26

1Ba

nkruptcy

inpa

st7years

0.24

1Negativesalesinpriory

ear

2.28

6Loan

foro

ther

purposes

0.36

9Judgem

enta

gainstinpast3years

0.20

5Logof

costof

doingbu

sinessinpriory

ear

0.14

4Loan

guaran

teed

0.31

2Logof

netw

orth

exclud

ingho

me

0.14

9**

Logof

totalassets

0.14

2Co

llateralreq

uired

0.84

2**

Logof

totalequ

ity0.18

2*

Length

ofloan

(mon

ths)

0.00

4**

Negativetotalequ

ity2.13

2*

Fixedrate

1.18

5**

Firm

bankruptcy

inpa

st7years

0.20

6Firm

delinqu

ency

inbu

sinesstransactio

ns0.17

9

Coefficient

Varia

ble

Varia

ble

Varia

ble

Coefficient

Coefficient


Results from BBC availability interviews.

Access to lines of credit and loans.

BBC

FiguHasexpdiffline

Sourc

BBC R2014

Rec

FiguHasexpdiffpayman

Sourc

BBC R2014

C RESEARCH & C

ure G 19.s your companerienced anyiculties in obtes of credit or

ce:

Research & ConsultinAvailability Interview

ceiving timely

ure G 20.s your companerienced anyiculties receivyment in a timnner?

ce:


ONSULTING— F

ny

tainingloans?

ng from 2012ws.

y payment.

ny

vingmely

ng from 2012ws.

FINAL REPORTT APPPENDIX G, PAGE 39

BBC

Bo

Bon

FiguHasanybonproj

Sourc

BBC R2014

Ins

The U

C RESEARCH & C

nding and

nding.

ure G 21.s your company difficulties onds needed foject?

ce:


urance.

Urban Institute:

ONSULTING— F

Insurance

ny hadbtainingor a

ng from 2012ws.

FINAL REPORT

e

T APPPENDIX G, PAGE 40

BBC

FiguHavreqpresbidd

Sourc

BBC R2014

Sum

C RESEARCH & C

ure G 22.ve any insuranuirements onsented a barrding?

ce:


mmary

ONSULTING— F

nceprojectsier to

ng from 2012ws.

FINAL REPORTT APPPENDIX G, PAGE 41


BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING— FINAL REPORT APPENDIX H, PAGE 1

APPENDIX H.Success of Businesses in the SeattleMetropolitan Area Construction andEngineering Industries

Figure H 1.Businessoutcomes

Source:

BBC Research &Consulting.

Operating businesses

Public sector Private sector

SubcontractorPrime contractor

ClosureContractionStabilityExpansion

Business earnings

Availablemarkets

Contract roles

Outcomes


Participation in Public and Private Sector Markets

Public sector versus private sector work.

Construction.

BBC

FiguMBand

Note

Sourc

C RESEARCH & C

ure H 2.BEs, WBEs, andd private secto

e: “WBE” represenTotal may not a

ce: BBC Research &

CONSULTING—

d majority owor work in Wa

nts white women owadd to 100 percent d


FINAL REPORT

wned construcashington in t

wned firms.ue to rounding.

012 2014 Availability

T

ction businessthe past five y

Interviews.

ses bidding onyears

A

n public

APPENDIX H, PAAGE 3

BBC

Con

FiguMBbus

Note

Sourc

C RESEARCH & C

nstruction re

ure H 3.BEs, WBEs, andsinesses biddi


ce: BBC Research &

CONSULTING—

elated profess

d majority owng on public a



FINAL REPORT

sional service

wned construcand private se



T

es.

ction relatedector work in

Interviews.

professional sWashington i

A

servicesin the past fiv

APPENDIX H, PA

ve years

AGE 4

BBC

Bid

Con

FiguPerpub

Note

Sourc

C RESEARCH & C

dding as pri

nstruction.

ure H 4.rcent of constblic sector pro

e: “WBE” represen

ce: BBC Research &

CONSULTING—

me contrac

ruction businoject in Washi

nts white women ow


FINAL REPORT

tors and su

esses that repington in the p

wned firms.


T

bcontracto

ported submitpast five year

Interviews.

rs/supplier

tting a bid forrs

A

s.

r any part of a

APPENDIX H, PA

a

AGE 5

BBC

FiguPerpriv

Note

Sourc

C RESEARCH & C

ure H 5.rcent of constvate sector pr


ce: BBC Research &

CONSULTING—

ruction businroject in Wash

nts white women ow


FINAL REPORT

esses that rephington in the

wned firms.


T

ported submite past five yea

Interviews.

tting a bid forars

A

r any part of a

APPENDIX H, PA

a

AGE 6

BBC

Con

FiguPersub

Note

Sourc

C RESEARCH & C

nstruction re

ure H 6.rcent of constbmitting a bid


ce: BBC Research &

CONSULTING—

elated profess

ruction relatefor any part o

nts white women ow


FINAL REPORT

sional service

ed professionaof a public sec

wned firms.


T

es.

al services buctor project in

Interviews.

usinesses thatn Washington

A

reportedn in the past fi

APPENDIX H, PA

ive years

AGE 7

BBC

FiguPersub

Note

Sourc

C RESEARCH & C

ure H 7.rcent of constbmitting a bid


ce: BBC Research &

CONSULTING—

ruction relatefor any part o

nts white women ow


FINAL REPORT

ed professionaof a private se

wned firms.


T

al services buector project

Interviews.

usinesses thatin Washingto

A

reportedon in the past f

APPENDIX H, PA

five years

AGE 8


Largest contract in Washington in the past five years.

Construction.

BBC

FiguLarcon

Note

Sourc

Con

C RESEARCH & C

ure H 8.gest contractnstruction


ce: BBC Research &

nstruction re

CONSULTING—

or subcontra



elated profess

FINAL REPORT

ct that the co



sional service

T

ompany receiv

Interviews.

es.

ved in Washin

A

ngton in the p

APPENDIX H, PAG

ast five years

GE 10

s,

BBC

FiguLarcon

Note

Sourc

Re

Cor

Me

Depa

C RESEARCH & C

ure H 9.gest contractnstruction rela


ce: BBC Research &

lative capac

rp. v. U.S. Depa

easurement o

artment of Defens

CONSULTING—

or subcontraated professio



city.

artment of De

of capacity.

se, 545 F.3d 1023

FINAL REPORT

ct that the coonal services



efense

(Fed. Cir. 2008).

T

ompany receiv

Interviews.

ved in Washin

A

ngton in the p

Rothe

Rothe Devel

APPENDIX H, PAG

ast five years

e Developmen

lopment Corp. v. U

GE 11

s,

nt

U.S.


Assessment of possible disparities in capacity of MBE/WBEs and majority owned businesses.

Figure H 10.Median relative capacity by subindustry

Source: BBC Research & Consulting from 2012 2014 Availability Interviews.

Subindustry

Construction

Asphalt and concrete supply $100,000 to $500,000Electrical work $500,000 to $1 millionExcavation and drilling $100,000 to $500,000Heavy construction $1 million to $2 millionLandscape services $100,000Marine construction $5 million to $10 millionOther construction services $100,000 to $500,000Other construction supplies $100,000 to $500,000Plumbing and HVAC $100,000 to $500,000Signs, installation, and manufacture $100,000 to $500,000Steel building materials $100,000 to $500,000Trucking $100,000 to $500,000Vertical construction $1 million to $2 millionVertical construction trades $100,000Water, sewer, and utility lines $1 million to $2 millionWrecking and demolition $100,000 to $500,000

Professional Services

Construction management $1 million to $2 millionEngineering $100,000 to $500,000Environmental research, consulting, and testing $100,000 to $500,000Landscape architecture $100,000 to $500,000Surveying and mapmaking $100,000 to $500,000Transportation consulting $2 million to $5 million

Median Bid Capacity


Construction.

Figure H 11.Proportion of firms with abovemedian bid capacity by ownership

Source:

BBC Research & Consulting from2012 2014 Availability Interviews.

Construction related professional services.

Further analysis.

Firm ownership

Minority 42 % 41 % 42 %

Female 34 30 32

Majority owned 38 38 38

ConstructionProfessionalServices Overall


Figure H 12.Seattle Metropolitan Area constructionindustry bid capacity model

Note:

** Denotes statistical significance at the 95% confidence level.

Source:

BBC Research & Consulting from 2012 2014 Availability Interviews.

Figure H 13.Seattle Metropolitan Area constructionrelated professional services industry bidcapacity model

Note:

** Denotes statistical significance at the 95% confidence level.

Source:

BBC Research & Consulting from 2012 2014 Availability Interviews.

Variable

Constant 0.72 2.86 **Age of firm 0.01 1.21

Minority 0.25 0.68

Female 0.11 0.27

Coefficient Z Statistic

Variable

Constant 1.51 5.14 **Age of firm 0.04 4.15 **Minority 0.33 0.84

Female 0.06 0.14

Coefficient Z Statistic


Business Closures, Expansions, and Contractions—

—

Business closures.

Overall rates of business closures in Washington.

BBC

FiguRat

Note

Sourc

Rat

C RESEARCH & C

ure H 14.tes of busines

e: Data refer onlyresults cannot b

ce: Lowrey, Ying. 20Office of Advoc

tes of busines

CONSULTING—

s closure, 200

to non publicly heldbe determined. How

010. “Race/Ethnicityacy. Washington D.C

ss closures by

FINAL REPORT

02 through 20

businesses only. Asever, statistics are co

y and Establishment DC.

y industry.

—

T

006, Washingt

sample sizes are notonsistent with SBA d

Dynamics, 2002 2006

ton and the U

t reported, statisticaata quality guideline

6.” U.S. Small Busine

A

.S.

l significance of theses.

ess Administration

APPENDIX H, PAG

e

—

GE 16

BBC

FiguRatpro

Note

Sourc

Uns

C RESEARCH & C

ure H 15.tes of businesofessional, scie

e: Data refer onlycannot be dete

ce: Lowrey, Ying. 20of Advocacy. W

successful clo

CONSULTING—

s closure, 200entific, and te

to non publicly heldrmined; however, sta010. “Race/Ethnicity

Washington D.C.

osures.

FINAL REPORT

02 through 20echnical servic

businesses. As sampatistics are consisteny and Establishment D

T

006, constructces; and all in

ple sizes are not repont with SBA data quaDynamics, 2002 2006

ion;dustries in th

orted, statistical signlity guidelines.6.” U.S. Small Busine

Journal of B

A

e U.S.

nificance of these res

ess Administration Of

Business & Econom

APPENDIX H, PAG

sults

ffice

mic Statistics

GE 17

BBC

FiguUns

Sourc

lead

C RESEARCH & C

ure H 16.successful clo

ce: U.S. Census

ding to surviving a

CONSULTING—

osure rates for

Bureau, 1996 Charac

and closing succes

FINAL REPORT

r businesses t

cteristics of Business

ssfully

T

hat closed be

Owners Survey (CBO

etween 1992 a

O).

A

and 1995 in th

—

Busine

APPENDIX H, PAG

he U.S.

ess Success: Factor

GE 18

rs


Reasons for differences in unsuccessful closure rates.

Ibid.

BBC

Exp

Exp

FiguPer

Note

Sourc

C RESEARCH & C

pansions an

pansions.

ure H 17.rcentage of bu



CONSULTING—

nd contracti

usinesses that

to non publicly heldrmined. However, th

010. “Race/EthnicityWashington D.C.

FINAL REPORT

ions.

t expanded, 2

businesses. As samphe reported statistics

y and Establishment D

T

2002 through 2

ple sizes are not repos are consistent with

Dynamics, 2002 2006

2006

orted, statistical signSBA data quality gui


A

nificance of those residelines.


APPENDIX H, PAG

sults

ffice

GE 20

BBC

FiguPerpro

Note

Sourc

Con

C RESEARCH & C

ure H 18.rcentage of buofessional, scie



ntractions.

CONSULTING—

usinesses expaentific, and te

to non publicly heldrmined; however, sta


FINAL REPORT

anding, 2002echnical servic

businesses. As sampatistics are consisten


T

through 2006ces; and all in

ple sizes are not repont with SBA data qua

Dynamics, 2002 2006

6, U.S. construdustries

orted, statistical signlity guidelines.


A

uction;



APPENDIX H, PAG

sults

ffice

GE 21

BBC

FiguPer

Note

Sourc

FiguRatpro

Note

Sourc

C RESEARCH & C

ure H 19.rcentage of bu



ure H 20.tes of businesofessional, scie



CONSULTING—

usinesses cont



s contraction,entific and tec



FINAL REPORT

tracting, 2002



, 2002 througchnical servic



T

2 through 200


Dynamics, 2002 2006

gh 2006, U.S. ces; and all ind


Dynamics, 2002 2006

06



construction;dustries



A





APPENDIX H, PAG

sults

ffice

sults

ffice

GE 22


Business Receipts and Earnings

Business receipts.

21

Receipts for all businesses.

BBC

FiguMe(thobusracgen

Note

Inclufirmscompclassgendrepothese

RaciaMetrbothraciaincluthe "showUnite(raciaAme

Estimfirmsby thstand

Sourc

2007of thEcon

C RESEARCH & C

ure H 21.ean annual recousands) for asinesses, bye/ethnicity annder of owner

e:

des employer and nos. Does not include ppanies or other firmsifiable by race/ethnider. Because samplerted, statistical signife results cannot be d

al categories in the Seropolitan Area are norace and ethnicity. Al categories shown fode Hispanic Americarace and ethnicity" c

wn for both Washingted States are mutualal categories excludericans).

mates for Black Amers in Washington werehe SBO because publdards were not met.

ce:

7 Survey of Business Oe U.S. Census Bureauomic Census.

CONSULTING—

ceiptsall

ndrs, 2007

on employerublicly tradeds notcity andsizes are notficance ofdetermined.

eattleot available byAs such, theor Seattle mayns. However,categorieston and thely exclusivee Hispanic

rican ownede suppressedication

Owners, partu’s 2007

FINAL REPORTT AAPPENDIX H, PAGGE 24

BBC

FiguMe(thoembygen

Note

IncluDoescompclassgendrepothese

RaciaareaethnshowAmeethnWashmutuexclu

Estimbusinsupppubli

Sourc

2007part2007

Rec

C RESEARCH & C

ure H 22.ean annual recousands) forployer businerace/ethnicitynder of owner

e:

des only employer bs not include publiclypanies or other businifiable by race/ethnider. As sample sizes arted, statistical signife results cannot be d

al categories in the Seare not available byicity. As such, the racwn for Seattle may inricans. However, theicity" categories showhington and the Unitually exclusive (racialude Hispanic America

mates for Black Amernesses in Washingtonressed by the SBO beication standards we

ce:

7 Survey of Business Oof the U.S. Census Bu7 Economic Census

ceipts by indu

CONSULTING—

ceipts

esses,y andrs, 2007

businesses.y tradednesses notcity andare notficance ofdetermined.

eattle metroboth race andcial categoriesclude Hispanice "race andwn for bothted States arel categoriesans).

rican ownedn wereecauseere not met.

Owners,ureau’s

ustry.

FINAL REPORTT AAPPENDIX H, PAGGE 25


Construction.

Professional, scientific, and technical services.


Figure H 23.Mean annual receipts (thousands) for businesses in the construction and professional, scientificand technical services industries, by race/ethnicity and gender of owners, 2007

Notes: Does not include publicly traded companies or other businesses not classifiable by race/ethnicity and gender. As sample sizes are notreported, statistical significance of these results cannot be determined.

Racial categories in the Seattle metro area are not available by both race and ethnicity. As such, the racial categories shown for Seattlemay include Hispanic Americans. However, the "race and ethnicity" categories shown for both Washington and the United States aremutually exclusive (racial categories exclude Hispanic Americans).

Source: 2007 Survey of Business Owners, part of the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2007 Economic Census.

Ethnicity

Hispanic American $264 $97 $783 $576Non Hispanic American $892 $209 $2,125 $936

Race

Black American $246 $63 $1,082 $475Asian American $410 $136 $1,203 $625American Indian and Alaska Native $534 $98 $1,360 $1,029Native Hawaiian and other Pacific Islander $169 $75 $408 $571White $901 $215 $2,132 $954

Gender

Female $625 $95 $1,820 $509Male $944 $304 $2,436 $1,157

Race and Ethnicity

Black American $207 $71 $908 $489Asian American $405 $139 $1,103 $637Hispanic American $251 $85 $644 $466American Indian and Alaska Native $694 $94 $1,788 $858Native Hawaiian and other Pacific Islander $153 $77 $364 $576Non Hispanic White $718 $181 $1,674 $772

Gender

Female $556 $80 $1,475 $435Male $748 $256 $1,911 $957

Race and Ethnicity

Black American $107 $78 $1,069 $717Asian American $273 $201 $1,533 $950Hispanic American $167 $121 $1,083 $693American Indian and Alaska Native $262 $116 $1,390 $630Native Hawaiian and other Pacific Islander $363 $187 $1,628 $1,148Non Hispanic White $502 $213 $1,850 $869

Gender

Female $361 $98 $1,625 $543Male $480 $276 $2,008 $1,031

Washington

United States

All firms Employer firms

ConstructionProfessional,scientific &

technical servicesConstruction

Professional,scientific &

technical services



Business earnings.

Construction business owner earnings, 1999.

BBC

FiguMeowcon199

Note

The sage 1earniincluAmeAmeminorace/analy

All am

*,**diffeminowomlevel

Sourc

BBCU.S. Cextraproghttp:

Con

C RESEARCH & C

ure H 24.ean annual buner earnings instruction ind99

e:

sample universe is bu16 and over who repings. “Non Hispanic mdes Black Americansricans, Subcontinentricans, Native Ameriority groups. Sample/ethnicity groups weyze individually.

mounts in 1999 dolla

Denotes statisticallyrences from non Hisority groups) or frommen) at the 90% and 9, respectively.

ce:

Research & ConsultinCensus 5% sample. Tact was obtained throram of the MN Popu//usa.ipums.org/usa

nstruction bu

CONSULTING—

sinessin theustry,

usiness ownersorted positiveminority”s, Asian Pacifict Asiancans and othersizes for thesere too small to

ars.

significantpanic whites (formen (for95% confidence

ng from 2000The raw dataough the IPUMSlation Center:a/.

usiness owne

FINAL REPORT

r earnings, 20

T

008 2011.

AAPPENDIX H, PAGGE 29

BBC

FiguMeowcon200

Note

The sownerepoHispaAmeSubcNativgrourace/to an

All am

*,**diffewhitemen95%

Sourc

BBC2009was oprogCent

Eng

C RESEARCH & C

ure H 25.ean annual buner earnings instruction ind08 through 20

e:

sample universe is buers age 16 and over wrted positive earninganic minority” includricans, Asian Pacific Aontinent Asian Amerve Americans and othps. Sample sizes for t/ethnicity groups wenalyze individually.

mounts in 2011 dolla

Denotes statisticallyrences from non Hises (for minority grou(for women) at the 9confidence level, res

ce:

Research & Consultin9 2011 ACS. The rawobtained through theram of the MN Popuer: http://usa.ipums

gineering bus

CONSULTING—

sinessin theustry,011

usinesswhogs. “Nones BlackAmericans,ricans,her minoritythesere too small

ars.

significantpanicps) or from90% andspectively.

ng fromdata extracte IPUMSlation.org/usa/.

siness owner

FINAL REPORT

earnings, 19

T

99.

AAPPENDIX H, PAGGE 30

BBC

FiguMe

Note

Sourc

Eng

C RESEARCH & C

ure H 26.ean annual bu

e: The sample univAll amounts in 1** Denotes statthe 90% and 95

ce: BBC Research &of the MN Popu

gineering bus

CONSULTING—

siness owner

verse is business ow1999 dollars.tistically significant d5% confidence level,

& Consulting from 20ulation Center: http:/

siness owner

FINAL REPORT

earnings in th

ners age 16 and ove

differences from nonrespectively.

000 U.S. Census 5% sa//usa.ipums.org/usa/

earnings, 20

T

he engineerin

r who reported posit

Hispanic whites (for

ample. The raw data/.

08 2011.

ng industry, 19

tive earnings.

r minority groups) or

extract was obtaine

A

999

r from men (for wom

ed through the IPUM

APPENDIX H, PAG

men) at

MS program

GE 31

BBC

FiguMe

Note

Sourc

Reg

Disa

C RESEARCH & C

ure H 27.ean annual bu

e: The sample univ** Denotes stat90% and 95% co

ce: BBC Research &Population Cen

gression anal

advantaged Busine

CONSULTING—

siness owner

verse is business owtistically significant donfidence level, resp

& Consulting from 20ter: http://usa.ipum

lyses of busin

ess Enterprise Ava

FINAL REPORT

earnings in th

ners age 16 and ovedifferences from nonpectively.

009 2011 ACS. The ras.org/usa/.

ness earnings

ailability Study

T

he engineerin

r who reported positHispanic whites (for

w data extract was o

s.

Disa

ng industry, 20

tive earnings. All amr minority groups) or

obtained through the

advantaged Busine

A

008 through 2

ounts in 2011 dollarsr from men (for wom

e IPUMS program of

ess Enterprise Ava

APPENDIX H, PAG

2011

s.men) at the

the MN

ailability Study

GE 32



Figure H 28.Seattle Metropolitan Areaconstruction business owner earningsmodel, 1999

Note:

*,** Denotes statistical significance at the 90% and 95%confidence level, respectively.

Source:

BBC Research & Consulting from the 2000 U.S. Census 5%sample. The raw data extract was obtained through theIPUMS program of the MN Population Center:http://usa.ipums.org/usa/.

Variable

Constant 9.759 **

Age 0.036

Age squared 0.001 *

Married 0.149

Speaks English well 0.040

Disabled 0.275

Less than high school 0.263

Some college 0.169



Hispanic American 0.217

Non Hispanic Minority 0.245

Female 0.133

Coefficient


Figure H 29.Seattle Metropolitan Areaconstruction business owner earningsmodel, 2008 2011

Note:


Source:

BBC Research & Consulting from 2009 2011 ACS. The rawdata extract was obtained through the IPUMS program ofthe MN Population Center: http://usa.ipums.org/usa/.


Variable

Constant 4.596 **Age 0.180 **Age squared 0.002 **Married 0.728 **Speaks English well 0.309Disabled 0.511 *Less than high school 0.054Some college 0.352 *Four year degree 0.398Advanced degree 0.117Hispanic American 0.267Non Hispanic Minority 0.027Female 0.161

Coefficient


Figure H 30.National engineering industrybusiness owner earnings model, 1999

Note:


Source:

BBC Research & Consulting from 2000 U.S. Census 5%sample. The raw data extract was obtained through theIPUMS program of the MN Population Center:http://usa.ipums.org/usa/.

Variable

Constant 7.378 **Age 0.120 **Age squared 0.001 **Married 0.129 **Speaks English well 0.088Disabled 0.514 **Less than high school 0.171Some college 0.054Four year degree 0.279 **Advanced degree 0.341 **Hispanic American 0.153Black American 0.419 **Native American 0.512 *Asian Pacific American 0.022Subcontinent Asian American 0.333Other minority 0.471 **Female 0.746 **Seattle Metro Area 0.081Minority in the Seattle Metro Area 0.397Female in the Seattle Metro Area 0.342

Coefficient


Figure H 31.National engineering industrybusiness owner earnings model,2008 2011

Note:

*,** Denotes statistical significance at the 90% and95% confidence level, respectively.

Source:

BBC Research & Consulting from 2009 2011 ACS. Theraw data extract was obtained through the IPUMSprogram of the MN Population Center:http://usa.ipums.org/usa/.

Gross revenue of construction and construction related professional services firmsfrom availability interviews

Construction.

Variable

Constant 6.230 **Age 0.103 **Age squared 0.001 **Married 0.319 **Speaks English well 1.200 **Disabled 0.397 **Less than high school 0.103Some college 0.073Four year degree 0.347 **Advanced degree 0.539 **Hispanic American 0.178African American 0.264Native American 0.312Asian Pacific American 0.033Subcontinent Asian American 0.624Other minority 0.574Female 0.533 **Seattle MSA 0.105Minority in Seattle MSA 0.032Female in Seattle MSA 0.758 **

Coefficient

BBC

FiguGrocon

Note

Sourc

Con

C RESEARCH & C

ure H 32.oss revenue onstruction ind

e: WBE is white wTotal may not a

ce: BBC Research &

nstruction re

CONSULTING—

f company foustry

women owned firms.add to 100 percent d


elated profess

FINAL REPORT

r all Seattle M

ue to rounding.


sional service

T

Metropolitan A

y Interviews.

es.

Area locations

A

s,

APPENDIX H, PAGGE 37

BBC

FiguGrocon

Note

Sourc

Po

C RESEARCH & C

ure H 33.oss revenue onstruction rela

e: WBE is white wTotal may not a

ce: BBC Research &

otential Ba

CONSULTING—

f company foated professio

women owned firms.add to 100 percent d


rriers to St

FINAL REPORT

r all Seattle Monal services

ue to rounding.


tarting or

T

Metropolitan Aindustry

y Interviews.

Expanding

Area locations

g Business

A

s,

es

APPENDIX H, PAGGE 38

BBC

FiguResMepro

Note

Sourc

C RESEARCH & C

ure H 34.sponses to avaetropolitan Arofessional serv

e: “WBE” represenwhite male own

ce: BBC Research &

CONSULTING—

ailability interea MBE, WBEvices firms

nts white women owned firms.

& Consulting.

FINAL REPORT

rview questioE, and majorit

wned firms, “MBE” re

T

ons from the Sy owned cons

epresents minority o

Seattlestruction and

owned firms and “Ma

A

construction

ajority owned” repre

APPENDIX H, PAG

related

esents non Hispanic

GE 39

BBC

FiguResMB(yo

Note

Sourc

C RESEARCH & C

ure H 35.sponses to avaBE, WBE, and mung firms)

e: “WBE” represenwhite male own

ce: BBC Research &

CONSULTING—

ailability intermajority own

nts white women owned firms.

& Consulting.

FINAL REPORT

rview questioned constructi

wned firms, “MBE” re

T

ons from the Son and constr

epresents minority o

Seattle Metroruction relate

owned firms and “Ma

A

opolitan Areaed professiona

ajority owned” repre

APPENDIX H, PAG

al services firm

esents non Hispanic

GE 40

ms


Summary

BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING – FINAL REPORT APPENDIX I, PAGE 1

APPENDIX I.Description of Data Sources forMarketplace Analyses

U.S. Census Bureau PUMS Data

IntegratedPublic Use Microdata Series: Version 5.0


2000 Census and 2009 2011 ACS.

3

Categorizing individual race/ethnicity.

Design and Methodology: American Community Survey


Education variables.

4

Home ownership and home value.


Definition of workers.

Business ownership.

Figure I 1.Class of worker variablecode in the 2000 Censusand 2009 2011 ACS

Source:

BBC Research & Consulting from theIPUMS program:http://usa.ipums.org/usa/.

Description2000 Census and2009 2011 ACS

CLASSWKRD codes

N/A 0

Self employed, not incorporated 13

Self employed, incorporated 14

Wage/salary, private 22

Wage/salary at non profit 23

Federal government employee 25

State government employee 27

Local government employee 28

Unpaid family worker 29

Business earnings.

Study industries.


Figure I 2.2000 Census industry codes used for construction and engineering related services

Study industry

2000Census

IND codes

2009 2011ACS

IND codes Description

Construction 77 770 Construction industry

Engineering related services 729 7290 Architectural, engineering and related services

Source: BBC Research & Consulting from the IPUMS program: http://usa.ipums.org/usa/.

Industry occupations.

Figure I 3.2000 Census and 2009 2011 ACS occupation codes used to examine workers in construction

Census 2000 and 20092011 ACS occupationaltitle and code Job description

Construction managers

2000 Code: 22

2009 11 Code: 220

Plan, direct, coordinate, or budget, usually through subordinate supervisorypersonnel, activities concerned with the construction and maintenance ofstructures, facilities, and systems. Participate in the conceptual development of aconstruction project and oversee its organization, scheduling, and implementation.Include specialized construction fields, such as carpentry or plumbing. Includegeneral superintendents, project managers, and constructors who manage,coordinate, and supervise the construction process.

First line supervisors ofconstruction trades andextraction workers

2000 Code: 620

2009 11 Code: 6200

Directly supervise and coordinate the activities of construction or extractionworkers.

Brickmasons, Blockmasonsand Stonemasons

2000 Code: 622

2009 11 Code: 6220

Lay and bind building materials, such as brick, structural tile, concrete block, cinderblock, glass block, and terra cotta block, Construct or repair walls, partitions,arches, sewers, and other structures. Build stone structures, such as piers, walls,and abutments and lay walks, curbstones, or special types of masonry for vats,tanks, and floors.

Carpenters

2000 Code: 623

2009 11 Code: 6230

Construct, erect, install, or repair structures and fixtures made of wood, such asconcrete forms, building frameworks, including partitions, joists, studding, rafters,wood stairways, window and door frames, and hardwood floors.


Figure I 3 (continued).2000 Census and 2009 2011 ACS occupation codes used to examine workers in construction


Carpet, floor, and tileinstallers and finishers

2000 Code: 624

2009 11 Code: 6240

Apply shock absorbing, sound deadening, or decorative coverings to floors. Laycarpet on floors and install padding and trim flooring materials. Scrape and sandwooden floors to smooth surfaces, apply coats of finish. Apply hard tile, marble,wood tile, walls, floors, ceilings, and roof decks.

Cement masons, concretefinishers and terrazzoworkers

2000 Code: 625

2009 11 Code: 6250

Smooth and finish surfaces of poured concrete, such as floors, walks, sidewalks,or curbs using a variety of hand and power tools. Align forms for sidewalks,curbs or gutters; patch voids; use saws to cut expansion joints. Terrazzo workersapply a mixture of cement, sand, pigment or marble chips to floors, stairways,and cabinet fixtures.

Construction laborers

2000 Code: 626

2009 11 Code: 6260

Perform tasks involving physical labor at building, highway, and heavyconstruction projects, tunnel and shaft excavations, and demolition sites. Mayoperate hand and power tools of all types: air hammers, earth tampers, cementmixers, small mechanical hoists, surveying and measuring equipment, and avariety of other equipment and instruments. May clean and prepare sites, digtrenches, set braces to support the sides of excavations, erect scaffolding, cleanup rubble and debris, and remove asbestos, lead, and other hazardous wastematerials. May assist other craft workers. Exclude construction laborers whoprimarily assist a particular craft worker, and classify them under "Helpers,Construction Trades."

Paving, surfacing andtamping equipmentoperators

2000 Code: 630

2009 11 Code: 6300

Operate equipment used for applying concrete, asphalt, or other materials toroad beds, parking lots, or airport runways and taxiways, or equipment used fortamping gravel, dirt, or other materials. Include concrete and asphalt pavingmachine operators, form tampers, tamping machine operators, and stonespreader operators.

Miscellaneous constructionequipment operators,including pile driveroperators

2000 Code: 632

2009 11 Code: 6320

Operate one or several types of power construction equipment, such as motorgraders, bulldozers, scrapers, compressors, pumps, derricks, shovels, tractors, orfront end loaders to excavate, move, and grade earth, erect structures, or pourconcrete or other hard surface pavement. Operate pile drivers mounted onskids, barges, crawler treads, or locomotive cranes to drive pilings for retainingwalls, bulkheads, and foundations of structures, such as buildings, bridges, andpiers.

Drywall installers, ceiling tileinstallers and tapers

2000 Code: 633

2009 11 Code: 6330

Apply plasterboard or other wallboard to ceilings or interior walls of buildings,mount acoustical tiles or blocks, strips, or sheets of shock absorbing materials toceilings and walls of buildings to reduce or reflect sound.




Electricians

2000 Code: 635

2009 11 Code: 6350, 6355

Install, maintain, and repair electrical wiring, equipment, and fixtures. Ensurethat work is in accordance with relevant codes. May install or service streetlights, intercom systems, or electrical control systems. Exclude "Security and FireAlarm Systems Installers." The 2000 category includes electrician apprentices.

Glaziers

2000 Code: 636

2009 11 Code: 6360

Install glass in windows, skylights, store fronts, display cases, building fronts,interior walls, ceilings, and tabletops.

Painters, construction andmaintenance

2000 Code: 642

2009 11 Code: 6420

Paint walls, equipment, buildings, bridges, and other structural surfaces, usingbrushes, rollers, and spray guns. Remove old paint to prepare surfaces prior topainting and mix colors or oils to obtain desired color or consistency.

Pipelayers, plumbers,pipefitters and steamfitters

2000 Code: 644

2009 11 Code: 6440

Lay pipe for storm or sanitation sewers, drains, and water mains. Perform anycombination of the following tasks: grade trenches or culverts, position pipe, orseal joints. Excludes "Welders, Cutters, Solderers, and Brazers." Assemble,install, alter, and repair pipelines or pipe systems that carry water, steam, air, orother liquids or gases. May install heating and cooling equipment andmechanical control systems. Includes sprinklerfitters.

Plasterers and stuccomasons

2000 Code: 646

2009 11 Code: 6460

Apply interior or exterior plaster, cement, stucco, or similar materials and setornamental plaster.

Roofers

2000 Code: 651

2009 11 Code: 6510, 6515

Cover roofs of structures with shingles, slate, asphalt, aluminum, and wood.Spray roofs, sidings, and walls with material to bind, seal, insulate, orsoundproof sections of structures

Iron and steel workers,including reinforcing ironand rebar workers

2000 Code: 653

2009 11 Code: 6530

Iron and steel workers raise, place, and unite iron or steel girders, columns, andother structural members to form completed structures or structuralframeworks. May erect metal storage tanks and assemble prefabricated metalbuildings. Reinforcing iron and rebar workers position and secure steel bars ormesh in concrete forms in order to reinforce concrete. Use a variety offasteners, rod bending machines, blowtorches, and hand tools. Include rodbusters.




Helpers, construction trades

2000 Code: 660

2009 11 Code: 6600

All construction trades helpers not listed separately.

Driver/sales workers andtruck drivers

2000 Code: 913

2009 11 Code: 9130

Driver/sales workers drive trucks or other vehicles over established routes orwithin an established territory and sell goods, such as food products, includingrestaurant take out items, or pick up and deliver items, such as laundry. Mayalso take orders and collect payments. Include newspaper delivery drivers. Truckdrivers (heavy) drive a tractor trailer combination or a truck with a capacity of atleast 26,000 GVW, to transport and deliver goods, livestock, or materials inliquid, loose, or packaged form. May be required to unload truck. May requireuse of automated routing equipment. Requires commercial drivers' license.Truck drivers (light) drive a truck or van with a capacity of under 26,000 GVW,primarily to deliver or pick up merchandise or to deliver packages within aspecified area. May require use of automatic routing or location software. Mayload and unload truck. Exclude "Couriers and Messengers."

Crane and tower operators

2000 Code: 951

2009 11 Code: 9510

Operate mechanical boom and cable or tower and cable equipment to lift andmove materials, machines, or products in many directions. Exclude "Excavatingand Loading Machine and Dragline Operators."

Dredge, excavating andloading machine operators

2000 Code: 952

2009 11 Code: 9520

Dredge operators operate dredge to remove sand, gravel, or other materialsfrom lakes, rivers, or streams; and to excavate and maintain navigable channelsin waterways. Excavating and loading machine and dragline operators Operateor tend machinery equipped with scoops, shovels, or buckets, to excavate andload loose materials. Loading machine operators, underground mining, Operateunderground loading machine to load coal, ore, or rock into shuttle or mine caror onto conveyors. Loading equipment may include power shovels, hoistingengines equipped with cable drawn scraper or scoop, or machines equippedwith gathering arms and conveyor.

Source: 2000 Census occupational titles and codes at http://usa.ipums.org/usa/volii/00occup.shtml, 1980, job descriptions from the Bureau of LaborStatistics www.bls.gov.

1980 Census data.


Changes in race/ethnicity categories between censuses.

Business ownership. —

Changes in industry codes between Censuses.

Geographic variables.

Changes in educational variables between Censuses.

6

Census 2000 Brief


Figure I 4.BBC racial/ethnic categories compared with Census race and Hispanic Origin survey questions

BBC racial/ethniccategories 2000 Census 1980 Census

Black American Hispanic origin: no

Race: Black/Negro alone or in combination with any othernon Hispanic group

Hispanic origin: no

Race: Black/Negro

Asian PacificAmerican

Hispanic origin: no

Race: Chinese, Taiwanese, Japanese, Filipino, Korean,Vietnamese, Cambodian, Hmong, Laotian, Thai, Indonesian,Malaysian, Samoan, Tongan, Polynesian, Pacific Islander,Guamanian/Chamorro, Micronesian, Melanesian, or otherAsian, either alone or in combination with any non Hispanic,non Black, or non Native American groups

Hispanic origin: no

Race: Chinese, Japanese,Filipino, Korean, Vietnamese,Pacific Islander or otherAsian

Subcontinent AsianAmerican

Hispanic origin: no

Race: Asian Indian, Bangladeshi, Pakistani or Sri Lankan,alone or in combination with white or other groups only

Hispanic origin: no

Race: Asian Indian

Hispanic American Hispanic origin: yes

Race: any race groups, alone or in combination with othergroups

Hispanic origin: yes

Race: any

or

Hispanic origin: no

Race: Spanish

Native American Hispanic origin: no

Race: American Indian or Alaskan Native tribe or NativeHawaiian, identified alone or in combination with any nonHispanic, non Black group

Hispanic origin: no

Race: AmericanIndian/Alaska Native orNative Hawaiian

Other minoritygroup

Hispanic origin: no

Race: other race alone or in combination with white only

Hispanic origin: no

Race: other race

Non Hispanic white Hispanic origin: no

Race: white alone

Hispanic origin: no

Race: white

Source: BBC Research & Consulting from the IPUMS program: http://usa.ipums.org/usa/.

Survey of Small Business Finances (SSBF)


Data for 1998.

Categorizing owner race/ethnicity and gender.

Defining selected industry sectors.

Survey of Small Business Finances, 1998 Survey of Small Business Finances, 2003


Region variables.

Loan denial variables.

Data for 2003.

Population differences.

Variable differences.

—

Data reporting.

2003 Survey of Small BusinessFinances.


—

Survey of Business Owners (SBO)

Alternative Methods of Unit Nonresponse Weight Adjustments: AnApplication from the 2003 Survey of Small Businesses


Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) Data

BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING – FINAL REPORT APPENDIX J, PAGE 1

APPENDIX J.Qualitative Information from Personal Interviews,Public Hearings, and Other Meetings

A. Introduction and Background

B. Background on the Contracting Industry in the Seattle Metropolitan Area,

C. Doing Business as a Prime Contractor or as a Subcontractor,

D. Keys to Business Success,

E. Potential Barriers to Doing Business with Public Agencies,

F. Allegations of Unfair Treatment,

G. Additional Information Regarding any Race or Gender based Discrimination,

H. Insights Regarding Race and Gender Neutral Measures,


I. Insights Regarding Race or Gender based Measures,

J. DBE and other Certification Processes,

A. Introduction and Background

In depth personal interviews.

—


Information from public hearings.

Trade association meetings.

Written testimony.

B. Background on the Contracting Industry in the Seattle Metropolitan Area


How businesses become established.

Many firm owners worked in the industry before starting their own businesses.


Multiple interviewees indicated that relationships among family members were instrumental inestablishing their construction businesses.


Changes in types of work that businesses perform.

Some interviewees explained that perceived incentives for MBE/WBEs was one factor thatencouraged starting those businesses.

Fluid employment size of businesses.

A number of companies reported that they expand and contract their employment size depending onwork opportunities, season, or market conditions. Examples of those comments include the following:


Some interviewees said that they had reduced permanent staff because of poor market conditions.For example:

Flexibility of businesses to perform different types and sizes of contracts in different partsof the state.

Many firm owners reported flexibility in the locations and sizes of contracts that their firms perform.


Other companies said that they prefer to perform projects close to their businesses, but will travel toworksites when necessary.

Some firm owners indicated that their companies perform both small and large contracts. Forexample:

Some business owners noted that their financial resources affected how large of contracts on whichthey typically bid:

Other business owners reported that they typically only perform small contracts.


Some companies reported that they work in several different fields, or that they had changed primarylines of work over time. For example:

Local effects of the economic downturn.

Most interviewees indicated that market conditions since 2008 have made it difficult to stay inbusiness.


Many business owners and managers said they have seen much more competition during theeconomic downturn.


According to interviewees, a few businesses may have survived because they were well capitalizedgoing into the economic downturn.

A few business owners and managers said that their companies did not see a decline in work due tothe economic downturn.


Current economic conditions.

One interviewee said that current economic conditions are not favorable for his business.

Business owners’ experiences pursuing public and private sector work.

Most interviewees indicated that their firms conduct both public sector and private sector work.

A number of interviewees noted that the slowdown in private sector work resulted in morecompanies pursuing public sector work.


Some interviewees reported that they preferred private sector work over public sector work. Some ofthe comments indicated that performing private sector contracts is easier, more profitable, and morestraightforward than performing public sector contacts.



Several interviewees indicated there was less paperwork in the private sector than in the publicsector, making private sector work more appealing.

Some interviewees said that prevailing wage requirements on public sector work made private sectorcontracts more attractive for their companies.

Some interviewees said that current market conditions are such that there are more bidders ongovernment contracts and that competitors sometimes submit low ball bids on public sector work.

Other interviewees preferred obtaining public sector contracts because they were more certain thatthey would be paid.


Some interviewees said that they worked primarily in the public sector because the type of work theydo only exists there.

Some interviewees said that they preferred public sector work because it is more profitable.

Some DBE certified interviewees said that almost all of their work comes from the public sector, andthat it is hard to obtain private sector work.


One interviewee said that pursuing private sector work in addition to her public sector contracts wasdifficult because she was a union employer.

Some firms reported that they primarily conduct private sector work and have attempted to obtainpublic sector contracts, but without success.

Some interviewees with experience in both the private and public sectors identified advantages anddisadvantages of private sector and public sector work.



C. Doing Business as a Prime Contractor or as a Subcontractor

Mix of prime contract and subcontract work.

The study team interviewed many firms that primarily work as subcontractors but on occasion alsowork as prime contractors.


Some firms reported that they primarily work as subcontractors because doing so fits the types ofwork that they typically perform.

Some business owners and managers said that they mostly work as subcontractors because theycannot bid on the size and scope of the entire project or find it difficult compete with larger firms forthose prime contracts.

A few firm owners said that significant barriers to bidding as a prime contractor were the reason theirfirms primarily performed as subcontractors.


Some business owners and managers said that they mostly work as prime contractors and prefer todo so.

A few business owners said that their work is fairly evenly split between prime contracts andsubcontracts.

Prime contractors’ decisions to subcontract work.

Some prime contractors say that they usually perform all of the work or subcontract very little of aproject.


Many interviewees from companies that use subcontractors indicated that they use the firms withwhich they have an existing relationship.


Some interviewees said there were subcontractors they would not work with.

Some interviewees described how there are similarities and differences between considering DBEsand considering other firms as subcontractors.



Some business owners indicated that they based the selection of subcontractors on low bid or onqualities that gave a team the best opportunity to win a contract.

Some owners and managers of MBE/WBE/DBE prime contractors said they seek out otherMBE/WBE/DBE firms or small businesses as subcontractors on their projects.


Most interviewees whose firms work as subcontractors reported that they rarely hire second tiersubcontractors.


Subcontractors’ preferences to do business with certain prime contractors and avoidothers.

Interviewees frequently mentioned speed and reliability of payment as the main consider indetermining their preference for certain prime contractors and their avoidance of others.


In addition to prompt payment for their work, many firm owners and managers said that theypreferred prime contractors that are organized and easy to deal with; maintain safe worksites; andtreat them fairly.

Some subcontractors said that they had good experiences working with DBE/MBE/WBE primecontractors.


One firm that had been a subcontractor to a DBE prime contractor said that the prime contractor hadsome difficulties with the project.

A number of business owners and managers said that certain prime contractors had treated themunfairly, and they now avoided them.


Subcontractors’ methods for obtaining work from prime contractors.

Some business owners and managers rely on repeat customers and word of mouth to obtain workfrom prime contractors.


Similarly, some business owners said that it was very difficult to solicit business from certain primecontractors because those contractors are going to automatically use the subcontractors they alreadyknow.

One subcontractor said that the owner of a contract had a lot of influence in getting him work on acontract.

Some business owners said that they actively market to prime contractors.


Some business owners said that they are routinely solicited for bids from prime contractors and donot need to proactively market to them.


D. Keys to Business Success

Employees.

Many interviewees indicated that high quality workers are a key to business success.


Some business owners and managers said that it was difficult to find and hire skilled employees.

Some interviewees reported no barriers related to getting qualified personnel. E


Some business owners commented on what they saw as a declining quality of workers.

Some owners and managers said that being union employers helped them find workers.

Some business owners and managers said that they preferred to have control over employee hiring,or have had negative experiences with unions, and did not want to be union employers.

Other business owners do hire union workers but state that it is more difficult to work with them.


Some firm owners and managers indicated that hiring and retaining employees was more difficult forsmall businesses than for larger companies.


Equipment.

Some businesses reported that they own certain equipment and then rent larger pieces of equipmentthat they may need infrequently.

Other interviewees said that they own all their equipment.

Some interviewees stated that acquiring needed equipment is not a barrier.

Some companies, especially certain types of engineering firms, indicated that equipment is not abarrier because they require little equipment for their lines of work.

“

However, some business owners reported that obtaining expensive equipment is a barrier.


Access to materials.

Some business owners and managers said that their ability to obtain credit or having sufficient cashon hand were factors in accessing materials and supplies, especially if they were not receiving timelypayment from customers or prime contractors.

In general, minority and female business owners did not report instances of racial or genderdiscrimination by suppliers.

Some interviewees discussed small businesses being charged more for supplies.


Interviewees also mentioned the variability of materials prices as a barrier.

Obtaining inventory or other materials or supplies was not seen as a barrier to success by severalinterviewees.

Financing.

Many firm owners reported that obtaining financing was important in establishing and growing theirbusinesses (including financing for working capital and for equipment), and surviving poor marketconditions.


Some firm owners and managers reported that obtaining financing was not a barrier, and some saidthat it was.


Some interviewees said that they had difficulty obtaining financing when starting their companies,but that financing was no longer a barrier for them.

A number of business owners and managers said that obtaining financing continued to be a barrier fortheir companies.


Some business owners explained the connection between personal assets and the ability to obtainfinancing.

Some minority and female business owners reported no instances of discrimination in obtainingfinancing.

However, some minority and female business owners indicated that race and gender discriminationaffects financing.


Other firms said they weren’t sure if they had faced discrimination in obtaining financing.

Other factors.

A few business owners specifically mentioned the importance of a good reputation and strongrelationships with customers and other firms as factors that are essential for continued success.


Related factors — discipline, perseverance, and attention to detail — were also mentioned by firmowners as keys to success.

E. Potential Barriers to Doing Business with Public Agencies


Learning about work and marketing.

Many business owners and managers reported that it is easy to market in general and, specifically, tolearn about public sector work.


Some small business owners said that it was more difficult for smaller firms to market and identifycontract opportunities.


Bonding requirements and obtaining bonds.

Several interviewees reported little or no problem obtaining bonds, or that bonding was not an issue.


Some subcontractors said that prime contractors do not require them to provide bonding.

One subcontractor said that prime contractors sometimes covered the bonds for his firm when itsubcontracts.

Engineering related companies reported that they are not affected by bonding requirements.

Some business owners and managers indicated that bonding requirements had adversely affectedtheir growth and opportunities to bid on public contracts.



Potential for discrimination against MBE/WBEs.


Insurance requirements and obtaining insurance.

Many interviewees reported no instances in which insurance requirements and obtaining insurancewere barriers.

Many interviewees said that they could obtain insurance, but that the cost of obtaining it, especiallyfor small businesses, was a barrier.


Some interviewees indicated that the cost of obtaining insurance was so high as to affect thecontracts that they pursued.

A few business owners noted that insurance requirements affected opportunities on subcontracts aswell as prime contracts.

One owner of a DBE certified business stated that insurance was more difficult for DBE firms becauseof a lack of history in the industry.

One manager of a WBE certified business stated that the crash of the market had made it moredifficult to obtain insurance.


Prevailing wage requirements.

Some DBE certified firms said that project labor agreements on certain jobs presented a disadvantagefor DBEs and other small businesses that are not union employers.


A few interviewees explained other barriers concerning union requirements, and other negativeexperiences.

Some business owners and managers said that being a non union company had not been a barrier toobtaining public sector projects.

Licenses and permits.

Many business owners and managers reported that obtaining licenses and permits was not a barrierto doing business.


Some interviewees indicated that sometimes subcontractors can rely on prime contractors to obtainnecessary permits.

Some interviewees said that obtaining permits can be a barrier.

Other unnecessarily restrictive contract specifications.

Many owners and managers indicated that some specifications are overly restrictive and presentbarriers.


Although also examined separately in Appendix J, indemnification and insurance requirements onpublic sector contracts were frequently mentioned as contract specifications that restricted access topublic work.

Some business owners and managers did not identify restrictive contract specifications as a barrier todoing business.

Bidding processes.

Many business owners said that bidding procedures presented a barrier to obtaining work.



Several interviewees reported no problems with the bidding process

Non price factors public agencies or others use to make contract awards.

Many business owners and managers had complaints about factors that public agencies use to makeawards.

Some business owners said that experience requirements were a barrier to doing business with publicagencies.


Some interviewees reported no barriers related to experience and expertise.

Timely payment by the customer or prime.

Most interviewees said that slow payment by the customer or a prime contractor is an issue and canbe damaging to companies in construction and construction related professional services industries.



A few interviewees identified problems with agencies, not prime contractors, paying on time

Interviewees were also concerned about timely payment for change orders on contracts.

A few business owners and managers said that payment was sometimes more difficult on privatesector contracts than public sector work.


However, some other interviewees indicated that slow payment was much more of an issue on publicsector contracts.

A number of interviewees specifically mentioned “dishonesty” or unethical practices of primecontractors when discussing difficulty of being paid as a subcontractor.


One interviewee explained the connection between slow payments and the ability to obtain financing

Potential for discrimination against MBE/WBEs.


Some interviewees said that prime contractors did discriminate against minority owned firms.

One firm indicated timely payment was not an issue.

Taxes.

One interviewee indicated new taxes could present a barrier to subcontractors.

Experience with Port Processes.

A few firms commented that the Port’s bidding process was complicated and difficult.


One firm noted it was harder to work with the Port compared to other public agencies.

One interviewee had mixed experiences working with the Port.

A few business owners felt that the Port continually awards contracts to the same firms.


Several interviewees had comments about how small businesses are treated by the Port.

A few interviewees criticized the Port’s insurance requirements.


One interviewee had several suggestions for how the Port can improve and simplify their operations.

One interviewee felt the Port’s website was difficult to navigate.

One interviewee praised the outreach efforts of the Port’s staff.

F. Allegations of Unfair Treatment


Bid shopping.

Many interviewees indicated that bid shopping was prevalent in the local construction industry.



One interviewee reported that bid shopping occurs on public as well as private sector contracts.

Some owners of DBE certified firms said that prime contractors sometimes target DBEs for bidshopping.

No prime contractors reported that they practice bid shopping.

Some owners and managers reported that they do not see bid shopping, or that it is not a big issue.

Bid manipulation.

Many interviewees said that bid manipulation affected their industry, and that it was common.


Some interviewees reported no experiences with bid manipulation.

Some interviewees indicated that they had been denied prime contracts or subcontracts, and thatthey thought it was due to discrimination or their DBE status.


Potential for discrimination against minority and women owned subcontractors.

Some minority and female business owners indicated that prime contractors do discriminate againstMBE/WBES in their selection of subcontractors

Some minority and female interviewees report that there may be discrimination, but that primecontractors would not be blatant in any discrimination


Some business owners reported that they have been unfairly treated by prime contractors, but notedthat it would be hard to know if it was due to discrimination.

Treatment by prime contractors and customers during performance of the work.

Some business owners indicated that unfair treatment during performance of work had affected theirbusinesses.


Some business owners and managers, including owners of DBE certified firms, said that demeaningbehavior and other unfair treatment precluded working for certain prime contractors.

Some interviewees indicated that unfair treatment was connected with their race/ethnicity or gender.


Some owners and managers of MBE/WBEs reported that there were double standards forperformance of work that adversely affected their companies


One firm that works mostly as a prime discussed the issue.

Some interviewees did not think that treatment by prime contractors was a barrier for their firms.

Unfavorable work environment for minorities or women.

Some interviewees reported differential treatment of women on worksites.

Some interviewees indicated that there was harassment of minorities on jobsites.


Some interviewees said that they that had not experienced unfavorable work environments.

Approval of work by prime contractors and customers.

Some interviewees identify difficulty with approval of work by prime contractors or customers.

Some interviewees did not indicate that the approval of work by prime contractors or customersduring performance of work is a barrier.

G. Additional Information Regarding any Racial/ethnic or Gender basedDiscrimination


Stereotypical attitudes about minorities and women (or MBE/WBE/DBEs).


Some interviewees indicated that negative stereotypes had to do with being a small business.


Some interviewees reported no instances of stereotypical attitudes on the part of customers orbuyers.

“Good ol’ boy” network or other closed networks.

Those who reported the existence of a good ol’ boy network included minority, female, and Caucasianmale interviewees.

Some minority and female interviewees indicated that the good ol’ boy network adversely affectstheir businesses.


Some minority and female business owners and managers said that there was a good ol’ boy network,but they have, over time, been able to enter the group or form their own groups.


Some interviewees reported they were not affected by any good ol’ boy network or other closednetworks or that the good ol’ boy network no longer exists.

Other allegations of discriminatory treatment.

Some interviewees had other comments about what they perceived as discrimination againstminorities or women


H. Insights Regarding Race and Gender Neutral Measures


Technical assistance and support services.

Some business owners and managers thought technical assistance and support services would behelpful.

Some business owners and managers reported being aware of technical assistance and supportservices programs and having used them.

Some interviewees recommended specific technical assistance topics.


Some firm owners and managers recommended against such programs because they thought thatsmall businesses should access any assistance on their own.


One business owner thought the usefulness would depend on what the contractor received theassistance for.

Some business owners and managers said that generalized technical assistance would help firms, butothers said that it could actually be harmful.

On the job training programs.

Some interviewees said that on the job training would be useful in certain settings.

Mentor protégé relationships.


There were many comments from interviewees in support of mentor protégé programs.

Other business owners and managers had criticisms of mentor protégé programs.


Joint venture relationships.

Some of the business owners and managers interviewed had favorable comments about joint ventureprograms.


Some interviewees expressed negative comments and anecdotes about joint venture programs

Financing assistance.

Many business owners and managers indicated that financing assistance would be helpful.


Some business owners and managers had attempted to use or were aware of financing assistanceprograms and had negative comments.

Bonding assistance.


Many business owners and managers indicated that bonding assistance would be helpful.


Some business owners said that they did not have difficulties dealing with bonding.

Assistance in obtaining business insurance.

Some business owners and managers recommended assistance in obtaining business insurance.

Some interviewees indicated that assistance in obtaining business insurance was not needed.

Assistance in using emerging technology.

Many business owners said that assistance using emerging technology would be helpful.


One interviewee had accessed available training and was critical of the service

Other small business start up assistance.

Some business owners and managers specifically mentioned marketing assistance

Other business owners and managers said that assistance with regulations and paperwork wasneeded for start ups

In response to the question concerning start up assistance, some business owners pointed to servicesthat are now offered.

However, some business owners expressed some cautions about business assistance


Information on public agency contracting procedures and bidding opportunities.

Many business owners and managers reported that they were already receiving information onbidding opportunities or knew how to search for them.

A number of interviewees suggested that public agencies better coordinate how they provideinformation about contract opportunities

One interviewee cautioned that obtaining information when public agencies publicly announcebidding opportunities may not be helpful because it is then too late in the process


On line registration with a public agency as a potential bidder.

A number of interviewees said their companies were already participating in on line bidderregistration systems

Related to online registration, some business owners and managers discussed their experienceconcerning electronic rosters for small public agency projects

Several interviewees said they preferred centralized, online registration systems for public projects

Hard copy or electronic directory of potential subcontractors.

Some business owners pointed out existing resources


A few business owners strongly recommended electronic directories

Pre bid conferences where subs can meet primes.

Some business owners and managers said that they did not have time to attend the meetings or thatthe meetings needed better scheduling.


A few interviewees had mixed feelings about pre bid conferences.

A few interviewees did not think that pre bid meetings were useful

Distribution of lists of planholders or other lists of possible prime bidders to potentialsubcontractors.


Some interviewee discussed the services that were already available

Other agency outreach, such as vendor fairs and events.

Examples of positive comments about agency outreach events include the following


A number of business owners and managers indicated that outreach events were not useful

Streamlining/simplification of bidding procedures.

One business owner made specific comments about streamlined reporting requirements or reducedpaperwork

Some interviewees indicated that they thought that bidding procedures were already streamlined, orthat further streamlining was not needed


Breaking up large contracts into smaller pieces.

Most business owners and managers interviewed indicated that breaking up large contracts intosmaller components would be helpful.

A few business owners saw both positive and negative aspects of unbundling contracts.


One business owner said unbundling would not impact his business.

Price or evaluation preferences for small businesses.

Many interviewees said that price or evaluation preferences for small business would be helpful.

Some interviewees identified advantages and disadvantages with preferences for small businesses


A few business owners did not support price or evaluation preferences for small business

Small business set asides.

Most business owners and managers supported small business set asides.


Some business owners and managers generally supported small business set asides but expressedsome reservations about the concept.

Mandatory subcontracting minimums.

Some firms thought a mandatory subcontracting minimum program would be useful.

Some business owners and managers had reservations concerning a mandatory subcontractingminimum program.

Some interviewees did not like the idea of mandatory subcontracting minimums or did not think itwould be effective.


Small business subcontracting goals.

Many business owners and managers indicated that small business subcontracting goals would behelpful.

Some business owners had concerns about the effectiveness of a small business goals program.

Other business owners recommended against a small business subcontracting goals programs.

Formal complaint/grievance procedures.


Many business owners and managers said the formal complaint and grievance procedures would be abenefit.

Some business owners and managers did not believe complaint or grievance processes were available,or they believed that existing processes could be improved.

Other business owners reported that they had used existing processes and did not find them to behelpful.

One interviewee commented that processes had not worked in the past but they were improving.

Other measures.


I. Insights Regarding Race or Gender based Measures

.

Support for race /ethnicity or gender based measures.

Some individuals had positive comments about DBE contract goals and the Federal DBE Programoverall.



Negativity towards race /ethnicity or gender based measures.

Some interviewees said that race and gender based programs should be discontinued or substantiallychanged.

Criticism for aspects of the Implementation of the Federal DBE Program.

Some interviewees had negative comments about how the Federal DBE Program functioned ingeneral.

Some interviewees were critical about key aspects of the implementation of the Federal DBE Program.


Several interviewees expressed the opinion that the definition of “small business” had grown toinclude multi million dollar companies who received DBE certification and then had an unfairadvantage over the truly small DBE businesses.


Effect of Initiative 200.

A number of owners and managers of MBE/WBEs reported that the implementation of Initiative 200had an adverse effect on their businesses.


Some firm owners and managers did not think I 200 had adversely affected their firms.

MBE/WBE/DBE fronts or fraud.

Several interviewees reported knowledge of examples of fronts or fraud.


Some interviewees explained the impact of alleged DBE fronts on their companies.


A few firms indicated that they had not experienced front companies.

False reporting of DBE participation or falsifying good faith efforts.


Some business owners reported widespread abuse of the DBE Program through false reporting of DBEparticipation or falsifying good faith efforts.


Some interviewees representing MBE/WBEs said that prime contractors would list them on a contractto comply with the program, and then reduce or eliminate their work without informing the publicagency.


Some interviewees said that they have not experience falsification of good faith efforts or falsereporting of DBE participation.

Effects of DBE project goals on other businesses.

Some business owners and other individuals indicated that DBE firms submit inflated bids to primeswhen there are DBE contract goals on a project.

.

J. DBE and other Certification Processes

Ease or difficulty of becoming certified.


A number of interviewees said that the DBE certification process was reasonable and some reportedthat it was relatively easy.

Many interviewees reported difficulties with the DBE certification process.




Advantages and disadvantages of DBE certification.

Many of the owners and managers of DBE certified firms interviewed indicated that certificationhelped their business get an initial opportunity to work with a prime contractor.


“




Some interviews indicated that there are limited advantages, or even disadvantages, to being DBEcertified.



APPENDIX K.

Detailed Disparity Results

APPENDIX K.

Detailed Disparity Results

Figu

re K

-1

Fig

ure

K- :

23

45

67

89

1011

1213

1415

1617

1819

Fund

ing

FAA-

and

Loc

ally

-fund

edX

XX

XX

XX

XX

XX

XX

FAA-

fund

edX

XX

XLo

cally

-fund

edX

Tim

e pe

riod

2010

-201

3X

XX

XX

XX

XX

XX

XX

XX

X20

10-2

011

X20

12-2

013

X

Type

Cons

truc

tion

and

cons

truc

tion-

rela

ted

prof

essio

nal s

ervi

ces

XX

XX

XX

XX

XX

Cons

truc

tion

XX

XX

Cons

truc

tion-

rela

ted

prof

essio

nal s

ervi

ces

XX

XX

Cont

ract

role

Prim

e/Su

bX

XX

XX

XX

XX

XPr

ime

XX

XX

XSu

bX

XX

Cont

ract

size

All

XX

XX

XX

XX

XX

XX

XX

XX

Smal

l prim

e co

ntra

cts*

XLa

rge

prim

e co

ntra

cts*

*X

Com

pone

nts o

f DBE

goa

lAn

alys

is of

pot

entia

l DBE

sX

XX

* $2

M a

nd u

nder

for c

onst

ruct

ion,

$50

0K a

nd u

nder

for c

onst

ruct

ion-

rela

ted

prof

essio

nal s

ervi

ces

** G

reat

er th

an $

2M fo

r con

stru

ctio

n, g

reat

er th

an $

500K

for c

onst

ruct

ion-

rela

ted

prof

essio

nal s

ervi

ces

Figu

re K

-2.

Fund

ing

sour

ce: F

AA- a

nd L

ocal

ly-fu

nded

Tim

e pe

riod:

201

0-20

13Ty

pe: C

onst

ruct

ion

and

cons

truc

tion-

rela

ted

prof

essi

onal

serv

ices

Role

: Prim

e Co

ntra

ctor

s and

Sub

cont

ract

ors

(1)

All f

irms

1,04

8

$228

,225

$2

42,3

15

(2)

MBE

/WBE

198

$2

4,15

5

$24,

631

10

.2

18.2

-8

.0

56.0

(3)

WBE

104

$1

1,80

1

$12,

182

5.

0

4.5

0.

6

112.

7

(4)

MBE

94

$12,

354

$1

2,44

9

5.1

13

.7

-8.6

37

.5

(5)

Blac

k Am

eric

an-o

wne

d31

$5

,605

$5

,606

2.

3

2.4

-0

.1

95.6

(6)

Asia

n-Pa

cific

Am

eric

an-o

wne

d21

$1

,482

$1

,556

0.

6

2.2

-1

.6

28.8

(7)

Subc

ontin

ent A

sian

Amer

ican

-ow

ned

13

$350

$3

71

0.2

1.

8

-1.7

8.

4

(8)

Hisp

anic

Am

eric

an-o

wne

d20

$2

,417

$2

,417

1.

0

4.8

-3

.8

20.8

(9)

Nat

ive

Amer

ican

-ow

ned

9

$2,4

99

$2,4

99

1.0

2.

4

-1.4

42

.3

(10)

Unk

now

n M

BE0

$0

(11)

DBE-

cert

ified

97

$8,0

35

$8,3

19

3.4

(12)

Wom

an-o

wne

d DB

E36

$2

,233

$2

,453

1.

0

(13)

Min

ority

-ow

ned

DBE

61

$5,8

02

$5,8

66

2.4

(14)

Blac

k Am

eric

an-o

wne

d DB

E16

$7

81

$782

0.

3

(15)

Asia

n-Pa

cific

Am

eric

an-o

wne

d DB

E14

$8

48

$910

0.

4

(16)

Subc

ontin

ent A

sian

Amer

ican

-ow

ned

DBE

10

$301

$3

01

0.1

(17)

Hisp

anic

Am

eric

an-o

wne

d DB

E15

$1

,791

$1

,791

0.

7

(18)

Nat

ive

Amer

ican

-ow

ned

DBE

6

$2,0

81

$2,0

81

0.9

(19)

Unk

now

n DB

E-M

BE0

$0

(20)

Whi

te m

ale-

owne

d DB

E0

$0

$0

0.

0

(21)

Unk

now

n DB

E0

$0

Not

e: S

prea

dshe

et ro

unds

num

bers

to n

eare

st th

ousa

nd d

olla

rs o

r ten

th o

f one

per

cent

. WBE

is w

hite

wom

en-o

wne

d fir

ms.

* U

nkno

wn

MBE

, Unk

now

n DB

E-M

BE, a

nd U

nkno

wn

DBE

dolla

rs w

ere

allo

cate

d to

MBE

subg

roup

s pro

port

iona

l to

the

know

n to

tal d

olla

rs o

f tho

se g

roup

s. F

or e

xam

ple,

if to

tal

dol

lars

of B

lack

Am

eric

an-o

wne

d fir

ms (

colu

mn

b, ro

w 5

) acc

ount

ed fo

r 25

perc

ent o

f tot

al M

BE d

olla

rs (c

olum

n b,

row

4),

then

25

perc

ent o

f col

umn

b, ro

w 1

0 w

ould

be

adde

d

to c

olum

n b,

row

5 a

nd th

e su

m w

ould

be

show

n in

col

umn

c, ro

w 5

.

Sour

ce: B

BC R

esea

rch

& C

onsu

lting

Disp

arity

Ana

lysis

.

(g)

Disp

arity

inde

x(d

/ e

) x 1

00

(f)Di

ffere

nce

(col

umn

d -

colu

mn

e)%

(e)

Util

izat

ion

benc

hmar

k(a

vaila

bilit

y)%

%co

lum

n c,

row

1)(c

olum

n c

/Ac

tual

util

izat

ion

(d)

(tho

usan

ds)*

Estim

ated

Firm

Typ

e

cont

ract

s(s

ubco

ntra

cts)

in sa

mpl

ein

sam

ple

Dolla

rs

(tho

usan

ds)

(a)

(b)

(c)

tota

l dol

lars

Num

ber o

f

Figu

re K

-3.

Fund

ing

sour

ce: F

AA- a

nd L

ocal

ly-fu

nded

Tim

e pe

riod:

201

0-20

13Ty

pe: C

onst

ruct

ion

Role

: Prim

e Co

ntra

ctor

s and

Sub

cont

ract

ors

(1)

All f

irms

681

$1

90,1

86

$190

,186

(2)

MBE

/WBE

142

$2

2,11

0

$22,

110

11

.6

18.5

-6

.8

63.0

(3)

WBE

77

$10,

960

$1

0,96

0

5.8

4.

3

1.4

13

3.5

(4)

MBE

65

$11,

150

$1

1,15

0

5.9

14

.1

-8.3

41

.5

(5)

Blac

k Am

eric

an-o

wne

d29

$5

,551

$5

,551

2.

9

2.6

0.

3

113.

3

(6)

Asia

n-Pa

cific

Am

eric

an-o

wne

d7

$9

61

$961

0.

5

2.0

-1

.5

24.9

(7)

Subc

ontin

ent A

sian

Amer

ican

-ow

ned

6

$241

$2

41

0.1

1.

1

-1.0

11

.3

(8)

Hisp

anic

Am

eric

an-o

wne

d15

$2

,289

$2

,289

1.

2

5.5

-4

.3

22.0

(9)

Nat

ive

Amer

ican

-ow

ned

8

$2,1

08

$2,1

08

1.1

2.

9

-1.8

37

.7

(10)

Unk

now

n M

BE0

$0

(11)

DBE-

cert

ified

61

$7,0

39

$7,0

39

3.7

(12)

Wom

an-o

wne

d DB

E19

$1

,594

$1

,594

0.

8

(13)

Min

ority

-ow

ned

DBE

42

$5,4

44

$5,4

44

2.9

(14)

Blac

k Am

eric

an-o

wne

d DB

E14

$7

27

$727

0.

4

(15)

Asia

n-Pa

cific

Am

eric

an-o

wne

d DB

E3

$6

22

$622

0.

3

(16)

Subc

ontin

ent A

sian

Amer

ican

-ow

ned

DBE

6

$241

$2

41

0.1

(17)

Hisp

anic

Am

eric

an-o

wne

d DB

E13

$1

,773

$1

,773

0.

9

(18)

Nat

ive

Amer

ican

-ow

ned

DBE

6

$2,0

81

$2,0

81

1.1

(19)

Unk

now

n DB

E-M

BE0

$0

(20)

Whi

te m

ale-

owne

d DB

E0

$0

$0

0.

0

(21)

Unk

now

n DB

E0

$0

Not

e: S

prea

dshe

et ro

unds

num

bers

to n

eare

st th

ousa

nd d

olla

rs o

r ten

th o

f one

per

cent

. WBE

is w

hite

wom

en-o

wne

d fir

ms.

* U

nkno

wn

MBE

, Unk

now

n DB

E-M

BE, a

nd U

nkno

wn

DBE

dolla

rs w

ere

allo

cate

d to

MBE

subg

roup

s pro

port

iona

l to

the

know

n to

tal d

olla

rs o

f tho

se g

roup

s. F

or e

xam

ple,

if to

tal

dol

lars

of B

lack

Am

eric

an-o

wne

d fir

ms (

colu

mn

b, ro

w 5

) acc

ount

ed fo

r 25

perc

ent o

f tot

al M

BE d

olla

rs (c

olum

n b,

row

4),

then

25

perc

ent o

f col

umn

b, ro

w 1

0 w

ould

be

adde

d

to c

olum

n b,

row

5 a

nd th

e su

m w

ould

be

show

n in

col

umn

c, ro

w 5

.

Sour

ce: B

BC R

esea

rch

& C

onsu

lting

Disp

arity

Ana

lysis

.

(a)

(b)

(c)

tota

l dol

lars

Num

ber o

f

(tho

usan

ds)*

Estim

ated

Firm

Typ

e

cont

ract

s(s

ubco

ntra

cts)

in sa

mpl

ein

sam

ple

Dolla

rs

(tho

usan

ds)

%co

lum

n c,

row

1)(c

olum

n c

/Ac

tual

util

izat

ion

(d)

(e)

Util

izat

ion

benc

hmar

k(a

vaila

bilit

y)%

(f)Di

ffere

nce

(col

umn

d -

colu

mn

e)%

(g)

Disp

arity

inde

x(d

/ e

) x 1

00

Figu

re K

-4.

Fund

ing

sour

ce: F

AA- a

nd L

ocal

ly-fu

nded

Tim

e pe

riod:

201

0-20

13Ty

pe: P

rofe

ssio

nal S

ervi

ces

Role

: Prim

e Co

ntra

ctor

s and

Sub

cont

ract

ors

(1)

All f

irms

367

$3

8,03

9

$52,

129

(2)

MBE

/WBE

56

$2,0

45

$2,5

21

4.8

17

.1

-12.

3

28.3

(3)

WBE

27

$841

$1

,221

2.

3

5.0

-2

.7

46.9

(4)

MBE

29

$1,2

04

$1,2

99

2.5

12

.1

-9.6

20

.6

(5)

Blac

k Am

eric

an-o

wne

d2

$5

4

$55

0.

1

1.9

-1

.7

5.7

(6)

Asia

n-Pa

cific

Am

eric

an-o

wne

d14

$5

21

$595

1.

1

3.0

-1

.8

38.5

(7)

Subc

ontin

ent A

sian

Amer

ican

-ow

ned

7

$109

$1

29

0.2

4.

4

-4.1

5.

6

(8)

Hisp

anic

Am

eric

an-o

wne

d5

$1

29

$129

0.

2

2.3

-2

.0

10.8

(9)

Nat

ive

Amer

ican

-ow

ned

1

$391

$3

91

0.8

0.

6

0.1

12

4.0

(10)

Unk

now

n M

BE0

$0

(11)

DBE-

cert

ified

36

$997

$1

,281

2.

5

(12)

Wom

an-o

wne

d DB

E17

$6

39

$859

1.

6

(13)

Min

ority

-ow

ned

DBE

19

$358

$4

21

0.8

(14)

Blac

k Am

eric

an-o

wne

d DB

E2

$5

4

$55

0.

1

(15)

Asia

n-Pa

cific

Am

eric

an-o

wne

d DB

E11

$2

26

$289

0.

6

(16)

Subc

ontin

ent A

sian

Amer

ican

-ow

ned

DBE

4

$60

$6

0

0.1

(17)

Hisp

anic

Am

eric

an-o

wne

d DB

E2

$1

8

$18

0.

0

(18)

Nat

ive

Amer

ican

-ow

ned

DBE

0

$0

$0

0.0

(19)

Unk

now

n DB

E-M

BE0

$0

(20)

Whi

te m

ale-

owne

d DB

E0

$0

$0

0.

0

(21)

Unk

now

n DB

E0

$0

Not

e: S

prea

dshe

et ro

unds

num

bers

to n

eare

st th

ousa

nd d

olla

rs o

r ten

th o

f one

per

cent

. WBE

is w

hite

wom

en-o

wne

d fir

ms.

* U

nkno

wn

MBE

, Unk

now

n DB

E-M

BE, a

nd U

nkno

wn

DBE

dolla

rs w

ere

allo

cate

d to

MBE

subg

roup

s pro

port

iona

l to

the

know

n to

tal d

olla

rs o

f tho

se g

roup

s. F

or e

xam

ple,

if to

tal

dol

lars

of B

lack

Am

eric

an-o

wne

d fir

ms (

colu

mn

b, ro

w 5

) acc

ount

ed fo

r 25

perc

ent o

f tot

al M

BE d

olla

rs (c

olum

n b,

row

4),

then

25

perc

ent o

f col

umn

b, ro

w 1

0 w

ould

be

adde

d

to c

olum

n b,

row

5 a

nd th

e su

m w

ould

be

show

n in

col

umn

c, ro

w 5

.

Sour

ce: B

BC R

esea

rch

& C

onsu

lting

Disp

arity

Ana

lysis

.

(g)

Disp

arity

inde

x(d

/ e

) x 1

00

(f)Di

ffere

nce

(col

umn

d -

colu

mn

e)%

(e)

Util

izat

ion

benc

hmar

k(a

vaila

bilit

y)%

%co

lum

n c,

row

1)(c

olum

n c

/Ac

tual

util

izat

ion

(d)

(tho

usan

ds)*

Estim

ated

Firm

Typ

e

cont

ract

s(s

ubco

ntra

cts)

in sa

mpl

ein

sam

ple

Dolla

rs

(tho

usan

ds)

(a)

(b)

(c)

tota

l dol

lars

Num

ber o

f

Figu

re K

-5.

Fund

ing

sour

ce: F

AA- a

nd L

ocal

ly-fu

nded

Tim

e pe

riod:

201

0-20

11Ty

pe: C

onst

ruct

ion

and

cons

truc

tion-

rela

ted

prof

essi

onal

serv

ices

Role

: Prim

e Co

ntra

ctor

s and

Sub

cont

ract

ors

(1)

All f

irms

629

$1

54,2

23

$159

,549

(2)

MBE

/WBE

113

$1

0,04

6

$10,

350

6.

5

18.3

-1

1.8

35

.5

(3)

WBE

55

$3,7

01

$3,9

63

2.5

4.

2

-1.8

58

.6

(4)

MBE

58

$6,3

45

$6,3

87

4.0

14

.0

-10.

0

28.6

(5)

Blac

k Am

eric

an-o

wne

d16

$1

,192

$1

,192

0.

7

2.5

-1

.7

30.0

(6)

Asia

n-Pa

cific

Am

eric

an-o

wne

d12

$6

68

$710

0.

4

2.1

-1

.7

20.8

(7)

Subc

ontin

ent A

sian

Amer

ican

-ow

ned

9

$215

$2

15

0.1

1.

7

-1.6

8.

0

(8)

Hisp

anic

Am

eric

an-o

wne

d12

$1

,771

$1

,771

1.

1

4.9

-3

.8

22.5

(9)

Nat

ive

Amer

ican

-ow

ned

9

$2,4

99

$2,4

99

1.6

2.

8

-1.2

56

.8

(10)

Unk

now

n M

BE0

$0

(11)

DBE-

cert

ified

68

$6,5

23

$6,6

62

4.2

(12)

Wom

an-o

wne

d DB

E25

$1

,609

$1

,718

1.

1

(13)

Min

ority

-ow

ned

DBE

43

$4,9

13

$4,9

44

3.1

(14)

Blac

k Am

eric

an-o

wne

d DB

E9

$2

48

$248

0.

2

(15)

Asia

n-Pa

cific

Am

eric

an-o

wne

d DB

E9

$6

46

$677

0.

4

(16)

Subc

ontin

ent A

sian

Amer

ican

-ow

ned

DBE

8

$190

$1

90

0.1

(17)

Hisp

anic

Am

eric

an-o

wne

d DB

E11

$1

,747

$1

,747

1.

1

(18)

Nat

ive

Amer

ican

-ow

ned

DBE

6

$2,0

81

$2,0

81

1.3

(19)

Unk

now

n DB

E-M

BE0

$0

(20)

Whi

te m

ale-

owne

d DB

E0

$0

$0

0.

0

(21)

Unk

now

n DB

E0

$0

Not

e: S

prea

dshe

et ro

unds

num

bers

to n

eare

st th

ousa

nd d

olla

rs o

r ten

th o

f one

per

cent

. WBE

is w

hite

wom

en-o

wne

d fir

ms.

* U

nkno

wn

MBE

, Unk

now

n DB

E-M

BE, a

nd U

nkno

wn

DBE

dolla

rs w

ere

allo

cate

d to

MBE

subg

roup

s pro

port

iona

l to

the

know

n to

tal d

olla

rs o

f tho

se g

roup

s. F

or e

xam

ple,

if to

tal

dol

lars

of B

lack

Am

eric

an-o

wne

d fir

ms (

colu

mn

b, ro

w 5

) acc

ount

ed fo

r 25

perc

ent o

f tot

al M

BE d

olla

rs (c

olum

n b,

row

4),

then

25

perc

ent o

f col

umn

b, ro

w 1

0 w

ould

be

adde

d

to c

olum

n b,

row

5 a

nd th

e su

m w

ould

be

show

n in

col

umn

c, ro

w 5

.

Sour

ce: B

BC R

esea

rch

& C

onsu

lting

Disp

arity

Ana

lysis

.

(g)

Disp

arity

inde

x(d

/ e

) x 1

00

(f)Di

ffere

nce

(col

umn

d -

colu

mn

e)%

(e)

Util

izat

ion

benc

hmar

k(a

vaila

bilit

y)%

%co

lum

n c,

row

1)(c

olum

n c

/Ac

tual

util

izat

ion

(d)

(tho

usan

ds)*

Estim

ated

Firm

Typ

e

cont

ract

s(s

ubco

ntra

cts)

in sa

mpl

ein

sam

ple

Dolla

rs

(tho

usan

ds)

(a)

(b)

(c)

tota

l dol

lars

Num

ber o

f

Figu

re K

-6.

Fund

ing

sour

ce: F

AA- a

nd L

ocal

ly-fu

nded

Tim

e pe

riod:

201

2-20

13Ty

pe: C

onst

ruct

ion

and

cons

truc

tion-

rela

ted

prof

essi

onal

serv

ices

Role

: Prim

e Co

ntra

ctor

s and

Sub

cont

ract

ors

(1)

All f

irms

419

$7

4,00

2

$82,

765

(2)

MBE

/WBE

85

$14,

109

$1

4,28

0

17.3

18

.0

-0.7

95

.9

(3)

WBE

49

$8,1

00

$8,2

18

9.9

4.

9

5.0

20

0+

(4)

MBE

36

$6,0

09

$6,0

62

7.3

13

.1

-5.8

55

.9

(5)

Blac

k Am

eric

an-o

wne

d15

$4

,413

$4

,414

5.

3

2.3

3.

1

200+

(6)

Asia

n-Pa

cific

Am

eric

an-o

wne

d9

$8

14

$846

1.

0

2.4

-1

.4

42.8

(7)

Subc

ontin

ent A

sian

Amer

ican

-ow

ned

4

$135

$1

55

0.2

2.

1

-1.9

9.

0

(8)

Hisp

anic

Am

eric

an-o

wne

d8

$6

47

$647

0.

8

4.5

-3

.7

17.3

(9)

Nat

ive

Amer

ican

-ow

ned

0

$0

$0

0.0

1.

8

-1.8

0.

0

(10)

Unk

now

n M

BE0

$0

(11)

DBE-

cert

ified

29

$1,5

13

$1,6

57

2.0

(12)

Wom

an-o

wne

d DB

E11

$6

23

$735

0.

9

(13)

Min

ority

-ow

ned

DBE

18

$889

$9

22

1.1

(14)

Blac

k Am

eric

an-o

wne

d DB

E7

$5

33

$534

0.

6

(15)

Asia

n-Pa

cific

Am

eric

an-o

wne

d DB

E5

$2

02

$233

0.

3

(16)

Subc

ontin

ent A

sian

Amer

ican

-ow

ned

DBE

2

$111

$1

11

0.1

(17)

Hisp

anic

Am

eric

an-o

wne

d DB

E4

$4

3

$43

0.

1

(18)

Nat

ive

Amer

ican

-ow

ned

DBE

0

$0

$0

0.0

(19)

Unk

now

n DB

E-M

BE0

$0

(20)

Whi

te m

ale-

owne

d DB

E0

$0

$0

0.

0

(21)

Unk

now

n DB

E0

$0

Not

e: S

prea

dshe

et ro

unds

num

bers

to n

eare

st th

ousa

nd d

olla

rs o

r ten

th o

f one

per

cent

. WBE

is w

hite

wom

en-o

wne

d fir

ms.

* U

nkno

wn

MBE

, Unk

now

n DB

E-M

BE, a

nd U

nkno

wn

DBE

dolla

rs w

ere

allo

cate

d to

MBE

subg

roup

s pro

port

iona

l to

the

know

n to

tal d

olla

rs o

f tho

se g

roup

s. F

or e

xam

ple,

if to

tal

dol

lars

of B

lack

Am

eric

an-o

wne

d fir

ms (

colu

mn

b, ro

w 5

) acc

ount

ed fo

r 25

perc

ent o

f tot

al M

BE d

olla

rs (c

olum

n b,

row

4),

then

25

perc

ent o

f col

umn

b, ro

w 1

0 w

ould

be

adde

d

to c

olum

n b,

row

5 a

nd th

e su

m w

ould

be

show

n in

col

umn

c, ro

w 5

.

Sour

ce: B

BC R

esea

rch

& C

onsu

lting

Disp

arity

Ana

lysis

.

(g)

Disp

arity

inde

x(d

/ e

) x 1

00

(f)Di

ffere

nce

(col

umn

d -

colu

mn

e)%

(e)

Util

izat

ion

benc

hmar

k(a

vaila

bilit

y)%

%co

lum

n c,

row

1)(c

olum

n c

/Ac

tual

util

izat

ion

(d)

(tho

usan

ds)*

Estim

ated

Firm

Typ

e

cont

ract

s(s

ubco

ntra

cts)

in sa

mpl

ein

sam

ple

Dolla

rs

(tho

usan

ds)

(a)

(b)

(c)

tota

l dol

lars

Num

ber o

f

Figu

re K

-7.

Fund

ing

sour

ce: F

AA-fu

nded

Tim

e pe

riod:

201

0-20

13Ty

pe: C

onst

ruct

ion

and

cons

truc

tion-

rela

ted

prof

essi

onal

serv

ices

Role

: Prim

e Co

ntra

ctor

s and

Sub

cont

ract

ors

(1)

All f

irms

25

$27,

233

$2

7,23

3

(2)

MBE

/WBE

1

$6

$6

0.0

19

.4

-19.

4

0.1

(3)

WBE

1

$6

$6

0.0

1.

5

-1.5

1.

4

(4)

MBE

0

$0

$0

0.0

17

.9

-17.

9

0.0

(5)

Blac

k Am

eric

an-o

wne

d0

$0

$0

0.

0

5.4

-5

.4

0.0

(6)

Asia

n-Pa

cific

Am

eric

an-o

wne

d0

$0

$0

0.

0

0.1

-0

.1

0.0

(7)

Subc

ontin

ent A

sian

Amer

ican

-ow

ned

0

$0

$0

0.0

0.

0

0.0

0.

0

(8)

Hisp

anic

Am

eric

an-o

wne

d0

$0

$0

0.

0

6.9

-6

.9

0.0

(9)

Nat

ive

Amer

ican

-ow

ned

0

$0

$0

0.0

5.

5

-5.5

0.

0

(10)

Unk

now

n M

BE0

$0

(11)

DBE-

cert

ified

0

$0

$0

0.0

(12)

Wom

an-o

wne

d DB

E0

$0

$0

0.

0

(13)

Min

ority

-ow

ned

DBE

0

$0

$0

0.0

(14)

Blac

k Am

eric

an-o

wne

d DB

E0

$0

$0

0.

0

(15)

Asia

n-Pa

cific

Am

eric

an-o

wne

d DB

E0

$0

$0

0.

0

(16)

Subc

ontin

ent A

sian

Amer

ican

-ow

ned

DBE

0

$0

$0

0.0

(17)

Hisp

anic

Am

eric

an-o

wne

d DB

E0

$0

$0

0.

0

(18)

Nat

ive

Amer

ican

-ow

ned

DBE

0

$0

$0

0.0

(19)

Unk

now

n DB

E-M

BE0

$0

(20)

Whi

te m

ale-

owne

d DB

E0

$0

$0

0.

0

(21)

Unk

now

n DB

E0

$0

Not

e: S

prea

dshe

et ro

unds

num

bers

to n

eare

st th

ousa

nd d

olla

rs o

r ten

th o

f one

per

cent

. WBE

is w

hite

wom

en-o

wne

d fir

ms.

* U

nkno

wn

MBE

, Unk

now

n DB

E-M

BE, a

nd U

nkno

wn

DBE

dolla

rs w

ere

allo

cate

d to

MBE

subg

roup

s pro

port

iona

l to

the

know

n to

tal d

olla

rs o

f tho

se g

roup

s. F

or e

xam

ple,

if to

tal

dol

lars

of B

lack

Am

eric

an-o

wne

d fir

ms (

colu

mn

b, ro

w 5

) acc

ount

ed fo

r 25

perc

ent o

f tot

al M

BE d

olla

rs (c

olum

n b,

row

4),

then

25

perc

ent o

f col

umn

b, ro

w 1

0 w

ould

be

adde

d

to c

olum

n b,

row

5 a

nd th

e su

m w

ould

be

show

n in

col

umn

c, ro

w 5

.

Sour

ce: B

BC R

esea

rch

& C

onsu

lting

Disp

arity

Ana

lysis

.

(a)

(b)

(c)

tota

l dol

lars

Num

ber o

f

(tho

usan

ds)*

Estim

ated

Firm

Typ

e

cont

ract

s(s

ubco

ntra

cts)

in sa

mpl

ein

sam

ple

Dolla

rs

(tho

usan

ds)

%co

lum

n c,

row

1)(c

olum

n c

/Ac

tual

util

izat

ion

(d)

(e)

Util

izat

ion

benc

hmar

k(a

vaila

bilit

y)%

(f)Di

ffere

nce

(col

umn

d -

colu

mn

e)%

(g)

Disp

arity

inde

x(d

/ e

) x 1

00

Figu

re K

-8.

Fund

ing

sour

ce: L

ocal

ly-fu

nded

Tim

e pe

riod:

201

0-20

13Ty

pe: C

onst

ruct

ion

and

cons

truc

tion-

rela

ted

prof

essi

onal

serv

ices

Role

: Prim

e Co

ntra

ctor

s and

Sub

cont

ract

ors

(1)

All f

irms

1,02

3

$200

,992

$2

15,0

82

(2)

MBE

/WBE

197

$2

4,14

9

$24,

625

11

.4

18.0

-6

.6

63.6

(3)

WBE

103

$1

1,79

5

$12,

176

5.

7

4.8

0.

8

117.

2

(4)

MBE

94

$12,

354

$1

2,44

9

5.8

13

.2

-7.4

43

.9

(5)

Blac

k Am

eric

an-o

wne

d31

$5

,605

$5

,606

2.

6

2.0

0.

6

127.

6

(6)

Asia

n-Pa

cific

Am

eric

an-o

wne

d21

$1

,482

$1

,556

0.

7

2.5

-1

.8

29.0

(7)

Subc

ontin

ent A

sian

Amer

ican

-ow

ned

13

$350

$3

71

0.2

2.

1

-1.9

8.

4

(8)

Hisp

anic

Am

eric

an-o

wne

d20

$2

,417

$2

,417

1.

1

4.5

-3

.4

24.8

(9)

Nat

ive

Amer

ican

-ow

ned

9

$2,4

99

$2,4

99

1.2

2.

1

-0.9

56

.5

(10)

Unk

now

n M

BE0

$0

(11)

DBE-

cert

ified

97

$8,0

35

$8,3

19

3.9

(12)

Wom

an-o

wne

d DB

E36

$2

,233

$2

,453

1.

1

(13)

Min

ority

-ow

ned

DBE

61

$5,8

02

$5,8

66

2.7

(14)

Blac

k Am

eric

an-o

wne

d DB

E16

$7

81

$782

0.

4

(15)

Asia

n-Pa

cific

Am

eric

an-o

wne

d DB

E14

$8

48

$910

0.

4

(16)

Subc

ontin

ent A

sian

Amer

ican

-ow

ned

DBE

10

$301

$3

01

0.1

(17)

Hisp

anic

Am

eric

an-o

wne

d DB

E15

$1

,791

$1

,791

0.

8

(18)

Nat

ive

Amer

ican

-ow

ned

DBE

6

$2,0

81

$2,0

81

1.0

(19)

Unk

now

n DB

E-M

BE0

$0

(20)

Whi

te m

ale-

owne

d DB

E0

$0

$0

0.

0

(21)

Unk

now

n DB

E0

$0

Not

e: S

prea

dshe

et ro

unds

num

bers

to n

eare

st th

ousa

nd d

olla

rs o

r ten

th o

f one

per

cent

. WBE

is w

hite

wom

en-o

wne

d fir

ms.

* U

nkno

wn

MBE

, Unk

now

n DB

E-M

BE, a

nd U

nkno

wn

DBE

dolla

rs w

ere

allo

cate

d to

MBE

subg

roup

s pro

port

iona

l to

the

know

n to

tal d

olla

rs o

f tho

se g

roup

s. F

or e

xam

ple,

if to

tal

dol

lars

of B

lack

Am

eric

an-o

wne

d fir

ms (

colu

mn

b, ro

w 5

) acc

ount

ed fo

r 25

perc

ent o

f tot

al M

BE d

olla

rs (c

olum

n b,

row

4),

then

25

perc

ent o

f col

umn

b, ro

w 1

0 w

ould

be

adde

d

to c

olum

n b,

row

5 a

nd th

e su

m w

ould

be

show

n in

col

umn

c, ro

w 5

.

Sour

ce: B

BC R

esea

rch

& C

onsu

lting

Disp

arity

Ana

lysis

.

(a)

(b)

(c)

tota

l dol

lars

Num

ber o

f

(tho

usan

ds)*

Estim

ated

Firm

Typ

e

cont

ract

s(s

ubco

ntra

cts)

in sa

mpl

ein

sam

ple

Dolla

rs

(tho

usan

ds)

%co

lum

n c,

row

1)(c

olum

n c

/Ac

tual

util

izat

ion

(d)

(e)

Util

izat

ion

benc

hmar

k(a

vaila

bilit

y)%

(f)Di

ffere

nce

(col

umn

d -

colu

mn

e)%

(g)

Disp

arity

inde

x(d

/ e

) x 1

00

Figu

re K

-9.

Fund

ing

sour

ce: F

AA- a

nd L

ocal

ly-fu

nded

Tim

e pe

riod:

201

0-20

13Ty

pe: C

onst

ruct

ion

and

cons

truc

tion-

rela

ted

prof

essi

onal

serv

ices

Role

: Prim

e Co

ntra

ctor

s

(1)

All f

irms

344

$1

31,1

77

$142

,426

(2)

MBE

/WBE

47

$11,

825

$1

2,02

8

8.4

15

.1

-6.6

56

.1

(3)

WBE

24

$5,1

14

$5,3

08

3.7

3.

2

0.5

11

7.2

(4)

MBE

23

$6,7

10

$6,7

20

4.7

11

.9

-7.2

39

.7

(5)

Blac

k Am

eric

an-o

wne

d9

$3

,888

$3

,888

2.

7

1.2

1.

5

200+

(6)

Asia

n-Pa

cific

Am

eric

an-o

wne

d4

$3

54

$364

0.

3

2.4

-2

.2

10.6

(7)

Subc

ontin

ent A

sian

Amer

ican

-ow

ned

2

$29

$2

9

0.0

2.

3

-2.3

0.

9

(8)

Hisp

anic

Am

eric

an-o

wne

d3

$4

5

$45

0.

0

3.9

-3

.9

0.8

(9)

Nat

ive

Amer

ican

-ow

ned

5

$2,3

94

$2,3

94

1.7

2.

0

-0.3

83

.3

(10)

Unk

now

n M

BE0

$0

(11)

DBE-

cert

ified

24

$3,6

78

$3,7

52

2.6

(12)

Wom

an-o

wne

d DB

E10

$9

80

$1,0

45

0.7

(13)

Min

ority

-ow

ned

DBE

14

$2,6

98

$2,7

07

1.9

(14)

Blac

k Am

eric

an-o

wne

d DB

E5

$6

27

$627

0.

4

(15)

Asia

n-Pa

cific

Am

eric

an-o

wne

d DB

E2

$2

3

$33

0.

0

(16)

Subc

ontin

ent A

sian

Amer

ican

-ow

ned

DBE

1

$27

$2

7

0.0

(17)

Hisp

anic

Am

eric

an-o

wne

d DB

E2

$1

8

$18

0.

0

(18)

Nat

ive

Amer

ican

-ow

ned

DBE

4

$2,0

03

$2,0

03

1.4

(19)

Unk

now

n DB

E-M

BE0

$0

(20)

Whi

te m

ale-

owne

d DB

E0

$0

$0

0.

0

(21)

Unk

now

n DB

E0

$0

Not

e: S

prea

dshe

et ro

unds

num

bers

to n

eare

st th

ousa

nd d

olla

rs o

r ten

th o

f one

per

cent

. WBE

is w

hite

wom

en-o

wne

d fir

ms.

* U

nkno

wn

MBE

, Unk

now

n DB

E-M

BE, a

nd U

nkno

wn

DBE

dolla

rs w

ere

allo

cate

d to

MBE

subg

roup

s pro

port

iona

l to

the

know

n to

tal d

olla

rs o

f tho

se g

roup

s. F

or e

xam

ple,

if to

tal

dol

lars

of B

lack

Am

eric

an-o

wne

d fir

ms (

colu

mn

b, ro

w 5

) acc

ount

ed fo

r 25

perc

ent o

f tot

al M

BE d

olla

rs (c

olum

n b,

row

4),

then

25

perc

ent o

f col

umn

b, ro

w 1

0 w

ould

be

adde

d

to c

olum

n b,

row

5 a

nd th

e su

m w

ould

be

show

n in

col

umn

c, ro

w 5

.

Sour

ce: B

BC R

esea

rch

& C

onsu

lting

Disp

arity

Ana

lysis

.

(a)

(b)

(c)

tota

l dol

lars

Num

ber o

f

(tho

usan

ds)*

Estim

ated

Firm

Typ

e

cont

ract

s(s

ubco

ntra

cts)

in sa

mpl

ein

sam

ple

Dolla

rs

(tho

usan

ds)

%co

lum

n c,

row

1)(c

olum

n c

/Ac

tual

util

izat

ion

(d)

(e)

Util

izat

ion

benc

hmar

k(a

vaila

bilit

y)%

(f)Di

ffere

nce

(col

umn

d -

colu

mn

e)%

(g)

Disp

arity

inde

x(d

/ e

) x 1

00

Figu

re K

-10.

Fund

ing

sour

ce: F

AA- a

nd L

ocal

ly-fu

nded

Tim

e pe

riod:

201

0-20

13Ty

pe: C

onst

ruct

ion

Role

: Prim

e Co

ntra

ctor

s

(1)

All f

irms

168

$1

01,6

70

$101

,670

(2)

MBE

/WBE

31

$10,

943

$1

0,94

3

10.8

14

.9

-4.1

72

.4

(3)

WBE

17

$4,7

75

$4,7

75

4.7

2.

9

1.8

16

0.2

(4)

MBE

14

$6,1

68

$6,1

68

6.1

11

.9

-5.9

50

.8

(5)

Blac

k Am

eric

an-o

wne

d8

$3

,834

$3

,834

3.

8

1.0

2.

7

200+

(6)

Asia

n-Pa

cific

Am

eric

an-o

wne

d2

$3

31

$331

0.

3

2.3

-2

.0

14.2

(7)

Subc

ontin

ent A

sian

Amer

ican

-ow

ned

0

$0

$0

0.0

1.

4

-1.4

0.

0

(8)

Hisp

anic

Am

eric

an-o

wne

d0

$0

$0

0.

0

4.6

-4

.6

0.0

(9)

Nat

ive

Amer

ican

-ow

ned

4

$2,0

03

$2,0

03

2.0

2.

6

-0.6

76

.1

(10)

Unk

now

n M

BE0

$0

(11)

DBE-

cert

ified

13

$3,3

51

$3,3

51

3.3

(12)

Wom

an-o

wne

d DB

E5

$7

75

$775

0.

8

(13)

Min

ority

-ow

ned

DBE

8

$2,5

76

$2,5

76

2.5

(14)

Blac

k Am

eric

an-o

wne

d DB

E4

$5

73

$573

0.

6

(15)

Asia

n-Pa

cific

Am

eric

an-o

wne

d DB

E0

$0

$0

0.

0

(16)

Subc

ontin

ent A

sian

Amer

ican

-ow

ned

DBE

0

$0

$0

0.0

(17)

Hisp

anic

Am

eric

an-o

wne

d DB

E0

$0

$0

0.

0

(18)

Nat

ive

Amer

ican

-ow

ned

DBE

4

$2,0

03

$2,0

03

2.0

(19)

Unk

now

n DB

E-M

BE0

$0

(20)

Whi

te m

ale-

owne

d DB

E0

$0

$0

0.

0

(21)

Unk

now

n DB

E0

$0

Not

e: S

prea

dshe

et ro

unds

num

bers

to n

eare

st th

ousa

nd d

olla

rs o

r ten

th o

f one

per

cent

. WBE

is w

hite

wom

en-o

wne

d fir

ms.

* U

nkno

wn

MBE

, Unk

now

n DB

E-M

BE, a

nd U

nkno

wn

DBE

dolla

rs w

ere

allo

cate

d to

MBE

subg

roup

s pro

port

iona

l to

the

know

n to

tal d

olla

rs o

f tho

se g

roup

s. F

or e

xam

ple,

if to

tal

dol

lars

of B

lack

Am

eric

an-o

wne

d fir

ms (

colu

mn

b, ro

w 5

) acc

ount

ed fo

r 25

perc

ent o

f tot

al M

BE d

olla

rs (c

olum

n b,

row

4),

then

25

perc

ent o

f col

umn

b, ro

w 1

0 w

ould

be

adde

d

to c

olum

n b,

row

5 a

nd th

e su

m w

ould

be

show

n in

col

umn

c, ro

w 5

.

Sour

ce: B

BC R

esea

rch

& C

onsu

lting

Disp

arity

Ana

lysis

.

(g)

Disp

arity

inde

x(d

/ e

) x 1

00

(f)Di

ffere

nce

(col

umn

d -

colu

mn

e)%

(e)

Util

izat

ion

benc

hmar

k(a

vaila

bilit

y)%

%co

lum

n c,

row

1)(c

olum

n c

/Ac

tual

util

izat

ion

(d)

(tho

usan

ds)*

Estim

ated

Firm

Typ

e

cont

ract

s(s

ubco

ntra

cts)

in sa

mpl

ein

sam

ple

Dolla

rs

(tho

usan

ds)

(a)

(b)

(c)

tota

l dol

lars

Num

ber o

f

Figu

re K

-11.

Fund

ing

sour

ce: F

AA- a

nd L

ocal

ly-fu

nded

Tim

e pe

riod:

201

0-20

13Ty

pe: C

onst

ruct

ion-

rela

ted

prof

essi

onal

serv

ices

Role

: Prim

e Co

ntra

ctor

s

(1)

All f

irms

176

$2

9,50

8

$40,

756

(2)

MBE

/WBE

16

$881

$1

,085

2.

7

15.5

-1

2.9

17

.1

(3)

WBE

7

$339

$5

32

1.3

3.

8

-2.5

34

.4

(4)

MBE

9

$543

$5

52

1.4

11

.7

-10.

4

11.5

(5)

Blac

k Am

eric

an-o

wne

d1

$5

4

$54

0.

1

1.7

-1

.6

7.7

(6)

Asia

n-Pa

cific

Am

eric

an-o

wne

d2

$2

3

$33

0.

1

2.7

-2

.6

3.0

(7)

Subc

ontin

ent A

sian

Amer

ican

-ow

ned

2

$29

$2

9

0.1

4.

7

-4.6

1.

5

(8)

Hisp

anic

Am

eric

an-o

wne

d3

$4

5

$45

0.

1

2.1

-1

.9

5.4

(9)

Nat

ive

Amer

ican

-ow

ned

1

$391

$3

91

1.0

0.

6

0.4

16

0.5

(10)

Unk

now

n M

BE0

$0

(11)

DBE-

cert

ified

11

$326

$4

01

1.0

(12)

Wom

an-o

wne

d DB

E5

$2

05

$270

0.

7

(13)

Min

ority

-ow

ned

DBE

6

$122

$1

31

0.3

(14)

Blac

k Am

eric

an-o

wne

d DB

E1

$5

4

$54

0.

1

(15)

Asia

n-Pa

cific

Am

eric

an-o

wne

d DB

E2

$2

3

$33

0.

1

(16)

Subc

ontin

ent A

sian

Amer

ican

-ow

ned

DBE

1

$27

$2

7

0.1

(17)

Hisp

anic

Am

eric

an-o

wne

d DB

E2

$1

8

$18

0.

0

(18)

Nat

ive

Amer

ican

-ow

ned

DBE

0

$0

$0

0.0

(19)

Unk

now

n DB

E-M

BE0

$0

(20)

Whi

te m

ale-

owne

d DB

E0

$0

$0

0.

0

(21)

Unk

now

n DB

E0

$0

Not

e: S

prea

dshe

et ro

unds

num

bers

to n

eare

st th

ousa

nd d

olla

rs o

r ten

th o

f one

per

cent

. WBE

is w

hite

wom

en-o

wne

d fir

ms.

* U

nkno

wn

MBE

, Unk

now

n DB

E-M

BE, a

nd U

nkno

wn

DBE

dolla

rs w

ere

allo

cate

d to

MBE

subg

roup

s pro

port

iona

l to

the

know

n to

tal d

olla

rs o

f tho

se g

roup

s. F

or e

xam

ple,

if to

tal

dol

lars

of B

lack

Am

eric

an-o

wne

d fir

ms (

colu

mn

b, ro

w 5

) acc

ount

ed fo

r 25

perc

ent o

f tot

al M

BE d

olla

rs (c

olum

n b,

row

4),

then

25

perc

ent o

f col

umn

b, ro

w 1

0 w

ould

be

adde

d

to c

olum

n b,

row

5 a

nd th

e su

m w

ould

be

show

n in

col

umn

c, ro

w 5

.

Sour

ce: B

BC R

esea

rch

& C

onsu

lting

Disp

arity

Ana

lysis

.

(a)

(b)

(c)

tota

l dol

lars

Num

ber o

f

(tho

usan

ds)*

Estim

ated

Firm

Typ

e

cont

ract

s(s

ubco

ntra

cts)

in sa

mpl

ein

sam

ple

Dolla

rs

(tho

usan

ds)

%co

lum

n c,

row

1)(c

olum

n c

/Ac

tual

util

izat

ion

(d)

(e)

Util

izat

ion

benc

hmar

k(a

vaila

bilit

y)%

(f)Di

ffere

nce

(col

umn

d -

colu

mn

e)%

(g)

Disp

arity

inde

x(d

/ e

) x 1

00

Figu

re K

-12.

Fund

ing

sour

ce: F

AA- a

nd L

ocal

ly-fu

nded

Tim

e pe

riod:

201

0-20

13Ty

pe: C

onst

ruct

ion

and

cons

truc

tion-

rela

ted

prof

essi

onal

serv

ices

Role

: Sub

cont

ract

ors

(1)

All f

irms

704

$9

7,04

8

$99,

889

(2)

MBE

/WBE

151

$1

2,33

0

$12,

603

12

.6

22.6

-1

0.0

55

.9

(3)

WBE

80

$6,6

87

$6,8

74

6.9

6.

3

0.6

10

9.5

(4)

MBE

71

$5,6

44

$5,7

29

5.7

16

.3

-10.

6

35.2

(5)

Blac

k Am

eric

an-o

wne

d22

$1

,718

$1

,718

1.

7

4.1

-2

.4

41.9

(6)

Asia

n-Pa

cific

Am

eric

an-o

wne

d17

$1

,128

$1

,192

1.

2

2.0

-0

.8

60.6

(7)

Subc

ontin

ent A

sian

Amer

ican

-ow

ned

11

$321

$3

42

0.3

1.

1

-0.8

30

.3

(8)

Hisp

anic

Am

eric

an-o

wne

d17

$2

,372

$2

,372

2.

4

6.1

-3

.7

39.2

(9)

Nat

ive

Amer

ican

-ow

ned

4

$105

$1

05

0.1

3.

0

-2.9

3.

5

(10)

Unk

now

n M

BE0

$0

(11)

DBE-

cert

ified

73

$4,3

57

$4,5

67

4.6

(12)

Wom

an-o

wne

d DB

E26

$1

,253

$1

,409

1.

4

(13)

Min

ority

-ow

ned

DBE

47

$3,1

05

$3,1

58

3.2

(14)

Blac

k Am

eric

an-o

wne

d DB

E11

$1

54

$155

0.

2

(15)

Asia

n-Pa

cific

Am

eric

an-o

wne

d DB

E12

$8

24

$878

0.

9

(16)

Subc

ontin

ent A

sian

Amer

ican

-ow

ned

DBE

9

$274

$2

74

0.3

(17)

Hisp

anic

Am

eric

an-o

wne

d DB

E13

$1

,773

$1

,773

1.

8

(18)

Nat

ive

Amer

ican

-ow

ned

DBE

2

$78

$7

8

0.1

(19)

Unk

now

n DB

E-M

BE0

$0

(20)

Whi

te m

ale-

owne

d DB

E0

$0

$0

0.

0

(21)

Unk

now

n DB

E0

$0

Not

e: S

prea

dshe

et ro

unds

num

bers

to n

eare

st th

ousa

nd d

olla

rs o

r ten

th o

f one

per

cent

. WBE

is w

hite

wom

en-o

wne

d fir

ms.

* U

nkno

wn

MBE

, Unk

now

n DB

E-M

BE, a

nd U

nkno

wn

DBE

dolla

rs w

ere

allo

cate

d to

MBE

subg

roup

s pro

port

iona

l to

the

know

n to

tal d

olla

rs o

f tho

se g

roup

s. F

or e

xam

ple,

if to

tal

dol

lars

of B

lack

Am

eric

an-o

wne

d fir

ms (

colu

mn

b, ro

w 5

) acc

ount

ed fo

r 25

perc

ent o

f tot

al M

BE d

olla

rs (c

olum

n b,

row

4),

then

25

perc

ent o

f col

umn

b, ro

w 1

0 w

ould

be

adde

d

to c

olum

n b,

row

5 a

nd th

e su

m w

ould

be

show

n in

col

umn

c, ro

w 5

.

Sour

ce: B

BC R

esea

rch

& C

onsu

lting

Disp

arity

Ana

lysis

.

(a)

(b)

(c)

tota

l dol

lars

Num

ber o

f

(tho

usan

ds)*

Estim

ated

Firm

Typ

e

cont

ract

s(s

ubco

ntra

cts)

in sa

mpl

ein

sam

ple

Dolla

rs

(tho

usan

ds)

%co

lum

n c,

row

1)(c

olum

n c

/Ac

tual

util

izat

ion

(d)

(e)

Util

izat

ion

benc

hmar

k(a

vaila

bilit

y)%

(f)Di

ffere

nce

(col

umn

d -

colu

mn

e)%

(g)

Disp

arity

inde

x(d

/ e

) x 1

00

Figu

re K

-13.

Fund

ing

sour

ce: F

AA- a

nd L

ocal

ly-fu

nded

Tim

e pe

riod:

201

0-20

13Ty

pe: C

onst

ruct

ion

Role

: Sub

cont

ract

ors

(1)

All f

irms

513

$8

8,51

6

$88,

516

(2)

MBE

/WBE

111

$1

1,16

7

$11,

167

12

.6

22.6

-1

0.0

55

.9

(3)

WBE

60

$6,1

85

$6,1

85

7.0

5.

9

1.1

11

8.4

(4)

MBE

51

$4,9

82

$4,9

82

5.6

16

.7

-11.

0

33.8

(5)

Blac

k Am

eric

an-o

wne

d21

$1

,717

$1

,717

1.

9

4.3

-2

.4

44.7

(6)

Asia

n-Pa

cific

Am

eric

an-o

wne

d5

$6

30

$630

0.

7

1.7

-1

.0

41.6

(7)

Subc

ontin

ent A

sian

Amer

ican

-ow

ned

6

$241

$2

41

0.3

0.

8

-0.6

32

.6

(8)

Hisp

anic

Am

eric

an-o

wne

d15

$2

,289

$2

,289

2.

6

6.4

-3

.9

40.1

(9)

Nat

ive

Amer

ican

-ow

ned

4

$105

$1

05

0.1

3.

3

-3.2

3.

6

(10)

Unk

now

n M

BE0

$0

(11)

DBE-

cert

ified

48

$3,6

87

$3,6

87

4.2

(12)

Wom

an-o

wne

d DB

E14

$8

19

$819

0.

9

(13)

Min

ority

-ow

ned

DBE

34

$2,8

68

$2,8

68

3.2

(14)

Blac

k Am

eric

an-o

wne

d DB

E10

$1

54

$154

0.

2

(15)

Asia

n-Pa

cific

Am

eric

an-o

wne

d DB

E3

$6

22

$622

0.

7

(16)

Subc

ontin

ent A

sian

Amer

ican

-ow

ned

DBE

6

$241

$2

41

0.3

(17)

Hisp

anic

Am

eric

an-o

wne

d DB

E13

$1

,773

$1

,773

2.

0

(18)

Nat

ive

Amer

ican

-ow

ned

DBE

2

$78

$7

8

0.1

(19)

Unk

now

n DB

E-M

BE0

$0

(20)

Whi

te m

ale-

owne

d DB

E0

$0

$0

0.

0

(21)

Unk

now

n DB

E0

$0

Not

e: S

prea

dshe

et ro

unds

num

bers

to n

eare

st th

ousa

nd d

olla

rs o

r ten

th o

f one

per

cent

. WBE

is w

hite

wom

en-o

wne

d fir

ms.

* U

nkno

wn

MBE

, Unk

now

n DB

E-M

BE, a

nd U

nkno

wn

DBE

dolla

rs w

ere

allo

cate

d to

MBE

subg

roup

s pro

port

iona

l to

the

know

n to

tal d

olla

rs o

f tho

se g

roup

s. F

or e

xam

ple,

if to

tal

dol

lars

of B

lack

Am

eric

an-o

wne

d fir

ms (

colu

mn

b, ro

w 5

) acc

ount

ed fo

r 25

perc

ent o

f tot

al M

BE d

olla

rs (c

olum

n b,

row

4),

then

25

perc

ent o

f col

umn

b, ro

w 1

0 w

ould

be

adde

d

to c

olum

n b,

row

5 a

nd th

e su

m w

ould

be

show

n in

col

umn

c, ro

w 5

.

Sour

ce: B

BC R

esea

rch

& C

onsu

lting

Disp

arity

Ana

lysis

.

(g)

Disp

arity

inde

x(d

/ e

) x 1

00

(f)Di

ffere

nce

(col

umn

d -

colu

mn

e)%

(e)

Util

izat

ion

benc

hmar

k(a

vaila

bilit

y)%

%co

lum

n c,

row

1)(c

olum

n c

/Ac

tual

util

izat

ion

(d)

(tho

usan

ds)*

Estim

ated

Firm

Typ

e

cont

ract

s(s

ubco

ntra

cts)

in sa

mpl

ein

sam

ple

Dolla

rs

(tho

usan

ds)

(a)

(b)

(c)

tota

l dol

lars

Num

ber o

f

Figu

re K

-14.

Fund

ing

sour

ce: F

AA- a

nd L

ocal

ly-fu

nded

Tim

e pe

riod:

201

0-20

13Ty

pe: C

onst

ruct

ion-

rela

ted

prof

essi

onal

serv

ices

Role

: Sub

cont

ract

ors

(1)

All f

irms

191

$8

,531

$1

1,37

2

(2)

MBE

/WBE

40

$1,1

63

$1,4

36

12.6

22

.7

-10.

1

55.6

(3)

WBE

20

$502

$6

89

6.1

9.

3

-3.2

65

.3

(4)

MBE

20

$661

$7

47

6.6

13

.4

-6.9

48

.9

(5)

Blac

k Am

eric

an-o

wne

d1

$1

$1

0.

0

2.3

-2

.3

0.5

(6)

Asia

n-Pa

cific

Am

eric

an-o

wne

d12

$4

98

$562

4.

9

3.9

1.

0

125.

2

(7)

Subc

ontin

ent A

sian

Amer

ican

-ow

ned

5

$80

$1

00

0.9

3.

4

-2.5

25

.9

(8)

Hisp

anic

Am

eric

an-o

wne

d2

$8

3

$83

0.

7

3.1

-2

.4

23.6

(9)

Nat

ive

Amer

ican

-ow

ned

0

$0

$0

0.0

0.

6

-0.6

0.

0

(10)

Unk

now

n M

BE0

$0

(11)

DBE-

cert

ified

25

$670

$8

80

7.7

(12)

Wom

an-o

wne

d DB

E12

$4

34

$590

5.

2

(13)

Min

ority

-ow

ned

DBE

13

$236

$2

90

2.6

(14)

Blac

k Am

eric

an-o

wne

d DB

E1

$1

$1

0.

0

(15)

Asia

n-Pa

cific

Am

eric

an-o

wne

d DB

E9

$2

03

$256

2.

2

(16)

Subc

ontin

ent A

sian

Amer

ican

-ow

ned

DBE

3

$33

$3

3

0.3

(17)

Hisp

anic

Am

eric

an-o

wne

d DB

E0

$0

$0

0.

0

(18)

Nat

ive

Amer

ican

-ow

ned

DBE

0

$0

$0

0.0

(19)

Unk

now

n DB

E-M

BE0

$0

(20)

Whi

te m

ale-

owne

d DB

E0

$0

$0

0.

0

(21)

Unk

now

n DB

E0

$0

Not

e: S

prea

dshe

et ro

unds

num

bers

to n

eare

st th

ousa

nd d

olla

rs o

r ten

th o

f one

per

cent

. WBE

is w

hite

wom

en-o

wne

d fir

ms.

* U

nkno

wn

MBE

, Unk

now

n DB

E-M

BE, a

nd U

nkno

wn

DBE

dolla

rs w

ere

allo

cate

d to

MBE

subg

roup

s pro

port

iona

l to

the

know

n to

tal d

olla

rs o

f tho

se g

roup

s. F

or e

xam

ple,

if to

tal

dol

lars

of B

lack

Am

eric

an-o

wne

d fir

ms (

colu

mn

b, ro

w 5

) acc

ount

ed fo

r 25

perc

ent o

f tot

al M

BE d

olla

rs (c

olum

n b,

row

4),

then

25

perc

ent o

f col

umn

b, ro

w 1

0 w

ould

be

adde

d

to c

olum

n b,

row

5 a

nd th

e su

m w

ould

be

show

n in

col

umn

c, ro

w 5

.

Sour

ce: B

BC R

esea

rch

& C

onsu

lting

Disp

arity

Ana

lysis

.

(a)

(b)

(c)

tota

l dol

lars

Num

ber o

f

(tho

usan

ds)*

Estim

ated

Firm

Typ

e

cont

ract

s(s

ubco

ntra

cts)

in sa

mpl

ein

sam

ple

Dolla

rs

(tho

usan

ds)

%co

lum

n c,

row

1)(c

olum

n c

/Ac

tual

util

izat

ion

(d)

(e)

Util

izat

ion

benc

hmar

k(a

vaila

bilit

y)%

(f)Di

ffere

nce

(col

umn

d -

colu

mn

e)%

(g)

Disp

arity

inde

x(d

/ e

) x 1

00

Figu

re K

-15.

Fund

ing

sour

ce: F

AA- a

nd L

ocal

ly-fu

nded

Smal

l Prim

e Co

ntra

cts

Tim

e pe

riod:

201

0-20

13Ty

pe: C

onst

ruct

ion

and

cons

truc

tion-

rela

ted

prof

essi

onal

serv

ices

Role

: Prim

e Co

ntra

ctor

s

(1)

All f

irms

305

$5

6,83

2

$61,

529

(2)

MBE

/WBE

45

$8,1

22

$8,3

25

13.5

17

.5

-4.0

77

.1

(3)

WBE

23

$3,8

97

$4,0

90

6.6

5.

0

1.6

13

3.0

(4)

MBE

22

$4,2

25

$4,2

35

6.9

12

.5

-5.7

54

.9

(5)

Blac

k Am

eric

an-o

wne

d8

$1

,402

$1

,402

2.

3

2.4

-0

.1

96.6

(6)

Asia

n-Pa

cific

Am

eric

an-o

wne

d4

$3

54

$364

0.

6

2.5

-1

.9

23.7

(7)

Subc

ontin

ent A

sian

Amer

ican

-ow

ned

2

$29

$2

9

0.0

2.

2

-2.2

2.

1

(8)

Hisp

anic

Am

eric

an-o

wne

d3

$4

5

$45

0.

1

4.1

-4

.0

1.8

(9)

Nat

ive

Amer

ican

-ow

ned

5

$2,3

94

$2,3

94

3.9

1.

4

2.5

20

0+

(10)

Unk

now

n M

BE0

$0

(11)

DBE-

cert

ified

24

$3,6

78

$3,7

52

6.1

(12)

Wom

an-o

wne

d DB

E10

$9

80

$1,0

45

1.7

(13)

Min

ority

-ow

ned

DBE

14

$2,6

98

$2,7

07

4.4

(14)

Blac

k Am

eric

an-o

wne

d DB

E5

$6

27

$627

1.

0

(15)

Asia

n-Pa

cific

Am

eric

an-o

wne

d DB

E2

$2

3

$33

0.

1

(16)

Subc

ontin

ent A

sian

Amer

ican

-ow

ned

DBE

1

$27

$2

7

0.0

(17)

Hisp

anic

Am

eric

an-o

wne

d DB

E2

$1

8

$18

0.

0

(18)

Nat

ive

Amer

ican

-ow

ned

DBE

4

$2,0

03

$2,0

03

3.3

(19)

Unk

now

n DB

E-M

BE0

$0

(20)

Whi

te m

ale-

owne

d DB

E0

$0

$0

0.

0

(21)

Unk

now

n DB

E0

$0

Not

e: S

prea

dshe

et ro

unds

num

bers

to n

eare

st th

ousa

nd d

olla

rs o

r ten

th o

f one

per

cent

. WBE

is w

hite

wom

en-o

wne

d fir

ms.

* U

nkno

wn

MBE

, Unk

now

n DB

E-M

BE, a

nd U

nkno

wn

DBE

dolla

rs w

ere

allo

cate

d to

MBE

subg

roup

s pro

port

iona

l to

the

know

n to

tal d

olla

rs o

f tho

se g

roup

s. F

or e

xam

ple,

if to

tal

dol

lars

of B

lack

Am

eric

an-o

wne

d fir

ms (

colu

mn

b, ro

w 5

) acc

ount

ed fo

r 25

perc

ent o

f tot

al M

BE d

olla

rs (c

olum

n b,

row

4),

then

25

perc

ent o

f col

umn

b, ro

w 1

0 w

ould

be

adde

d

to c

olum

n b,

row

5 a

nd th

e su

m w

ould

be

show

n in

col

umn

c, ro

w 5

.

Sour

ce: B

BC R

esea

rch

& C

onsu

lting

Disp

arity

Ana

lysis

.

(a)

(b)

(c)

tota

l dol

lars

Num

ber o

f

(tho

usan

ds)*

Estim

ated

Firm

Typ

e

cont

ract

s(s

ubco

ntra

cts)

in sa

mpl

ein

sam

ple

Dolla

rs

(tho

usan

ds)

%co

lum

n c,

row

1)(c

olum

n c

/Ac

tual

util

izat

ion

(d)

(e)

Util

izat

ion

benc

hmar

k(a

vaila

bilit

y)%

(f)Di

ffere

nce

(col

umn

d -

colu

mn

e)%

(g)

Disp

arity

inde

x(d

/ e

) x 1

00

Figu

re K

-16.

Fund

ing

sour

ce: F

AA- a

nd L

ocal

ly-fu

nded

Ti

me

perio

d: 2

010-

2013

Type

: Con

stru

ctio

n an

d co

nstr

uctio

n-re

late

d pr

ofes

sion

al se

rvic

esRo

le: P

rime

Cont

ract

ors

(1)

All f

irms

39

$74,

346

$8

0,89

7

(2)

MBE

/WBE

2

$3,7

03

$3,7

03

4.6

13

.2

-8.6

34

.7

(3)

WBE

1

$1,2

18

$1,2

18

1.5

1.

8

-0.3

83

.8

(4)

MBE

1

$2,4

85

$2,4

85

3.1

11

.4

-8.3

27

.0

(5)

Blac

k Am

eric

an-o

wne

d1

$2

,485

$2

,485

3.

1

0.4

2.

7

200+

(6)

Asia

n-Pa

cific

Am

eric

an-o

wne

d0

$0

$0

0.

0

2.3

-2

.3

0.0

(7)

Subc

ontin

ent A

sian

Amer

ican

-ow

ned

0

$0

$0

0.0

2.

4

-2.4

0.

0

(8)

Hisp

anic

Am

eric

an-o

wne

d0

$0

$0

0.

0

3.8

-3

.8

0.0

(9)

Nat

ive

Amer

ican

-ow

ned

0

$0

$0

0.0

2.

5

-2.5

0.

0

(10)

Unk

now

n M

BE0

$0

(11)

DBE-

cert

ified

0

$0

$0

0.0

(12)

Wom

an-o

wne

d DB

E0

$0

$0

0.

0

(13)

Min

ority

-ow

ned

DBE

0

$0

$0

0.0

(14)

Blac

k Am

eric

an-o

wne

d DB

E0

$0

$0

0.

0

(15)

Asia

n-Pa

cific

Am

eric

an-o

wne

d DB

E0

$0

$0

0.

0

(16)

Subc

ontin

ent A

sian

Amer

ican

-ow

ned

DBE

0

$0

$0

0.0

(17)

Hisp

anic

Am

eric

an-o

wne

d DB

E0

$0

$0

0.

0

(18)

Nat

ive

Amer

ican

-ow

ned

DBE

0

$0

$0

0.0

(19)

Unk

now

n DB

E-M

BE0

$0

(20)

Whi

te m

ale-

owne

d DB

E0

$0

$0

0.

0

(21)

Unk

now

n DB

E0

$0

Not

e: S

prea

dshe

et ro

unds

num

bers

to n

eare

st th

ousa

nd d

olla

rs o

r ten

th o

f one

per

cent

. WBE

is w

hite

wom

en-o

wne

d fir

ms.

* U

nkno

wn

MBE

, Unk

now

n DB

E-M

BE, a

nd U

nkno

wn

DBE

dolla

rs w

ere

allo

cate

d to

MBE

subg

roup

s pro

port

iona

l to

the

know

n to

tal d

olla

rs o

f tho

se g

roup

s. F

or e

xam

ple,

if to

tal

dol

lars

of B

lack

Am

eric

an-o

wne

d fir

ms (

colu

mn

b, ro

w 5

) acc

ount

ed fo

r 25

perc

ent o

f tot

al M

BE d

olla

rs (c

olum

n b,

row

4),

then

25

perc

ent o

f col

umn

b, ro

w 1

0 w

ould

be

adde

d

to c

olum

n b,

row

5 a

nd th

e su

m w

ould

be

show

n in

col

umn

c, ro

w 5

.

Sour

ce: B

BC R

esea

rch

& C

onsu

lting

Disp

arity

Ana

lysis

.

(a)

(b)

(c)

tota

l dol

lars

Num

ber o

f

(tho

usan

ds)*

Estim

ated

Firm

Typ

e

cont

ract

s(s

ubco

ntra

cts)

in sa

mpl

ein

sam

ple

Dolla

rs

(tho

usan

ds)

%%

colu

mn

c, ro

w1)

(col

umn

c /

Actu

al u

tiliz

atio

n

(d /

e) x

100

(f)Di

ffere

nce

(col

umn

d -

colu

mn

e)%

Larg

e pr

ime

cont

ract

s

(g)

Disp

arity

inde

x

(e)

Util

izat

ion

benc

hmar

k(a

vaila

bilit

y)

(d)

Figu

re K

-17.

Fund

ing

sour

ce: F

AA-fu

nded

Anal

ysis

of p

oten

tial D

BEs

Tim

e pe

riod:

201

0-20

13Ty

pe: C

onst

ruct

ion

and

cons

truc

tion-

rela

ted

prof

essi

onal

serv

ices

Role

: Prim

e Co

ntra

ctor

s and

Sub

cont

ract

ors

(1)

All f

irms

25

$27,

233

$2

7,23

3

(2)

MBE

/WBE

1

$6

$6

0.0

19

.4

-19.

3

0.1

(3)

WBE

1

$6

$6

0.0

1.

5

-1.5

1.

4

(4)

MBE

0

$0

$0

0.0

17

.8

-17.

8

0.0

(5)

Blac

k Am

eric

an-o

wne

d0

$0

$0

0.

0

5.4

-5

.4

0.0

(6)

Asia

n-Pa

cific

Am

eric

an-o

wne

d0

$0

$0

0.

0

0.1

-0

.1

0.0

(7)

Subc

ontin

ent A

sian

Amer

ican

-ow

ned

0

$0

$0

0.0

0.

0

0.0

0.

0

(8)

Hisp

anic

Am

eric

an-o

wne

d0

$0

$0

0.

0

6.9

-6

.9

0.0

(9)

Nat

ive

Amer

ican

-ow

ned

0

$0

$0

0.0

5.

4

-5.4

0.

0

(10)

Unk

now

n M

BE0

$0

(11)

DBE-

cert

ified

0

$0

$0

0.0

(12)

Wom

an-o

wne

d DB

E0

$0

$0

0.

0

(13)

Min

ority

-ow

ned

DBE

0

$0

$0

0.0

(14)

Blac

k Am

eric

an-o

wne

d DB

E0

$0

$0

0.

0

(15)

Asia

n-Pa

cific

Am

eric

an-o

wne

d DB

E0

$0

$0

0.

0

(16)

Subc

ontin

ent A

sian

Amer

ican

-ow

ned

DBE

0

$0

$0

0.0

(17)

Hisp

anic

Am

eric

an-o

wne

d DB

E0

$0

$0

0.

0

(18)

Nat

ive

Amer

ican

-ow

ned

DBE

0

$0

$0

0.0

(19)

Unk

now

n DB

E-M

BE0

$0

(20)

Whi

te m

ale-

owne

d DB

E0

$0

$0

0.

0

(21)

Unk

now

n DB

E0

$0

Not

e: S

prea

dshe

et ro

unds

num

bers

to n

eare

st th

ousa

nd d

olla

rs o

r ten

th o

f one

per

cent

. WBE

is w

hite

wom

en-o

wne

d fir

ms.

* U

nkno

wn

MBE

, Unk

now

n DB

E-M

BE, a

nd U

nkno

wn

DBE

dolla

rs w

ere

allo

cate

d to

MBE

subg

roup

s pro

port

iona

l to

the

know

n to

tal d

olla

rs o

f tho

se g

roup

s. F

or e

xam

ple,

if to

tal

dol

lars

of B

lack

Am

eric

an-o

wne

d fir

ms (

colu

mn

b, ro

w 5

) acc

ount

ed fo

r 25

perc

ent o

f tot

al M

BE d

olla

rs (c

olum

n b,

row

4),

then

25

perc

ent o

f col

umn

b, ro

w 1

0 w

ould

be

adde

d

to c

olum

n b,

row

5 a

nd th

e su

m w

ould

be

show

n in

col

umn

c, ro

w 5

.

Sour

ce: B

BC R

esea

rch

& C

onsu

lting

Disp

arity

Ana

lysis

.

(g)

Disp

arity

inde

x(d

/ e

) x 1

00

(f)Di

ffere

nce

(col

umn

d -

colu

mn

e)%

(e)

Util

izat

ion

benc

hmar

k(a

vaila

bilit

y)%

%co

lum

n c,

row

1)(c

olum

n c

/Ac

tual

util

izat

ion

(d)

(tho

usan

ds)*

Estim

ated

Firm

Typ

e

cont

ract

s(s

ubco

ntra

cts)

in sa

mpl

ein

sam

ple

Dolla

rs

(tho

usan

ds)

(a)

(b)

(c)

tota

l dol

lars

Num

ber o

f

Figu

re K

-18.

Fund

ing

sour

ce: F

AA-fu

nded

Anal

ysis

of p

oten

tial D

BEs

Tim

e pe

riod:

201

0-20

13Ty

pe: C

onst

ruct

ion

Role

: Prim

e Co

ntra

ctor

s and

Sub

cont

ract

ors

(1)

All f

irms

25

$27,

233

$2

7,23

3

(2)

MBE

/WBE

1

$6

$6

0.0

19

.4

-19.

3

0.1

(3)

WBE

1

$6

$6

0.0

1.

5

-1.5

1.

4

(4)

MBE

0

$0

$0

0.0

17

.8

-17.

8

0.0

(5)

Blac

k Am

eric

an-o

wne

d0

$0

$0

0.

0

5.4

-5

.4

0.0

(6)

Asia

n-Pa

cific

Am

eric

an-o

wne

d0

$0

$0

0.

0

0.1

-0

.1

0.0

(7)

Subc

ontin

ent A

sian

Amer

ican

-ow

ned

0

$0

$0

0.0

0.

0

0.0

0.

0

(8)

Hisp

anic

Am

eric

an-o

wne

d0

$0

$0

0.

0

6.9

-6

.9

0.0

(9)

Nat

ive

Amer

ican

-ow

ned

0

$0

$0

0.0

5.

4

-5.4

0.

0

(10)

Unk

now

n M

BE0

$0

(11)

DBE-

cert

ified

0

$0

$0

0.0

(12)

Wom

an-o

wne

d DB

E0

$0

$0

0.

0

(13)

Min

ority

-ow

ned

DBE

0

$0

$0

0.0

(14)

Blac

k Am

eric

an-o

wne

d DB

E0

$0

$0

0.

0

(15)

Asia

n-Pa

cific

Am

eric

an-o

wne

d DB

E0

$0

$0

0.

0

(16)

Subc

ontin

ent A

sian

Amer

ican

-ow

ned

DBE

0

$0

$0

0.0

(17)

Hisp

anic

Am

eric

an-o

wne

d DB

E0

$0

$0

0.

0

(18)

Nat

ive

Amer

ican

-ow

ned

DBE

0

$0

$0

0.0

(19)

Unk

now

n DB

E-M

BE0

$0

(20)

Whi

te m

ale-

owne

d DB

E0

$0

$0

0.

0

(21)

Unk

now

n DB

E0

$0

Not

e: S

prea

dshe

et ro

unds

num

bers

to n

eare

st th

ousa

nd d

olla

rs o

r ten

th o

f one

per

cent

. WBE

is w

hite

wom

en-o

wne

d fir

ms.

* U

nkno

wn

MBE

, Unk

now

n DB

E-M

BE, a

nd U

nkno

wn

DBE

dolla

rs w

ere

allo

cate

d to

MBE

subg

roup

s pro

port

iona

l to

the

know

n to

tal d

olla

rs o

f tho

se g

roup

s. F

or e

xam

ple,

if to

tal

dol

lars

of B

lack

Am

eric

an-o

wne

d fir

ms (

colu

mn

b, ro

w 5

) acc

ount

ed fo

r 25

perc

ent o

f tot

al M

BE d

olla

rs (c

olum

n b,

row

4),

then

25

perc

ent o

f col

umn

b, ro

w 1

0 w

ould

be

adde

d

to c

olum

n b,

row

5 a

nd th

e su

m w

ould

be

show

n in

col

umn

c, ro

w 5

.

Sour

ce: B

BC R

esea

rch

& C

onsu

lting

Disp

arity

Ana

lysis

.

(a)

(b)

(c)

tota

l dol

lars

Num

ber o

f

(tho

usan

ds)*

Estim

ated

Firm

Typ

e

cont

ract

s(s

ubco

ntra

cts)

in sa

mpl

ein

sam

ple

Dolla

rs

(tho

usan

ds)

%co

lum

n c,

row

1)(c

olum

n c

/Ac

tual

util

izat

ion

(d)

(e)

Util

izat

ion

benc

hmar

k(a

vaila

bilit

y)%

(f)Di

ffere

nce

(col

umn

d -

colu

mn

e)%

(g)

Disp

arity

inde

x(d

/ e

) x 1

00

Figu

re K

-19.

Fund

ing

sour

ce: F

AA-fu

nded

Anal

ysis

of p

oten

tial D

BEs

Tim

e pe

riod:

201

0-20

13Ty

pe: C

onst

ruct

ion-

rela

ted

prof

essi

onal

serv

ices

Role

: Prim

e Co

ntra

ctor

s and

Sub

cont

ract

ors

(1)

All f

irms

0$0

$0

(2)

MBE

/WBE

0

$0

$0

0.0

0.

0

0.0

0.

0

(3)

WBE

0

$0

$0

0.0

0.

0

0.0

0.

0

(4)

MBE

0

$0

$0

0.0

0.

0

0.0

0.

0

(5)

Blac

k Am

eric

an-o

wne

d0

$0

$0

0.

0

0.0

0.

0

0.0

(6)

Asia

n-Pa

cific

Am

eric

an-o

wne

d0

$0

$0

0.

0

0.0

0.

0

0.0

(7)

Subc

ontin

ent A

sian

Amer

ican

-ow

ned

0

$0

$0

0.0

0.

0

0.0

0.

0

(8)

Hisp

anic

Am

eric

an-o

wne

d0

$0

$0

0.

0

0.0

0.

0

0.0

(9)

Nat

ive

Amer

ican

-ow

ned

0

$0

$0

0.0

0.

0

0.0

0.

0

(10)

Unk

now

n M

BE0

$0

(11)

DBE-

cert

ified

0

$0

$0

0.0

(12)

Wom

an-o

wne

d DB

E0

$0

$0

0.

0

(13)

Min

ority

-ow

ned

DBE

0

$0

$0

0.0

(14)

Blac

k Am

eric

an-o

wne

d DB

E0

$0

$0

0.

0

(15)

Asia

n-Pa

cific

Am

eric

an-o

wne

d DB

E0

$0

$0

0.

0

(16)

Subc

ontin

ent A

sian

Amer

ican

-ow

ned

DBE

0

$0

$0

0.0

(17)

Hisp

anic

Am

eric

an-o

wne

d DB

E0

$0

$0

0.

0

(18)

Nat

ive

Amer

ican

-ow

ned

DBE

0

$0

$0

0.0

(19)

Unk

now

n DB

E-M

BE0

$0

(20)

Whi

te m

ale-

owne

d DB

E0

$0

$0

0.

0

(21)

Unk

now

n DB

E0

$0

Not

e: S

prea

dshe

et ro

unds

num

bers

to n

eare

st th

ousa

nd d

olla

rs o

r ten

th o

f one

per

cent

. WBE

is w

hite

wom

en-o

wne

d fir

ms.

* U

nkno

wn

MBE

, Unk

now

n DB

E-M

BE, a

nd U

nkno

wn

DBE

dolla

rs w

ere

allo

cate

d to

MBE

subg

roup

s pro

port

iona

l to

the

know

n to

tal d

olla

rs o

f tho

se g

roup

s. F

or e

xam

ple,

if to

tal

dol

lars

of B

lack

Am

eric

an-o

wne

d fir

ms (

colu

mn

b, ro

w 5

) acc

ount

ed fo

r 25

perc

ent o

f tot

al M

BE d

olla

rs (c

olum

n b,

row

4),

then

25

perc

ent o

f col

umn

b, ro

w 1

0 w

ould

be

adde

d

to c

olum

n b,

row

5 a

nd th

e su

m w

ould

be

show

n in

col

umn

c, ro

w 5

.

Sour

ce: B

BC R

esea

rch

& C

onsu

lting

Disp

arity

Ana

lysis

.

(a)

(b)

(c)

tota

l dol

lars

Num

ber o

f

(tho

usan

ds)*

Estim

ated

Firm

Typ

e

cont

ract

s(s

ubco

ntra

cts)

in sa

mpl

ein

sam

ple

Dolla

rs

(tho

usan

ds)

%co

lum

n c,

row

1)(c

olum

n c

/Ac

tual

util

izat

ion

(d)

(e)

Util

izat

ion

benc

hmar

k(a

vaila

bilit

y)%

(f)Di

ffere

nce

(col

umn

d -

colu

mn

e)%

(g)

Disp

arity

inde

x(d

/ e

) x 1

00

Portof Seattle Disparity Study · Final Sept Po Prep Port 2711 Seatt Prep BBC R 1999 Denv 303.3 www bbc@ Report ember 12, 20 rt of S ared for of Seattle Alaskan Way le, Washingto

Documents