Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 12
12 TABLE 2 Not all STAs include payments of second tier subcontrac- STATE OVERALL DBE GOALS AND ACHIEVEMENT (2002) tors. Twenty-three STAs have a mechanism to include second DBE Race Race tier subcontracting contributions. Eleven indicated that they do Goal Neutral Conscious Achievement State (%) (%) (%) (%) not count second tier contributions and two did not provide a Alabama 9.00 2.6 6.4 9.00 response to this question. No clarification was provided for Alaska 8.00 3.5 4.5 5.00 why some STAs do not count second tier contributions. Arizona 9.00 2.5 6.5 9.00 Arkansas 8.15 0.30 7.8 7.00 California 17.00 3.0 14.0 NA Colorado 10.93 8.1 2.83 11.00 DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS ENTERPRISE Connecticut 11.70 1.7 10.0 NA REGULATION FOR LOCAL FUND PROJECTS Georgia 12.00 4.0 8.0 12.00 Hawaii 17.00 17.0 17.00 Local projects with federal aid need to be included in STA Idaho 8.00 2.3 5.5 4.00 Illinois 12.29 2.5 9.79 10.95 goal-setting processes. Several terms are used to describe Iowa 6.80 7.00 these projects. They are known as either "pass through" or Kansas 10.30 1.0 9.3 9.00 "local let" contracts when they involve federal funds. The Kentucky 11.00 9.0 2.0 NA Maine 7.00 7.00 terms accurately describe the transactions. When a local gov- Massachusetts 13.80 4.3 9.5 13.00 ernment receives money from the federal government for a Michigan 11.00 2.0 9.0 13.00 project the money is provided through the STA. The local Minnesota 8.00 2.6 5.0 NA Missouri 9.00 2.93 6.41 9.00 authority is generally responsible for the bid letting, award- Nevada 6.00 3.0 3.0 7.00 ing, and oversight of the resulting contracts. The STA should New Hampshire 8.00 6.0 2.0 21.00 receive monthly or quarterly reports on the disbursement of New Jersey 15.00 9.6 4.9 16.00 New Mexico 8.07 13.52 funds to the project contractors, including DBE firms, to use New York 12.70 1.2 11.5 NA in the STA reports. In some cases, the local authority seeks North Carolina 12.00 2.94 9.06 NA STA assistance in the oversight and management of the local North Dakota 7.00 4.42 2.71 5.00 Ohio 9.00 6.00 project. In most cases, the STA then has direct access to Oklahoma 10.00 6.00 reporting documents. Of the 13 responses obtained to a ques- Pennsylvania 9.00 1.93 6.93 NA tion about local DBE programs, 7 STAs indicated that local South Dakota 7.00 2.62 4.38 8.00 Texas 12.00 12.00 goals had been established. Three STAs indicated that they Vermont 12.50 10.5 2 13.00 are not tracking DBE participation in pass through or local Washington 12.00 7.0 5.0 14.00 let contracts. West Virginia 10.00 9.75 5.00 Wisconsin 11.00 1.9 8.6 9.14 Wyoming 5.00 5.0 7.00 SET-ASIDE PROGRAMS Note: NA = not available. Section 26.43 (2003) addresses the use of set-asides or quotas toward the project goal. The regulation describes the methods in meeting program goals. Quotas are not permitted and set- for counting DBE second tier subcontractor participation as aside contracts are only permissible when no other method follows [49 CFR 26.55 (a)]: could reasonably be expected to achieve the program goals. None of the respondents had used any set-aside programs. (3) When a DBE subcontracts part of the work of its contract to another firm, the value of the subcontracted work may be counted toward DBE goals only if the DBE's subcontractor OVERCONCENTRATION is itself a DBE. Work that a DBE subcontracts to a non-DBE firm does not count toward DBE goals. Overconcentration is not precisely defined in the regulation, allowing for a wide variety of interpretation. Overconcentra- Not Tracking tion occurs when DBE firms are so frequently used in a cer- 19% Below Goal tain type of work as to "unduly burden" the opportunity of 31% non-DBE firms to participate in this type of work. It is up to each individual STA to establish the metrics for when a work type is "unduly burdened" or "overconcentrated." New Mex- ico defined overconcentration as occurring where more than 50% of the firms ready, willing, and able to perform such Above Goal work are DBE firms or when more than 50% of the total fed- 31% On Goal eral-aid dollars spent on such work in the previous fiscal year 19% was earned by DBE firms. For trucking, they raise the defin- FIGURE 3 Goal achievement ition percentages to 80%. In Georgia, overconcentration is distribution, 2002. when the total work of DBE firms comprises 85% of the