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 22
22 TABLE 9 GFE ANALYSIS 2002 Written GFE GFE Submissions GFE Accepted Time Allowance To State Policy? 2002 2002 Determine GFE Alabama Yes NA NA No Alaska Yes 23 20 5 days Arizona No 0 0 No Arkansas Yes 2 0 Yes, ASAP California Yes 250 133 NR Colorado Yes 19 19 30 days Connecticut Yes 4 4 14 days Georgia Yes 0 0 Yes Hawaii No 1 NR No Idaho No 1 0 15 days Illinois Yes 34 34 18 days Iowa Yes All All except 3 3 days Kansas Yes 7 5 No Kentucky Yes 1 1 10 days Maine Yes NR NR NR Massachusetts Yes 0 NA No Michigan Yes 35 35 20 days Minnesota No NR NR NR Missouri Yes 10 6 3 days Nevada Yes 0 0 No New Hampshire Yes 0 0 No New Jersey Yes 0 0 No New Mexico Yes 0 0 No New York Yes 30 25 25­40 days North Carolina Yes Unknown 95% estimated Yes North Dakota Yes 27 23 30 days Ohio Yes 8 8 10 days Oklahoma Yes 30 30 Yes, varies Pennsylvania Yes 3 3 7 days South Dakota Yes 22 21 30 days Texas Yes 5 5 No Vermont Yes 0 NA No Washington Yes 1 1 45 days West Virginia Yes 1 NR NR Wisconsin Yes 126 118 10 days Wyoming Yes 0 0 0 Notes: GFE = good faith effort; NA = not available; ASAP = as soon as possible; NR = no response. Iowa, focused on indirect assistance, where past track records keep participation levels above the state goal to ensure that they of using DBEs are considered in evaluating a good faith effort. did not need to return to specific contract goals. The remain- Two STAs reported providing additional credit for the spe- ing 24 respondents did not consider any type of incentive for cific use of DBEs. One gave double credit, in the letting, for improved DBE participation, and 1 did not provide a response. DBEs used in bridge building, and the other gave a 2% bonus (not to exceed $200,000) for using first-time DBEs. One STA reported reducing the payment retainage percentages for PERFORMANCE BONDS higher use. Three reported that the financial incentive was to Thirty-one of 36 survey respondents indicated that they required performance bonds on all projects. Two indicated that TABLE 10 they did not require bonds on all projects, and three did not DISTRIBUTION OF SELF-PERFORMED WORK REQUESTED provide a response in this section. In some states, there is the BY STAs option to waive bonds on smaller projects. One state clarified No. of their response by stating that the STA had the option to waive Minimum Level of Self-Performed Work Respondents 50% or Greater 15 bonds on contracts under $80,000. The questionnaire for this 40% or More 5 study did not attempt to define the bond coverage limits or 30% or More 10 requirements. Bonding for small firms, start-up firms specifi- Variable: 30% to 50% Depending on the Type of 3 Contract (i.e., state-only funds, 50%; federal funds, cally, is hard to obtain. Bonding assistance programs were put 30%) into place to aid DBE and small non-DBE firms in developing No Response 3 their experience and financial reports to qualify for bonding.