Comments on: Minority contracting clarification confuses some /news/2010/03/23/minority-contracting-clarification-confuses-oregon-industry/ Building and Construction News in Portland, Oregon and the Pacific Northwest Thu, 25 Mar 2010 00:12:08 +0000 hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=6.6.6 By: Sam Palkow /news/2010/03/23/minority-contracting-clarification-confuses-oregon-industry/#comment-16928 Thu, 25 Mar 2010 00:12:08 +0000 /?p=49022#comment-16928 FURTHERMORE: What is this all about ? Read the very last sentence!

“..It is clear from the application that disadvantaged individuals do not own or control the firm (e.g., that non-disadvantaged individuals own 60 percent of the stock, or that white males make all day-to-day business decisions of the company) ”

White males?!!!

—————–
Section 26.83 Preamble / 26.83 Regulation

Section 26.83(c)1)
IS AN ON-SITE REVIEW OF A FIRM NECESSARY TO CERTIFY A FIRM? TO DENY CERTIFICATION TO THE FIRM?
(Posted – 2/12/02)
ANSWER:
• As a recipient, you are not permitted to certify a firm as an eligible DBE unless there has been an on-site review of its eligibility that you take into account in making your decision. There are no exceptions to this requirement, which is crucial to preventing DBE fraud and ensuring the integrity of the DBE program.
• However, there are some situations in which you may deny certification to a firm without an on-site review.
• Generally, these situations are ones in which the information contained in the firm’s application, viewed in the light most favorable to the firm, precludes it from being certified.
• Here are examples of these situations:
o The personal net worth statement of the sole owner of a firm exceeds the $750,000 limit
o The firm exceeds the $17.42 million cap on gross annual receipts, averaged over three years, or exceeds the applicable SBA business size standard
o The applicant fails to cooperate with the recipient’s information requests (e.g., an owner refuses to supply necessary personal net worth information)
o It is clear from the application that disadvantaged individuals do not own or control the firm (e.g., that non-disadvantaged individuals own 60 percent of the stock, or that white males make all day-to-day business decisions of the company)
Section 26.83 Preamble / 26.83 Regulation

Section 26.83(c)1)
IS AN ON-SITE REVIEW OF A FIRM NECESSARY TO CERTIFY A FIRM? TO DENY CERTIFICATION TO THE FIRM?
(Posted – 2/12/02)
ANSWER:
• As a recipient, you are not permitted to certify a firm as an eligible DBE unless there has been an on-site review of its eligibility that you take into account in making your decision. There are no exceptions to this requirement, which is crucial to preventing DBE fraud and ensuring the integrity of the DBE program.
• However, there are some situations in which you may deny certification to a firm without an on-site review.
• Generally, these situations are ones in which the information contained in the firm’s application, viewed in the light most favorable to the firm, precludes it from being certified.
• Here are examples of these situations:
o The personal net worth statement of the sole owner of a firm exceeds the $750,000 limit
o The firm exceeds the $17.42 million cap on gross annual receipts, averaged over three years, or exceeds the applicable SBA business size standard
o The applicant fails to cooperate with the recipient’s information requests (e.g., an owner refuses to supply necessary personal net worth information)
o It is clear from the application that disadvantaged individuals do not own or control the firm (e.g., that non-disadvantaged individuals own 60 percent of the stock, or that white males make all day-to-day business decisions of the company)

]]>
By: Sam Palkow /news/2010/03/23/minority-contracting-clarification-confuses-oregon-industry/#comment-16924 Wed, 24 Mar 2010 23:41:25 +0000 /?p=49022#comment-16924 Since DOT is not supposed to disciminate against anyone in their certification process for DBE / MBE, why does Oregon only have one active white male owned business certified through DBE program??? Is there some sort of discrimination going on here?

]]>
By: Roger Clegg, Center for Equal Opportunity /news/2010/03/23/minority-contracting-clarification-confuses-oregon-industry/#comment-16773 Wed, 24 Mar 2010 13:09:02 +0000 /?p=49022#comment-16773 Why do race, ethnicity, and sex need to be considered at all in deciding who gets awarded a contract? It’s fine to make sure contracting programs are open to all, that bidding opportunities are widely publicized beforehand, and that no one gets discriminated against because of skin color, national origin, or sex. But that means no preferences because of skin color, etc. either–whether it’s labeled a “set-aside,” a “quota,” or a “goal,” since they all end up amounting to the same thing. Such discrimination is unfair and divisive; it costs the taxpayers money to award a contract to someone other than the lowest bidder; and it’s almost always illegal—indeed, unconstitutional—to boot (see 42 U.S.C. section 1981 and comments we submitted to the Colorado DOT here: ). Those who insist on engaging in such discrimination deserve to be sued, and they will lose.

]]>