Franklin M. Lee
Partner, Law Firm of
Tydings & Rosenberg LLP
Baltimore, MD
Follow Up Report on City of Charlotte
Disparity Study
City of Charlotte, NC
City Council Briefing
April 9, 2012
4:00 P.M.
1
Background
In October 2010 the City retained MGT of
America, Inc. (MGT), to conduct a Disparity
Study comparing use and availability of minority
and women owned business enterprises
(MWBEs) on City contracts.
The 2010 Disparity Study covered City spending
from July 1, 2005 through June 30, 2010,
updating the City’s 2003 Disparity Study (also
conducted by MGT).
2
MGT presented findings and recommendations to City
Council in September, 2011.
MGT concluded that while some evidence may support
the restoration of race and gender conscious
subcontracting goals for certain minority groups, the
study’s cumulative evidence did not support a legally
defensible race and gender conscious contracting
program.
On February 13, 2012, following review of the Disparity
Study by the Economic Development Committee and the
Disparity Study Advisory Committee, City Council voted
to retain Tydings & Rosenberg LLP to review MGT’s
findings and recommendations.
3
CORE ISSUE
Considering the totality of the evidence
presented, does the City of Charlotte have
a strong basis in evidence for considering
the use of narrowly tailored race / genderconscious remedial policies to more fully
remedy the ongoing effects of marketplace
discrimination upon its contracting?
4
CORE ISSUE
ANSWER:
YES
 Particularly in the context of the inability
of an aggressive small business enterprise
program over an 8-year period to fully
eliminate significant disparities in the
utilization of ready, willing, and able
M/WBE firms.
5
MGT Conclusion Differs
– No “strong basis in evidence” for
following reasons:
1.Existing statistically significant
disparities in part due to larger M/WBE
availability in recent years.
2.Increased utilization of M/WBE
subcontractors in absolute dollars and
percentage participation since SBO
Program was adopted in 2003.
6
MGT Conclusion Differs
– No “strong basis in evidence” for
following reasons:
3.Percentage of total contract dollars
going to M/WBE construction
subcontractors tripled since 2003.
4.Increased utilization of M/WBE
subcontractors in absolute dollars and
percentage participation since SBO
Program was adopted in 2003.
7
MGT Conclusion Differs
– No “strong basis in evidence” for
following reasons:
5.The SBO Program has been a more
effective remedy than Charlotte’s former
M/WBE Program
6.The Charlotte SBO Program is
apparently as effective as other M/WBE
programs in Charlotte area
8
MGT Conclusion Differs
– No “strong basis in evidence” for
following reasons:
7.Anecdotal evidence is weak.
9
Alternative View of Same Evidence
1. MGT admits that ALL of its measures of
availability reflect larger M/WBE availability
for this study period.
“Custom Census” approach used in Study
Update has been upheld repeatedly in
most recent court cases
“Custom Census” methodology more
accurately reflects full universe of
available firms
MGT is right to rely upon it in latest study
10
Alternative View of Same Evidence
2.
Utilization numerators in disparity
ratios from two different time frames
are not interchangeable:
 For Example: Assume a 1/2 disparity
ratio in 2003 as compared to 5/10
disparity ratio in 2010
 Misleading to conclude that SBO Program
is successful simply because utilization
numerator is five times as big in 2010…
disparity ratios remain the same.
11
Alternative View of Same Evidence
3. Undisputed evidence reflects that SBO
Program did not fully eliminate disparities:
Size of disparities in 2003 have been
reduced somewhat
But substantial and statistically significant
disparities remain
4. After 8 years of race-neutral SBO Program
policy, it is time to consider the use of more
aggressive race- conscious remedial policies
on a narrowly tailored basis.
12
Alternative View of Same Evidence
5. Presumed superiority of SBO Program as compared
to past City M/WBE Program and current nearby
M/WBE programs is not necessarily valid, as all
M/WBE Programs are not created equal. MGT has
not demonstrated that those M/WBE Programs are
in keeping with today’s “best practices” such as:
Effective and narrowly-tailored outreach
Strong monitoring
Contract-specific goal-setting
Enforcement through sanctions
Adequate staff and resources
Automated bidder registration, and automation in tracking
of availability and actual payment data
13
Alternative View of Same Evidence
6. Because marketplace discrimination often occurs
outside the presence of those affected, there is low
probability for victims to have direct knowledge:
Yet, anecdotal evidence is quite robust (over 100
particularized accounts / affirmations of
discrimination, w/ four different methodologies)
Anecdotal evidence bolsters conclusion that
discrimination occurs in many forms
Discrimination likely occurs in much more than a
few isolated instances.
7. Combined with widespread statistical disparities,
anecdotal evidence supports class-based remedies.
14
POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS
Hybrid SBO / M/WBE Program with
following features:
Contract-specific determinations for the application
of SBO or M/WBE program features based on
clear criteria
SBE or M/WBE subcontracting goals with good
faith efforts
Vendor rotation on informal contracts
Increase formal bid threshold to $500,000
on construction contracts
15
POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS
Automated Mandatory Centralized Bidder
Registration:
– Enhances targeted automated outreach
– Greatly reduces administrative burden for:
satisfying good faith efforts requirements
contract-specific goal setting
tracking and reporting of M/WBE utilization thru
payments
providing transparency in payments for better
enforcement of prompt payment provisions
16
QUESTIONS???
Franklin M. Lee, Esq.
Partner
Tydings & Rosenberg LLP
100 E. Pratt Street, 26th Fl.
Baltimore, MD 21202
(410) 752-9734
E-mail: flee@tydingslaw.com
17