My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Revised City of South Bend Disparity Study Report
sbend
>
Public
>
Inclusive Procurement and Contracting Board (MBE/WBE)
>
Reports
>
Revised City of South Bend Disparity Study Report
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/3/2020 1:57:54 PM
Creation date
11/3/2020 1:55:54 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council - City Clerk
City Council - Document Type
Letter
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
131
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
CCS of South Bend Disoarity Study 2020 <br />a. City spending across another 47 NAILS codes comprised 8.43 percent of all spending. The entire list of <br />NAICS codes is contained in Appendix D. <br />Source: CHA analysis of City of South Bend's data. <br />2. The City of South Bend's Geographic Market <br />The courts and the M/WBE regulations118 require that a local government <br />limit the reach of its race- and gender -conscious contracting program to its <br />geographic market area.119 While it may be that the state's jurisdictional <br />boundaries comprise the City's geographic market area, this element of the <br />analysis must be empirically established.120 <br />To determine the relevant geographic market area, we applied the standard of <br />identifying the firm locations that account for at least 75 percent of contract <br />and subcontract dollar payments in the contract data file. 121 Location was <br />determined by ZIP code and aggregated into counties as the geographic unit. <br />As presented in Table 4-4, spending in Indiana accounted for 81.9 percent of <br />all contract dollars paid in the City's unconstrained product market. Upon fur- <br />ther investigation of spending, we identified the City spent an additional 4.6 <br />percent of its contract dollars in Berrien County, MI. Therefore, our analysis <br />used the State of Indiana and Berrien County as the geographic market area <br />for this study. <br />118. https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/docs/Tips_for_ Goal-Setting_in_DBE_Program_20141106.pdf; see <br />also 49 C.F.R 4 26.45. <br />119. City of Richmond v J.A. Croson Co., 488 U.S. 469, 508 (1989) (Richmond was specifically faulted for including minority <br />contractors from across the country in its program based on the national evidence that supported the USDOT DBE pro- <br />gram). <br />120. Concrete Works of Colorado, Inc. v City and County of Denver, 36 F.3d 1513, 1520 (10th Cir. 1994) ("Concrete Works il") <br />(to confine data to strict geographic boundaries would ignore "economic reality"). <br />121. National Disparity Study Guidelines, p. 49. <br />54 0 2020 Colette Holt & Associates, All Rights Reserved. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.