Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County ... · 2017 BENCHMARK REPORT Final Report 2017 235 Peachtree Street, N.E. Suite 400 Atlanta, Georgia 30303 Phone (404)-584-9777

Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County 2017 UPDATED BENCHMARK REPORT

Metropolitan Government of

Nashville and Davidson County

2017 BENCHMARK REPORT

Final Report 2017

235 Peachtree Street, N.E. Suite 400 Atlanta, Georgia 30303 Phone (404)-584-9777 Fax (404)-584-9730 [email protected]


2

I. Defining the Benchmark

Benchmarking is a way of assessing the performance of an organization in reaching

specific goals. It can also be a tool to help an organization discover the best possible way

to achieve more efficient performance; but most importantly, benchmarking focuses on

an organization’s best practices and helps determine its reference points and standards.

Benchmarking, by definition, is an ongoing process that strives for continuous

improvement of an organization. A goal is set, the goal is executed, performance is

evaluated, means for better performance is identified, goals are then re-estimated, the

re-estimates are executed, and so on.

As an on-going process, an organization can identify any performance gaps which can be

improved once benchmarking objectives are calculated. In other words, each evaluation

of performance allows for refinement, and the organization has an opportunity to get

better and better at achieving its goals.

There are essentially three types of benchmarking:

(1) Internal benchmarking, which is setting higher standards based on the data

within the organization;

(2) Competitive benchmarking, which is building a set of guidelines to achieve

optimal performance compared to others; and

(3) Strategic-based benchmarking, which is the use of strategies to compete with the

best companies in the marketplace.

The benchmarking for Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County

(“Metro Nashville”) is a hybrid of an internal benchmarking in that it does not compare

its performance to any external measurements, but it does use outside data in

determining the availability of firms.

Griffin & Strong, P.C. (“GSPC”) was engaged by Metro Nashville to conduct a benchmark

analysis, conduct an availability/utilization analysis, and set new benchmarks.

This benchmarking compares the attainment of prime awards by minority and women-

owned firms during FY2014-FY2016 to the benchmarks, based upon availability, that

were set in 2013. However, previous benchmarks did not attempt to review the

attainment of subcontractors because that data was not tracked, except for minority and

women owned firms. Although those firms have been included in availability for this

Benchmark, subcontractor utilization cannot be calculated because, again,

predominantly only minority and women owned firms were tracked.


3

GSPC also conducted a simple disparity analysis to compare the availability of ready,

willing, and able firms in the marketplace to Metro Nashville’s utilization of such firms.

Because of the incomplete data, this can only be completed for prime contractors and not

for subcontractors.

II. Benchmarking Process

In 2008, GSPC completed a comprehensive disparity study for Metro Nashville, which

concluded that Metro Nashville may have been a passive participant in unlawful

discrimination against minorities and women in its procurement.1 As a result, Metro

Nashville expressed “a compelling interest in providing equal business opportunities for

all persons wishing”2 to participate in its procurement process, in order to remedy the

underutilization of MWBEs due to the government’s passive participation in

discrimination.

To accomplish this goal, Metro Nashville established a process to monitor and track

MWBE availability and participation in the procurement process through Benchmarks.

Benchmarks are not quotas, but are instead a method to enable Metro Nashville to

compare the participation of MWBEs in the procurement process with expected

participation rates based on the availability of MWBEs within the Metropolitan

Statistical Area (MSA).3 Metro Nashville conducted a benchmarking in 2008, 2012,

2014, and now, the current Benchmark.

A. Review Purchasing and Contract Practices and Procedures

In each Benchmark, GSPC sought to obtain a clear and fresh understanding of the

current procedures and programs in order to establish the foundation on which

procurement activities take place. We also obtained a clear understanding of the current

processes Metro Nashville utilizes in order to collect the data necessary for the analysis.

Subtasks:

Examined the code and ordinances regarding procurement activities by Metro

Nashville.

Interviewed procurement and finance personnel for an update on purchasing

and contract practices and procedures

1 Ordinance No. BL2008-161

2 Section 4.46.060 of Ordinance No. BL2008-161, p. 9.

3 Ibid, pp. 9-10.


4

B. Data Assessment and Collection

The data assessment meeting occurred on June 15, 2016. The Griffin & Strong, P.C.

(“GSPC”) team of Project Manager, Michele Clark Jenkins; Deputy Project Manager,

Sterling Johnson; Anecdotal Evidence Analyst, Imani G. Strong; and Sr. Data Analyst,

Tanesha Jones traveled to Nashville and met with Michelle Lane, Chief Diversity Officer;

Jeff Gossage, Assistant Finance Director & Purchasing Agent; Melissa Day, Information

Technology Services; and Bryan Gleason, Contract Compliance Specialist (“Meeting”) to

establish:

1. How data maintenance has changed since the last Benchmark;

2. What data is needed for both the Benchmark and the Disparity Study, if one

is done;

3. Whether the data is available electronically or must be entered manually;

4. What fields of data are needed and what fields are available;

5. Whether any obstacles to data collection or data entry exist;

6. Process for data to be provided to GSPC.

C. Methodology for Conducting Availability/Utilization Analysis

The approach used to estimate availabilities in the Disparity Study was used for the

purpose of estimating availabilities for Benchmarking but only evaluates certain United

Nations Standard Products and Services Codes (“UNSPSC”) in Construction,

Professional Services, and Non-Professional Services, and does not evaluate the

purchasing of Goods:

The firm is in the Nashville MSA;

The firm does business within an industry group from which Metro

Nashville makes certain purchases (see specific groups in Tables 4-6);

The firm's owner appears on vendor, bidder, awardee, payment, or

certified lists from TNUCP (Tennessee Unified Certification Program),

Nashville International Airport Metro Nashville, GoDBE and TDot.


5

1. Work Categories

There are three major categories covered by the Procurement Nondiscrimination

Program” set forth by §4-46-040 of the Nashville City Code:

Category A —Construction: Includes any and all contracting relating

to buildings, facilities and other erected structures on real estate owned

by the Metropolitan Government such as new construction,

rehabilitations, remodeling and repairs. In addition to these specified

areas, GSPC created an additional category of “Other Construction” which

is a catch-all for other Construction services provided in the UNSPSC

code beginning with 72, but not otherwise captured in the individual

categories.

Category B —Non-professional Services: Encompasses the

procurement of advertising, printing, non-construction repairs, janitorial

services, training seminars and workshops, computer and information

systems, security, shipping and mailing, microfiche and microfilm,

courier, storage, travel, consulting and other non-professional services.

Category C —Professional Services: Includes the purchase of any or

all services covered by Section 4.08.080 for which applicable selection

criteria may require a Participant to possess a license or other certificate

of competency such as accounting, auditing, architectural, and

engineering.

These categories were further classified into subgroups using the United Nations

Standard Products and Services Codes (“UNSPSC”) and the analysis was conducted on

these certain sub-categories. The list of categories included in GSPC’s review are only

those listed in the availability and benchmark Tables 4-6.

2. Determining Availability

(a) Identifying all vendors from the Master Vendor File located in the Nashville

Metropolitan Statistical Area (Nashville, TN MSA). This file was developed by

Griffin & Strong, P.C. during the disparity study;

(b) Classifying the vendors by UNSPSC to 4 and 6 digits.

(c) Estimating availability by ethnicity/race and gender for the major categories

and sub-categories to be used in benchmarking.

In addition, GSPC conducted a threshold analysis to determine whether the level of

contracting that Metro Nashville does warrants a separate availability for prime

contractors and subcontractors, or whether it is likely that subcontractors can perform as

http://library.municode.com/HTML/14214/level3/CHRELACOTA_TIT4PRCO_CH4.08PROR.html#CHRELACOTA_TIT4PRCO_CH4.08PROR_4.08.080AUCOPRSE


6

primes.

In Construction, there were a total of 1427 awards (contracts & P.O.s) reviewed by GSPC

for the benchmark over $5,0004 for a total of $467,309,197 from FY2014-FY2016. The

average contract was $327,477 with 78.49% under $100,000. Ninety (90) awards or

6.31% of all Construction contracts were $1M or more, but they account for 80.51% of all

Construction award dollars.

Table 1: Award Thresholds-Construction Metro Nashville Benchmarking

Construction

Award Threshold Number of Awards Percent of Awards Dollars

5,000 to 10,000 524 36.72% $3,803,396

10,001 to 50,000 417 29.22% $9,980,435

50,001 to 100,000 179 12.54% $13,565,343

100,001 to 250,000 120 8.41% $19,541,900

250,001 to 500,000 68 4.77% $23,467,857

500,001 to 750,000 15 1.05% $8,725,121

750,001 to 1,000,000 14 0.98% $12,001,769

1,000,001 to 1,500,000 29 2.03% $35,813,924

1,500,001 to 2,000,000 6 0.42% $10,908,542

2,000,001 to 2,500,000 6 0.42% $13,848,582

2,500,001 to 5,000,000 26 1.82% $100,081,353

Over 5,000,000 23 1.61% $215,570,975

Total 1427 100.00% $467,309,197 Griffin & Strong, P.C. 2017

Average: $327,477

Median: $19,002

4 There were 4,163 awards under $5,000 for a total of $3,959,156 that were not included in the analysis

since many of them were for very small dollars (under $100) and would skew the results.


7

In Professional Services, there were a total of 464 awards (contracts & P.O.s) reviewed by

GSPC for the benchmark over $5,0005 for a total of $129,903,123 from FY2014-FY2016.

The average contract was $279,964 with 56.68% under $100,000. Thirty-eight (38)

awards or 8.19% of all Professional Services contracts were $1M or more, but they

account for 56.80% of all Professional Services award dollars.

Table 2: Award Thresholds-Professional Services Metro Nashville Benchmarking

Professional Services


5,000 to 10,000 63 13.58% $469,287

10,001 to 50,000 150 32.33% $3,421,728

50,001 to 100,000 50 10.78% $3,940,015

100,001 to 250,000 90 19.40% $15,314,447

250,001 to 500,000 53 11.42% $18,532,550

500,001 to 750,000 12 2.59% $7,217,187

750,001 to 1,000,000 8 1.72% $7,229,408

1,000,001 to 1,500,000 12 2.59% $15,201,949

1,500,001 to 2,000,000 14 3.02% $24,884,069

2,000,001 to 2,500,000 6 1.29% $13,189,844

2,500,001 to 5,000,000 5 1.08% $15,045,093

Over 5,000,000 1 0.22% $5,457,546


Average: $279,964

Median: $70,000

5 There were 222 awards under $5,000 for a total of $340,199 that were not included in the analysis since

many of them were for very small dollars (under $100) and would skew the results.


8

In Non-Professional Services, there were a total of 1,332 awards (contracts & P.O.s)

reviewed by GSPC for the benchmark over $5,0006 for a total of $67,243,144 from

FY2014-FY2016. The average contract was $50,483 with 92.19% under $100,000. Two

(2) awards or .23% of all Non-Professional Services contracts were $1M or more, but

they account for 16.62% of all Non-Professional Services award dollars.

Table 3: Award Thresholds-Non-Professional Services Metro Nashville Benchmarking

Non-Professional Services


5,000 to 10,000 385 28.90% $2,776,519

10,001 to 50,000 735 55.18% $16,880,126

50,001 to 100,000 108 8.11% $7,517,610

100,001 to 250,000 58 4.35% $10,802,727

250,001 to 500,000 21 1.58% $6,311,455

500,001 to 750,000 22 1.65% $11,775,707

750,001 to 1,000,000 0 0.00% $0

1,000,001 to 1,500,000 1 0.08% $1,060,000

1,500,001 to 2,000,000 0 0.00% $0

2,000,001 to 2,500,000 0 0.00% $0

2,500,001 to 5,000,000 1 0.08% $4,950,000

Over 5,000,000 1 0.08% $5,169,000


Average: $50,483

Median: $16,381

6 There were 3,335 awards under $5,000 for a total of $3,217,337 that were not included in the analysis

since many of them were for very small dollars (under $100).


9

The Threshold Analysis demonstrates that the majority of awards made by Metro

Nashville are under $100,000 and that the average awards are well under $400,000.

There is no evidence that firms that offer services as subcontractors cannot perform at

prime levels.

The following definitions are necessary for the estimation of availability:

Definitions:

Let: A = Availability Estimates

A (Asian) = Availability Estimates for Asian Business Enterprises

N (Asian) = Number of Asian Business Enterprises in the pool

N (MWBE) = Number of Minority-owned Business Enterprises

N (t) = Total number of businesses in the pool of bidders in the procurement

category (for example, Construction)

Availability, (A), is found by dividing the number of firms in each MWBE group by the

total number of businesses in the pool of bidders for that procurement category, N (t).

For instance, availability for Asians is given by

A (Asian) = N (Asian)/N (t)

and total availability for all MWBE groups is given by

A (MWBE) = N (MWBE)/N (t).

3. Utilization

Prime Utilization was determined by using Metro Nashville’s electronic data from its

Contract and P.O. files for each work category. The prime utilization percentages were

used to demonstrate the “attainment” in Tables 4-9. It should be noted that GSPC did

not have sufficient and reliable data to determine subcontractor attainment for this

report, but the threshold analysis indicates that there should not be a difference in firm

capacities to operate at prime or subcontractors. GSPC has made certain

recommendations to assist Metro Nashville in gathering and maintaining the data

necessary to include subcontractor analysis in future Benchmarks.

III. Benchmarking Analysis


10

The first step in this iteration of Metro Nashville’s Benchmarking is to compare its

attainment, or utilization of MWBE firms from FY2014-FY2016 to the previously set

benchmark. That previous benchmark was equal to the availability of firms during 2013.

This analysis will measure whether Metro Nashville is, in fact, reached those

benchmarks, indicated as with a hyphen (-); whether it exceeded the benchmark,

indicated as a positive percentage; or whether it fell short of the benchmark, indicated as

a negative percentage.

Tables 4-6 indicate the attainment achievements against the benchmark. It should be

noted that subcontractor data attainment has not previously been collected for non-

MWBE first and therefore only prime achievements are measured in this benchmarking.

In Table 4, overall in Construction, Prime attainment was .47% over the benchmark for

MWBE firms as compared to the previously set benchmark. However, for MBE’s alone,

the prime attainment was 3.94% under the benchmark and WBEs were 6.82% above the

benchmark.

The categories that show the greatest percentage of attainment compared to the

benchmark in Construction were:

Exterior Cleaning 32.87% above benchmark

Masonry and Stonework and Title Setting 79.35% above benchmark

Carpentry 40.17% above benchmark

Flooring Service 56.38% above benchmark

The areas the demonstrated the greatest under attainment percentage compared

to the benchmark in Construction were:

Interior Finishing 17.12% under benchmark

Coating and Caulking and

Weather and Water and Fireproofing 15.18% under benchmark

Painting and Paper Hanging 16.09% under benchmark

Refurbishing Services 14.96% under benchmark


11

Table 4: BENCHMARK ANALYSIS – CONSTRUCTION PRIMES

PRIME

ETHNICITY/RACE AND GENDER GROUP

2013 Benchmark

2014-2016 Attainment

Benchmark Attainment

Performance

Building Construction and Support and Maintenance and Repair Services

7200, 7210

RACE/ETHNICITY

African American 4.11% 1.21% -2.90%

Asian American 0.47% 0.01% -0.46%

Hispanic American 0.47% 0.20% -0.27%

Native American 0.35% 0.07% -0.28%

Women 5.40% 12.11% 6.71%

Unidentified MWBE/DBE

0.59% 0.00% -0.59%

Total MWBE/DBE 11.38% 13.60% 2.21%

Non-MWBE 88.62% 86.40% -2.22%

TOTALS 100.00% 100.00%

Building Support Services

721015

RACE/ETHNICITY


Asian American 0.40% 0.00% -0.40%



Women 6.05% 0.99% -5.06%


1.21% 0.00% -1.21%

Total MWBE/DBE 16.13% 4.34% -11.79%

Non-MWBE 83.87% 95.66% 11.79%

TOTALS 100.00% 100.00%

Roofing and Siding and Sheet Metal Work

721016


12

RACE/ETHNICITY


Asian American 1.40% 0.00% -1.40%


Native American 0.70% 11.88% 11.18%

Women 3.50% 12.28% 8.78%


0.70% 0.00% -0.70%

Total MWBE/DBE 10.49% 24.46% 13.97%

Non-MWBE 89.51% 75.54% -13.97%

TOTALS 100.00% 100.00%

Concrete Work

721017

RACE/ETHNICITY


Asian American 0.42% 0.00% -0.42%



Women 4.17% 3.42% -0.74%


4.17% 0.00% -4.17%

Total MWBE/DBE 14.58% 4.02% -10.56%

Non-MWBE 85.42% 95.98% 10.56%

TOTALS 100.00% 100.00%

Exterior Cleaning

721018

RACE/ETHNICITY


Asian American 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%



Women 3.42% 45.69% 42.27%


1.71% 0.00% -1.71%

Total MWBE/DBE 12.82% 45.69% 32.87%

Non-MWBE 87.18% 54.31% -32.87%

TOTALS 100.00% 100.00%

Interior Finishing

721019

RACE/ETHNICITY



13




Women 7.53% 0.00% -7.53%


0.68% 0.00% -0.68%

Total MWBE/DBE 17.12% 0.00% -17.12%

Non-MWBE 82.88% 100.00% 17.12%

TOTALS 100.00% 100.00%

Coating and Caulking and Weather and Water and Fireproofing

721020

RACE/ETHNICITY





Women 7.14% 0.00% -7.14%


1.79% 0.00% -1.79%

Total MWBE/DBE 15.18% 0.00% -15.18%

Non-MWBE 84.82% 100.00% 15.18%

TOTALS 100.00% 100.00%

Electrical Services

721022

RACE/ETHNICITY


Asian American 0.84% 0.00% -0.84%



Women 5.91% 23.84% 17.94%


1.27% 0.00% -1.27%

Total MWBE/DBE 12.24% 23.84% 11.61%

Non-MWBE 87.76% 76.16% -11.61%

TOTALS 100.00% 100.00%

Plumbing and Heating and Air Conditioning

721023

RACE/ETHNICITY


14


Asian American 0.50% 0.00% -0.50%



Women 5.00% 2.60% -2.40%


0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Total MWBE/DBE 10.50% 2.60% -7.90%

Non-MWBE 89.50% 97.40% 7.90%

TOTALS 100.00% 100.00%

Painting and Paper Hanging

721024

RACE/ETHNICITY





Women 3.85% 0.00% -3.85%


5.13% 0.00% -5.13%

Total MWBE/DBE 19.87% 3.78% -16.09%

Non-MWBE 80.13% 96.22% 16.09%

TOTALS 100.00% 100.00%

Masonry and Stonework and Tile Setting

721025

RACE/ETHNICITY


Asian American 0.89% 0.00% -0.89%



Women 6.25% 96.31% 90.06%


1.79% 0.00% -1.79%

Total MWBE/DBE 16.96% 96.31% 79.35%

Non-MWBE 83.04% 3.69% -79.35%

TOTALS 100.00% 100.00%

Carpentry

721026

RACE/ETHNICITY



15




Women 3.14% 50.85% 47.70%


1.69% 0.00% -1.69%

Total MWBE/DBE 10.67% 50.85% 40.17%

Non-MWBE 89.33% 49.15% -40.17%

TOTALS 100.00% 100.00%

Flooring Service

721027

RACE/ETHNICITY





Women 5.04% 69.37% 64.33%


1.68% 0.00% -1.68%

Total MWBE/DBE 15.97% 72.34% 56.38%

Non-MWBE 84.03% 27.66% -56.38%

TOTALS 100.00% 100.00%

Refurbishing Services

721028

RACE/ETHNICITY


Asian American 0.84% 0.00% -0.84%



Women 6.72% 0.00% -6.72%


0.84% 0.00% -0.84%

Total MWBE/DBE 15.13% 0.17% -14.96%

Non-MWBE 84.87% 99.83% 14.96%

TOTALS 100.00% 100.00% 0.00%

Site Preparation Services

721030

RACE/ETHNICITY



16

Asian American 1.51% 0.00% -1.51%

Hispanic American 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%


Women 9.05% 15.09% 6.05%


5.53% 0.00% -5.53%

Total MWBE/DBE 20.10% 15.78% -4.32%

Non-MWBE 79.90% 84.22% 4.32%

TOTALS 100.00% 100.00%

General Building Construction

7213

RACE/ETHNICITY


Asian American 0.45% 0.00% -0.45%



Women 9.42% 17.48% 8.06%


7.40% 0.00% -7.40%

Total MWBE/DBE 22.20% 35.31% 13.11%

Non-MWBE 77.80% 64.69% -13.11%

TOTALS 100.00% 100.00%

Other Construction

RACE/ETHNICITY

African American - 0.13% -

Asian American - 0.00% -

Hispanic American - 0.00% -

Native American - 0.00% -

Women - 1.00% -


- 0.00% -

Total MWBE/DBE - 1.06% -

Non-MWBE - 98.94% -

TOTALS - 100.00%

Construction Total

RACE/ETHNICITY


Asian American 0.50% 0.01% -0.49%


17



Women 5.60% 12.42% 6.82%


2.40% 0.00% -2.40%

Total MWBE/DBE 14.83% 15.30% 0.47%

Non-MWBE 85.17% 84.70% -0.47%

TOTALS 100.00% 100.00%

Griffin & Strong, P.C. 2017

In Table 5, overall in Professional Services, Prime attainment was 6.16% over the

benchmark for MWBE firms. For MBE’s the attainment was 6.19% over the benchmark

(with African Americans under the benchmark and Native Americans substantially over

the benchmark) and WBEs were 3.46% over the benchmark. The category that showed

the greatest percentage of attainment compared to the benchmark in Construction was:

Development Finance, Banking and

And Investment, and Insurance and

Retirement Services 64.05% above benchmark

The areas the demonstrated the greatest under attainment percentage compared to the

benchmark in Construction were all under 10%:

Legal Services 9.84% under benchmark

Accounting and Auditing 8.69% under benchmark

Medical, Health and Wellness Services 8.37% under benchmark


18

Table 5: BENCHMARK ANALYSIS – PROFESSIONAL SERVICES PRIMES

PRIME

ETHNICITY/RACE and GENDER GROUP

2013 Benchmark


Benchmark Attainment

Performance

Legal Services 8012

RACE/ETHNICITY





Women 8.20% 0.00% -8.20%


0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Total MWBE/DBE 9.84% 0.00% -9.84%

Non-MWBE 90.16% 100.00% 9.84%

TOTALS 100.00% 100.00%

Real Estate Services 8013

RACE/ETHNICITY





Women 3.57% 12.83% 9.26%


4.29% 0.00% -4.29%

Total MWBE/DBE 10.00% 12.83% 2.83%

Non-MWBE 90.00% 87.17% -2.83%

TOTALS 100.00% 100.00% 0.00%

Professional Engineering Services 8110

RACE/ETHNICITY


Asian American 0.90% 0.25% -0.66%



Women 7.00% 9.26% 2.26%


6.09% 0.00% -6.09%

Total MWBE/DBE 17.38% 18.68% 1.30%

Non-MWBE 82.62% 81.32% -1.30%

TOTALS 100.00% 100.00%


19

Economics, Statistics, Manufacturing Technologies, and Earth Science Services

8112, 8113, 8114, 8115

RACE/ETHNICITY


Asian American 0.65% 14.69% 14.04%



Women 4.52% 2.05% -2.47%


0.65% 0.00% -0.65%

Total MWBE/DBE 9.68% 17.82% 8.14%

Non-MWBE 90.32% 82.18% -8.14%

TOTALS 100.00% 100.00%

Accounting and Auditing 8411

RACE/ETHNICITY





Women 3.49% 0.61% -2.88%


0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Total MWBE/DBE 9.30% 0.61% -8.69%

Non-MWBE 90.70% 99.39% 8.69%

TOTALS 100.00% 100.00%

Development Finance, Banking and Investment, and Insurance and Retirement Services

8410, 8412, 8413

RACE/ETHNICITY





Women 5.88% 76.20% 70.32%


3.14% 0.00% -3.14%

Total MWBE/DBE 12.16% 76.20% 64.05%

Non-MWBE 87.84% 23.80% -64.05%

TOTALS 100.00% 0.00%


20

Medical, Health, and Wellness Services

8510, 8522, 8512, 8513, 8514, 8515

RACE/ETHNICITY





Women 4.94% 0.00% -4.94%


1.52% 0.00% -1.52%

Total MWBE/DBE 8.37% 0.00% -8.37%

Non-MWBE 91.63% 100.00% 8.37%

TOTALS 100.00% 100.00%

Professional Services Total

RACE/ETHNICITY


Asian American 0.38% 0.34% -0.04%



Women 5.77% 9.23% 3.46%


3.49% 0.00% -3.49%

Total MWBE/DBE 12.53% 18.69% 6.16%

Non-MWBE 87.47% 81.31% -6.16%

TOTALS 100.00% 100.00%


In Table 6, overall in Non-Professional Services, Prime attainment was 8.22% under the

benchmark for all MWBE firms. MBE firms were 3.59% under the benchmark and WBE

firms were 2.72% under the benchmark. The categories that showed the greatest

percentage of attainment compared to the benchmark in Non-Professional Services was:

Grounds Maintenance Services 37.97% above benchmark

Cleaning and Janitorial Services 37.47% above benchmark

Computer Services 17.22% above benchmark

Entertainment and Hospitality Services 27.75% above benchmark

The areas the demonstrated the greatest under attainment percentage compared to the

benchmark in Non-Professional Services were all under 10%:

Management Advisory Services 16.54% under benchmark

Marketing and Distribution 16.36% under benchmark

Trade Policy and Services 37.50% under benchmark

Information Services 21.43% under benchmark


21

Table 6: BENCHMARK ANALYSIS –NON-PROFESSIONAL SERVICES PRIMES

PRIME


2013 Benchmark


Benchmark-Attainment

Performance

Pest Control 721021

RACE/ETHNICITY Percent

African American 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%




Women 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Unidentified MWBE/DBE 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Total MWBE/DBE 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Non-MWBE 100.00% 100.00% -

TOTALS 100.00% 100.00%

Grounds Maintenance Services 721029

RACE/ETHNICITY





Women 3.31% 21.68% 18.38%

Unidentified MWBE/DBE 3.31% 0.00% -3.31%

Total MWBE/DBE 16.53% 54.50% 37.97%

Non-MWBE 83.47% 45.50% -37.97%

TOTALS 100.00% 100.00% 0.00%

Waste Services (Decontamination Services, Refuse Disposal and Treatment, Toxic and Hazardous Waste Cleanup)

7610, 7612, 7613

RACE/ETHNICITY


Asian American 0.59% 0.01% -0.58%



Women 2.94% 0.17% -2.77%


Total MWBE/DBE 5.88% 0.18% -5.70%

Non-MWBE 94.12% 99.82% 5.70%

TOTALS 100.00% 100.00%


22

Cleaning and Janitorial Services

7611

RACE/ETHNICITY


Asian American 0.29% 0.00% -0.29%



Women 2.30% 46.81% 44.51%


Total MWBE/DBE 17.24% 54.71% 37.47%

Non-MWBE 82.76% 50.88% -31.88%

TOTALS 100.00% 100.00%

Environmental Management

7710

RACE/ETHNICITY


Asian American 1.32% 0.00% -1.32%



Women 5.96% 0.00% -5.96%


Total MWBE/DBE 11.92% 0.00% -11.92%

Non-MWBE 88.08% 0.00% -88.08%

TOTALS 100.00% 0.00%

Environmental Protection

7711

RACE/ETHNICITY


Asian American 0.69% 0.00% -0.69%



Women 5.56% 0.00% -5.56%


Total MWBE/DBE 8.33% 0.00% -8.33%

Non-MWBE 91.67% 100.00% 8.33%

TOTALS 100.00% 100.00%


23

Pollution Tracking and Monitoring and Rehabilitation

7712, 7713

RACE/ETHNICITY


Asian American 2.94% 0.00% -2.94%



Women 5.88% 0.00% -5.88%


Total MWBE/DBE 11.76% 0.65% -11.11%

Non-MWBE 88.24% 99.35% 11.11%

TOTALS 100.00% 100.00% 0.00%

Transportation, Storage, Shipping & Packing, Mail and Cargo

7810, 7811, 7812, 7813,

7814, 7818

RACE/ETHNICITY


Asian American 0.31% 0.00% -0.31%



Women 2.77% 2.60% -0.17%


Total MWBE/DBE 8.31% 3.68% -4.62%

Non-MWBE 91.69% 96.32% 4.62%

TOTALS 100.00% 100.00%

Management Advisory Services

8010

RACE/ETHNICITY





Women 5.76% 0.01% -5.74%


Total MWBE/DBE 16.55% 0.01% -16.54%

Non-MWBE 83.45% 99.99% 16.54%

TOTALS 100.00% 100.00%


24

Human Resources Services

8011

RACE/ETHNICITY


Asian American 0.70% 0.02% -0.68%



Women 8.39% 29.56% 21.16%


Total MWBE/DBE 20.28% 29.58% 9.30%

Non-MWBE 79.72% 70.42% -9.30%

TOTALS 100.00% 100.00%

Marketing and Distribution

8014

RACE/ETHNICITY





Women 10.27% 0.00% -10.27%


Total MWBE/DBE 17.41% 1.05% -16.36%

Non-MWBE 82.59% 98.95% 16.36%

TOTALS 100.00% 100.00%

Trade Policy and Services

8015

RACE/ETHNICITY





Women 37.50% 0.00% -37.50%


Total MWBE/DBE 37.50% 0.00% -37.50%

Non-MWBE 62.50% 100.00% 37.50%

TOTALS 100.00% 100.00%


25

Business Administration Services

8016

RACE/ETHNICITY





Women 7.19% 11.42% 4.23%


Total MWBE/DBE 15.03% 11.42% -3.61%

Non-MWBE 84.97% 88.58% 3.61%

TOTALS 100.00% 100.00%

Computer Services

8111

RACE/ETHNICITY


Asian American 0.41% 0.00% -0.41%



Women 3.31% 15.81% 12.51%


Total MWBE/DBE 9.50% 26.72% 17.22%

Non-MWBE 90.50% 73.28% -17.22%

TOTALS 100.00% 100.00%

Advertising

8210

RACE/ETHNICITY





Women 5.80% 1.82% -3.98%


Total MWBE/DBE 9.22% 3.57% -5.65%

Non-MWBE 90.78% 96.43% 5.65%

TOTALS 100.00% 100.00%


26

Writing and Translations, Reproduction Services, Photographic Services, and Graphic Design

8211, 8212,

8213, 8214

RACE/ETHNICITY





Women 5.79% 1.46% -4.33%


Total MWBE/DBE 10.00% 3.66% -6.34%

Non-MWBE 90.00% 96.34% 6.34%

TOTALS 100.00% 100.00%

Telecommunications Media Services

8311

RACE/ETHNICITY





Women 5.77% 0.00% -5.77%


Total MWBE/DBE 10.90% 0.00% -10.90%

Non-MWBE 89.10% 100.00% 10.90%

TOTALS 100.00% 100.00%

Information Services

8312

RACE/ETHNICITY


Asian American 1.10% 0.00% -1.10%



Women 9.89% 0.00% -9.89%


Total MWBE/DBE 21.43% 0.00% -21.43%

Non-MWBE 78.57% 0.00% -78.57%

TOTALS 100.00% 0.00%


27

Educational Services and Vocational Training Services

8610, 8611,

8613, 8614

RACE/ETHNICITY





Women 3.07% 7.54% 4.47%


Total MWBE/DBE 5.74% 7.72% 1.98%

Non-MWBE 94.26% 92.28% -1.98%

TOTALS 100.00% 100.00%

Entertainment and Hospitality Services

8215, 9010, 9011, 9012,

9013, 9014

RACE/ETHNICITY


Asian American 0.00% 21.71% 21.71%



Women 1.83% 4.10% 2.26%


Total MWBE/DBE 3.06% 30.81% 27.75%

Non-MWBE 96.94% 69.19% -27.75%

TOTALS 100.00% 100.00%

Security 9111, 9212

RACE/ETHNICITY





Women 4.59% 0.15% -4.44%


Total MWBE/DBE 8.16% 0.15% -8.01%

Non-MWBE 91.84% 99.85% 8.01%

TOTALS 100.00% 100.00%

Non-Professional Services Total


28

RACE/ETHNICITY


Asian American 0.32% 0.03% -0.29%



Women 4.92% 2.20% -2.72%


Total MWBE/DBE 10.87% 2.65% -8.22%

Non-MWBE 89.13% 97.35% 8.22%

TOTALS 100.00% 100.00%


IV. Current Availability – Establishing a New Benchmark

The next step is to establish a new benchmark that we be used to measure the progress of

MWBE utilization in the next benchmarking.

Table 7 below demonstrates the availability of firms in certain selected areas of

Construction. Firms that were in construction, but that did not fall in the specific areas

were included in the category, “Other Construction” and included in the Construction

Total. If a firm was indicated as an MWBE but GSPC could not discern the ethnicity

and/or gender, the firm was listed in a category, “Unidentified MWBE” and included in

the MWBE total.

Overall, MWBEs made up 25.08% of all construction firms. Concrete work was the

highest availability at 32.14% MWBE availability while Internal Finishing was the lowest

MWBE availability at 7.14%. By ethnicity, the highest areas of availability were:

African America Painting & Paper Hanging-18.42%

Asian American Roofing& Siding & Sheet Metal-2.04%

Hispanic American Refurbishing-8.00%

Native American Roofing & Siding & Sheet Metal-4.08%

Women Exterior Cleaning-20.00%


29

Table 7: AVAILABILITY - CONSTRUCTION


7200, 7210

RACE/ETHNICITY # %

African American 13 5.49%

Asian American 1 0.42%

Hispanic American 4 1.69%

Native American 4 1.69%

Women 23 9.70%

Unidentified MWBE/DBE 0 0.00%

Total MWBE/DBE 45 18.99%

Non-MWBE 192 81.01%

TOTALS 237 100.00%

Building Support Services 721015

RACE/ETHNICITY # %





Women 4 8.16%



Non-MWBE 37 75.51%

TOTALS 49 100.00%

Roofing and Siding and Sheet Metal Work 721016

RACE/ETHNICITY # %





Women 5 10.20%



Non-MWBE 36 73.47%

TOTALS 49 100.00%


30

Concrete Work 721017

RACE/ETHNICITY # %





Women 11 19.64%



Non-MWBE 38 67.86%

TOTALS 56 100.00%

Exterior Cleaning 721018

RACE/ETHNICITY # %





Women 1 20.00%



Non-MWBE 4 80.00%

TOTALS 5 100.00%

Interior Finishing 721019

RACE/ETHNICITY # %





Women 1 3.57%



Non-MWBE 26 92.86%

TOTALS 28 100.00%


31


721020

RACE/ETHNICITY # %





Women 0 0.00%



Non-MWBE 10 90.91%

TOTALS 11 100.00%

Electrical Services 721022

RACE/ETHNICITY # %





Women 12 11.43%



Non-MWBE 84 80.00%

TOTALS 105 100.00%

Plumbing and Heating and Air Conditioning 721023

RACE/ETHNICITY # %





Women 7 6.54%



Non-MWBE 91 85.05%

TOTALS 107 100.00%


32

Painting and Paper Hanging 721024

RACE/ETHNICITY # %





Women 4 10.53%



Non-MWBE 27 71.05%

TOTALS 38 100.00%

Masonry and Stonework and Tile Setting 721025

RACE/ETHNICITY # %





Women 2 11.76%



Non-MWBE 13 76.47%

TOTALS 17 100.00%

Carpentry 721026

RACE/ETHNICITY # %





Women 1 12.50%



Non-MWBE 8 88.89%

TOTALS 9 100.00%


33

Flooring Service 721027

RACE/ETHNICITY # %





Women 6 17.14%



Non-MWBE 27 77.14%

TOTALS 35 100.00%

Refurbishing Services 721028

RACE/ETHNICITY # %





Women 2 8.00%



Non-MWBE 19 76.00%

TOTALS 25 100.00%

Site Preparation Services 721030

RACE/ETHNICITY # %





Women 12 14.12%



Non-MWBE 61 71.76%

TOTALS 85 100.00%


34

General Building Construction 7213

RACE/ETHNICITY # %





Women 15 12.20%


2 1.63%


Non-MWBE 96 78.05%

TOTALS 123 100.00%

Other Construction

RACE/ETHNICITY # %





Women 177 13.74%


14 1.09%


Non-MWBE 911 70.73%

TOTALS 1288 100.00%

Construction Total

RACE/ETHNICITY # %





Women 207 11.64%


17 0.96%


Non-MWBE 1332 74.92%

TOTALS 1778 100.00%


35

Table 8 below demonstrates the availability of firms in certain selected areas of

Professional Services. Overall, MWBEs made up 33.48% of all Professional Services

firms. Auditing and Accounting was the highest availability at 85.71% MWBE

availability while Economics, Statistics, Mfging Technologies, and Earth Science Services

were the lowest at 27.03%. By ethnic ownership, the highest areas of availability were:

African America Accounting & Auditing-42.86%

Asian American Economics, Statistics, Mfging Technologies, and Earth

Science Services- 5.41%

Hispanic American Medical, Health & Wellness-0.97%

Native American Medical, Health & Wellness-0.97%

Women Accounting & Auditing-42.86%

Table 8: AVAILABILITY – PROFESSIONAL SERVICES

Legal Services 8012

RACE/ETHNICITY # %





Women 3 12.50%



Non-MWBE 16 66.67%

TOTALS 24 100.00%


RACE/ETHNICITY # %





Women 27 10.80%



Non-MWBE 169 67.60%

TOTALS 250 100.00%


36

Professional Engineering Services

8110

RACE/ETHNICITY # %





Women 99 17.90%



Non-MWBE 391 70.71%

TOTALS 553 100.00%


8112, 8113, 8114, 8115

RACE/ETHNICITY # %





Women 6 16.22%



Non-MWBE 27 72.97%

TOTALS 37 100.00%

Accounting and Auditing

8411

RACE/ETHNICITY # %





Women 3 42.86%



Non-MWBE 1 14.29%

TOTALS 7 100.00%


37


8410, 8412, 8413

RACE/ETHNICITY # %





Women 2 20.00%



Non-MWBE 4 40.00%

TOTALS 10 100.00%


8510, 8522, 8512, 8513, 8514, 8515

RACE/ETHNICITY # %





Women 74 24.03%



Non-MWBE 174 56.49%

TOTALS 308 100.00%


RACE/ETHNICITY # %





Women 203 17.61%



Non-MWBE 767 66.52%

TOTALS 1153 100.00%


38

Table 9 below demonstrates the availability of firms in certain selected areas of Non-

Professional Services. Overall, MWBEs made up 38.64% of all Non-Professional Services

firms. Auditing and Accounting was the highest availability at 85.71% MWBE

availability while Economics, Statistics, Mfging Technologies, and Earth Science Services

were the lowest at 27.03%. By ethnic ownership, the highest areas of availability were:

African America Accounting & Auditing-42.86%

Asian American Economics, Statistics, Mfging Technologies, and Earth

Science Services- 5.41%

Hispanic American Medical, Health & Wellness-0.97%

Native American Medical, Health & Wellness-0.97%

Women Accounting & Auditing-42.86%

Table 9: AVAILABILITY – NON-PROFESSIONAL SERVICES

Pest Control 721021

RACE/ETHNICITY # %





Women 1 16.67%



Non-MWBE 5 83.33%

TOTALS 6 100.00%

Grounds Maintenance Services

721029

RACE/ETHNICITY # %





Women 13 14.44%



Non-MWBE 59 65.56%

TOTALS 90 100.00%


39


7610, 7612, 7613

RACE/ETHNICITY # %





Women 5 11.11%



Non-MWBE 36 80.00%

TOTALS 45 100.00%


7611

RACE/ETHNICITY # %





Women 10 13.16%



Non-MWBE 30 39.47%

TOTALS 76 100.00%


7710

RACE/ETHNICITY # %





Women 7 25.00%



Non-MWBE 12 42.86%

TOTALS 28 100.00%


40


7711

RACE/ETHNICITY # %





Women 0 0.00%



Non-MWBE 14 100.00%

TOTALS 14 100.00%


7712 & 7713

RACE/ETHNICITY # %





Women 0 0.00%



Non-MWBE 3 75.00%

TOTALS 4 100.00%


7810, 7811, 7812, 7813, 7814, 7818

RACE/ETHNICITY # %





Women 24 10.57%



Non-MWBE 170 74.89%

TOTALS 227 100.00%


41


8010

RACE/ETHNICITY # %





Women 21 26.58%



Non-MWBE 30 37.97%

TOTALS 79 100.00%


8011

RACE/ETHNICITY # %





Women 7 13.46%



Non-MWBE 32 61.54%

TOTALS 52 100.00%


8014

RACE/ETHNICITY # %





Women 107 29.16%



Non-MWBE 187 50.95%

TOTALS 367 100.00%


42


8015

RACE/ETHNICITY # %





Women 0 0.00%



Non-MWBE 3 100.00%

TOTALS 3 100.00%


8016

RACE/ETHNICITY # %





Women 2 12.50%



Non-MWBE 5 31.25%

TOTALS 16 100.00%

Computer Services

8111

RACE/ETHNICITY # %





Women 2 4.08%



Non-MWBE 36 73.47%

TOTALS 49 100.00%


43

Advertising

8210

RACE/ETHNICITY # %





Women 20 22.99%



Non-MWBE 54 62.07%

TOTALS 87 100.00%


8211, 8212, 8213, 8214

RACE/ETHNICITY # %





Women 10 8.13%



Non-MWBE 105 85.37%

TOTALS 123 100.00%


8311

RACE/ETHNICITY # %





Women 6 24.00%



Non-MWBE 11 44.00%

TOTALS 25 100.00%


44

Information Services

8312

RACE/ETHNICITY # %





Women 34 10.83%



Non-MWBE 218 69.43%

TOTALS 314 100.00%


8610, 8611, 8613, 8614

RACE/ETHNICITY # %





Women 141 25.13%



Non-MWBE 258 45.99%

TOTALS 561 100.00%


8215, 9010, 9011, 9012, 9013, 9014

RACE/ETHNICITY # %





Women 11 7.91%



Non-MWBE 107 76.98%

TOTALS 139 100.00%


45

Security 9111, 9212

RACE/ETHNICITY # %





Women 9 19.57%



Non-MWBE 29 63.04%

TOTALS 46 100.00%


RACE/ETHNICITY # %





Women 384 17.70%



Non-MWBE 1331 61.36%

TOTALS 2169 100.00%



46

V. Availability/Utilization Indices

Finally, GSPC compared current availability against utilization from FY2014-2016 to

indicate whether there is a recent disparity. Below are the availabilities of ready, willing, and able firms, compared to utilization of those same groups. The disparity index indicates whether there is a disparity between availability and utilization. Further, the final column indicates whether a group was overutilized (above 100) or underutilized (under 100), or at parity (=100). Those indications of underutilization or overutilization that are in red, indicate that they are statistically significant overutilization (over 110) or underutilization (under 80). It should be noted that this is a simple disparity in that GSPC did not undertake a regression analysis to determine whether or not the disparity was due to race and gender status. In Table 10 for Construction primes, Women owned businesses achieved parity and Native American owned firms were overutilized. All other MBE groups were underutilized. In the individual categories the following owned groups were overutilized: Native American General Building Construction Women Building Construction and Support and Maintenance and Repair Services Exterior Cleaning Electrical Services Masonry and Stonework and Tile Setting Carpentry

Floor Service General Building Construction

Total MWBE/DBEs Exterior Cleaning Electrical Services Masonry and Stonework and Tile Setting

Carpentry Floor Services General Building Construction


47

Table 10: DISPARITY ANALYSIS – CONSTRUCTION PRIMES

PRIME

ETHNICITY/RACE AND GENDER

GROUP

2017 BENCHMARK AVAILABILITY

(AC)

7/1/2013 THRU

6/30/2016 UTILIZATION

(U)

Disparity Index

(U/AC)

Disparate Impact of

Utilization of (U/AC)


7200, 7210

Race/Ethnicity Availability

Percent Utilization

Percent Disparity

Index Disparate

Impact

African American 5.49% 1.21% 0.22 Underutilized

Asian American 0.42% 0.01% 0.02 Underutilized

Hispanic American 1.69% 0.20% 0.12 Underutilized

Native American 1.69% 0.07% 0.04 Underutilized

Women 9.70% 12.11% 1.25 Overutilized


0.00% 0.00% 0.00 -

Total MWBE/DBE 18.99% 13.60% 0.72 Underutilized

Non-MWBE 81.01% 86.40% 1.07 Overutilized

TOTALS 100.00% 100.00%

Building Support Services

721015


Percent Utilization

Percent Disparity

Index Disparate

Impact


Asian American 0.00% 0.00% 0.00 -

Hispanic American 0.00% 0.00% 0.00 -


Women 8.16% 0.99% 0.12 Underutilized


2.04% 0.00% 0.00 Underutilized



TOTALS 100.00% 100.00%


48

Roofing and Siding and Sheet Metal Work

721016


Percent Utilization

Percent Disparity

Index Disparate

Impact




Native American 4.08% 11.88% 2.91 Overutilized



0.00% 0.00% 0.00 -



TOTALS 100.00% 100.00%

Concrete Work

721017


Percent Utilization

Percent Disparity

Index Disparate

Impact







0.00% 0.00% 0.00 -



TOTALS 100.00% 100.00%

Exterior Cleaning 721018


Percent Utilization

Percent Disparity

Index Disparate

Impact

African American 0.00% 0.00% 0.00 -

Asian American 0.00% 0.00% 0.00 -


Native American 0.00% 0.00% 0.00 -



0.00% 0.00% 0.00 -

Total MWBE/DBE 20.00% 45.69% 2.28 Overutilized

Non-MWBE 80.00% 54.31% 0.68 Underutilized

TOTALS 100.00% 100.00%


49

Interior Finishing 721019


Percent Utilization

Percent Disparity

Index Disparate

Impact


Asian American 0.00% 0.00% 0.00 -





0.00% 0.00% 0.00 -



TOTALS 100.00% 100.00%


721020


Percent Utilization

Percent Disparity

Index Disparate

Impact


Asian American 0.00% 0.00% 0.00 -



Women 0.00% 0.00% 0.00 -





TOTALS 100.00% 100.00%

Electrical Services 721022


Percent Utilization

Percent Disparity

Index Disparate

Impact







0.00% 0.00% 0.00 -



TOTALS 100.00% 100.00%


50

Plumbing and Heating and Air Conditioning

721023


Percent Utilization

Percent Disparity

Index Disparate

Impact










TOTALS 100.00% 100.00%

Painting and Paper Hanging 721024


Percent Utilization

Percent Disparity

Index Disparate

Impact


Asian American 0.00% 0.00% 0.00 -





0.00% 0.00% 0.00 -



TOTALS 100.00% 100.00%

Masonry and Stonework and Tile Setting

721025


Percent Utilization

Percent Disparity

Index Disparate

Impact


Asian American 0.00% 0.00% 0.00 -





0.00% 0.00% 0.00 -



TOTALS 100.00% 100.00%


51

Carpentry

721026


Percent Utilization

Percent Disparity

Index Disparate

Impact


Asian American 0.00% 0.00% 0.00 -





0.00% 0.00% 0.00 -



TOTALS 100.00% 100.00%

Flooring Service

721027


Percent Utilization

Percent Disparity

Index Disparate

Impact


Asian American 0.00% 0.00% 0.00 -





0.00% 0.00% 0.00 -



TOTALS 100.00% 100.00%

Refurbishing Services 721028


Percent Utilization

Percent Disparity

Index Disparate

Impact


Asian American 0.00% 0.00% 0.00 -





0.00% 0.00% 0.00 -



TOTALS 100.00% 100.00%


52

Site Preparation Services

721030


Percent Utilization

Percent Disparity

Index Disparate

Impact










TOTALS 100.00% 100.00%

General Building Construction 7213


Percent Utilization

Percent Disparity

Index Disparate

Impact










TOTALS 100.00% 100.00%

Other Construction


Percent Utilization

Percent Disparity

Index Disparate

Impact










TOTALS 100.00% 100.00%


53

Construction Total


Percent Utilization

Percent Disparity

Index Disparate

Impact





Women 11.64% 11.62% 1.00 Parity





TOTALS 100.00% 100.00%


In Table 11 for Professional Services below, overall, Native American owned firms were overutilized and all other MWBE groups were underutilized. In the individual categories the following owned groups were overutilized: Asian American

Economics Statistics, Manufacturing, Technologies, and Earth Science Services Native American

Professional Engineering Services Women

Real Estate Services Development Finance, Banking and Investment, and Insurance and Retirement

Services

Total MWBE/DBEs Development Finance, Banking and Investment, and Insurance and Retirement

Services


54

Table 11: DISPARITY ANALYSIS – PROFESSIONAL SERVICES PRIMES

PRIME



(AC)

7/1/2013 THRU 6/30/2016

UTILIZATION (U)

Disparity Index

(U/AC)

Disparate Impact of Utilization of

(U/AC)

Legal Services 8012

Race/Ethnicity

Availability Percent

Utilization Percent

Disparity Index

Disparate Impact


Asian American 0.00% 0.00% 0.00 -




Unidentified MWBE/DBE 4.17% 0.00% 0.00 Underutilized



TOTALS 100.00% 100.00%


Race/Ethnicity


Utilization Percent

Disparity Index

Disparate Impact









TOTALS 100.00% 100.00%

Professional Engineering Services

8110

Race/Ethnicity


Utilization Percent

Disparity Index

Disparate Impact









TOTALS 100.00% 100.00%


55


8112, 8113, 8114, 8115

Race/Ethnicity


Utilization Percent

Disparity Index

Disparate Impact


Asian American 5.41% 14.69% 2.72 Overutilized







TOTALS 100.00% 100.00%

Accounting and Auditing

8411

Race/Ethnicity


Utilization Percent

Disparity Index

Disparate Impact


Asian American 0.00% 0.00% 0.00 -




Unidentified MWBE/DBE 0.00% 0.00% 0.00 -



TOTALS 100.00% 100.00%


8410, 8412, 8413

Race/Ethnicity


Utilization Percent

Disparity Index

Disparate Impact


Asian American 0.00% 0.00% 0.00 -







TOTALS 100.00% 0.00%


56


8510, 8522, 8512, 8513, 8514, 8515

Race/Ethnicity


Utilization Percent

Disparity Index

Disparate Impact









TOTALS 100.00% 100.00%


Race/Ethnicity


Utilization Percent

Disparity Index

Disparate Impact









TOTALS 100.00% 100.00%



57

In Table 12 for Non-Professional Services below, overall, all other MWBE groups were underutilized. In the individual categories the following owned groups were overutilized: African American Grounds Maintenance Services Asian American Entertainment and Hospitality Services Native American Transportation, Storage, Shipping & Packing, Mail and Cargo Women

Grounds Maintenance Services Cleaning and Janitorial Services Human Resources Services Computer Services

Total MWBE/DBEs Grounds Maintenance Services



58

Table 12: DISPARITY ANALYSIS – NON-PROFESSIONAL SERVICES PRIMES

PRIME



(AC)

7/1/2013 THRU 6/30/2016

UTILIZATION (U)

Disparity Index

(U/AC)

Disparate Impact of

Utilization of (U/AC)

Pest Control

721021


Percent Utilization Percent

Disparity Index

Disparate Impact


Asian American 0.00% 0.00% 0.00 -







TOTALS 100.00% 100.00%

Grounds Maintenance Services

721029



Disparity Index

Disparate Impact

African American 14.44% 32.81% 2.27 Overutilized








TOTALS 100.00% 100.00%


59


7610, 7612, 7613



Disparity Index

Disparate Impact









TOTALS 100.00% 100.00%


7611



Disparity Index

Disparate Impact









TOTALS 100.00% 100.00%


7710



Disparity Index

Disparate Impact







Total MWBE/DBE 57.14% 0.00% 0.00 -


TOTALS 100.00% 0.00%


60


7711



Disparity Index

Disparate Impact


Asian American 0.00% 0.00% 0.00 -



Women 0.00% 0.00% 0.00 -


Total MWBE/DBE 0.00% 0.00% 0.00 -

Non-MWBE 100.00% 100.00% 1.00 Parity

TOTALS 100.00% 100.00%


7712 & 7713



Disparity Index

Disparate Impact


Asian American 0.00% 0.00% 0.00 -



Women 0.00% 0.00% 0.00 -




TOTALS 100.00% 100.00%


7810, 7811, 7812, 7813,

7814, 7818



Disparity Index

Disparate Impact









TOTALS 100.00% 100.00%


61


8010



Disparity Index

Disparate Impact









TOTALS 100.00% 100.00%


8011



Disparity Index

Disparate Impact









TOTALS 100.00% 100.00%


8014



Disparity Index

Disparate Impact









TOTALS 100.00% 100.00%


62


8015



Disparity Index

Disparate Impact


Asian American 0.00% 0.00% 0.00 -



Women 0.00% 0.00% 0.00 -


Total MWBE/DBE 0.00% 0.00% 0.00 -

Non-MWBE 100.00% 100.00% 1.00 Parity

TOTALS 100.00% 100.00%


8016



Disparity Index

Disparate Impact


Asian American 0.00% 0.00% 0.00 -







TOTALS 100.00% 100.00%

Computer Services 8111



Disparity Index

Disparate Impact


Asian American 0.00% 0.00% 0.00 -







TOTALS 100.00% 100.00%


63

Advertising 8210



Disparity Index

Disparate Impact









TOTALS 100.00% 100.00%


8211, 8212, 8213, 8214



Disparity Index

Disparate Impact









TOTALS 100.00% 100.00%


8311



Disparity Index

Disparate Impact









TOTALS 100.00% 100.00%


64

Information Services 8312



Disparity Index

Disparate Impact









TOTALS 100.00% 0.00%


8610, 8611, 8613, 8614



Disparity Index

Disparate Impact









TOTALS 100.00% 100.00%


8215, 9010, 9011, 9012, 9013, 9014



Disparity Index

Disparate Impact


Asian American 0.72% 21.71% 30.18 Overutilized







TOTALS 100.00% 100.00%


65

Security 9111, 9212



Disparity Index

Disparate Impact


Asian American 0.00% 0.00% 0.00 -







TOTALS 100.00% 100.00%

Non-Professional Services Total



Disparity Index

Disparate Impact









TOTALS 100.00% 100.00%

VI. Data Maintenance Recommendations


66

GSPC’s experience working with numerous Metro Nashville data files gives us a unique

perspective to assist Metro Nashville with improving the way that it maintains its data.

If the data is improved in accordance with GSPC recommendations, it will provide a

smoother process for the next Benchmarking. The issues GSPC encountered were as

follows:

1. GSPC sought to obtain utilization data from award files and P.O. files. Since

P.O.’s are issued for contracts (but not one P.O. per contract), it was difficult to

determine where those two files overlapped in some cases. It was helpful that, in

most cases, but not all, the P.O. number was included in the contract file. This is

an improvement over the last benchmark, but there were still a number of P.O.’s

where the contract number was missing when there was a contract number to tie

to.

2. GSPC was not able to provide an analysis of subcontractor data for the

Benchmark because subcontractor awards are not consistently tracked and those

that are tracked are only for certified SBEs and MWBEs and not for non-

SBE/MWBEs. Without the non-SBE/MWBE information, we cannot know what

percentage of the whole is represented by MWBE dollars. All subcontractors

requested to give quotes on a bid should be tracked (MWBEs and Non-MWBEs).

Subcontractor data should include an indication of the type of work to be

performed, address, and race/ethnicity/gender. The awards or expenditures

made to subcontractors by prime contractors should be reported by the prime

contractor as a condition of final payment and maintained in an electronic data

file. For this analysis, the subcontractors were not all in one data files and some

were pdfs and had to be manually entered. In most cases there were not useable

descriptions of the work done by the subcontactors. Finally, it is uncertain

whether even the subcontractor data the GSPC had was reliable in that it

appeared as if some firms only entered some subcontractors, but not all and there

were primes whose subcontractors should have been in the databases, but were

not.

3. Under the current system, firms are permitted to register under as many

UNSPSC categories as they like. This means that some first register under

categories in which they do not work, in order to get the notifications, e.g.,

staffing companies who want to see what work is available. It would be helpful

for any analysis for vendors to designate a primary work category.

4. It is important in measuring utilization that we know the correct UNSPSC code

for a vendor. A substantial number of UNSPSC codes for utilization were

incorrect in the P.O. files.

5. Contracts and P.O.’s could not be matched to the solicitations data file so we

could not double check that all solicitations issued during a period were

accounted for.

6. We were not able to determine, from the data, whether a contract had been

modified, or if a P.O. had been cancelled


67

VII. Conclusion

The Benchmark shows that Metro Nashville’s prime attainment from FY2014-FY2016

has come very close overall to meeting the previously set benchmarks for MWBEs as a

group. However, when the attainment is separated by MBE and WBE, there is more

over-attainment by WBEs and under attainment by MBEs. This is consistent with the

disparity indices that compare current availability to utilization from FY2014-2016.

GSPC was not able to provide an analysis of subcontractors for this report because the

data was inconsistently maintained. It is important that Metro Nashville identify tools to

help identify and track subcontractor participation before the next Benchmark.

However, the threshold analysis clearly establishes that MWBEs, and small businesses in

general, have the capacity to perform as prime contractors and not just subcontractors.

Since minority and woman-owned firms, as well as small businesses in general, are often

equated with performing only as subcontractors, it is important to change that thinking

and assist these firms to bid and quote as prime contractors.

Griffin & Strong, P.C.

Documents

Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County ... · 2017 BENCHMARK REPORT Final Report 2017 235 Peachtree Street, N.E. Suite 400 Atlanta, Georgia 30303 Phone (404)-584-9777