HomeMy Public PortalAboutDisparity Study Questions & Final Responses 6.24.22
Page 1
MSD Disparity Study Update
Public Questions and Comments
Submitted by: Jennifer Bouquet, J & J Boring
Date: April 30, 2022: 23:35:14
Section: Comments on Workforce Report:
1. It seems reasonable that there should be separate workforce goals for Building Construction
and Non-Building Construction. Building Construction includes many trades, dry wall
installers, carpet installers, insulation installers, plasterers, roofers, elevator mechanics,
security installers, HVAC installers, electricians and many more that do not perform the
work of Non-Building Construction companies therefore should not be used to determine a
workforce goal for Non-Building Construction.
Response: Take into account that all components of the methodology used to conduct the
Workforce Study are factored into the results. While building construction may include many
trades that are not on non-building construction projects, there is an overlap of some trades
that are utilized on both building and non-building projects which would not allow for any
trades to be exclusive to one or the other. Given the full analysis, its inclusive of the legal
framework for setting goals, utilization analysis, availability analysis, disparity analysis, and
anecdotal analysis. Although the census data identifies a variety of trades that are within the
construction industry, the analysis was not exclusive to the particular trades and therefore not
specific enough to separate the data into building vs non-building.
2. There are many codes in Table 19 that are in multiple categories such as in Laborer Helper
category and in the Tradesman category, is this availability being counted more that once?
Response: The Census codes that were identified in table 19 are updated with consideration
given to regroupings. Table 19 lists the Census track codes for the occupations by EEO job titles
as tracked in MSD’s workforce utilization report. The Census track codes made it possible to
align the job categories with available workers within MSD’s service area (Page 36).
MSD lists 21 Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) job titles for reporting construction
workforce. These 21 SOC job titles used on Construction Workforce Utilization were bridged to
the census codes to produce one coding system for the analysis (Pages 7-9).
MSD uses EEO job titles to track workforce utilization, as such, the job titles used by MSD were
placed into an appropriate EEO job category within the table for purposes of performing the
workforce availability analysis. Table 19 has been updated to remove any duplications of
Census Codes that were listed in multiple Job Categories in Table 19 (Page 37).
Page 2
3. The category of Tradesman includes professions such as: aircraft mechanics, auto body
repair, bus mechanics, power line installers, print binding etc. these are not jobs performed
for any MSD project. Could the availability in this category be overstated?
Response: The Census codes that were identified in table 19 are updated with consideration
given to regroupings. Job categories are aligned by available workers within MSD’s market area
which is determined to be the City of St. Louis and St. Louis County. Of the 21 Standard
Occupational Classification (SOC) job titles MSD uses for reporting construction workforce, they
were bridged to the census codes to produce one coding system for the update analysis.
4. The category of Operators includes professions such as passenger attendants, packers and
package handling, molder machine setters, brazing workers, recycling collectors, painting
workers, adhesive bonding machine workers, all motor vehicle drivers, packing machine
operators, crushing and grinding workers, compacting machine workers, etc. These are also
job not performed for MSD projects. Could this category be overstated?
Response: Same response provided in question 3 above.
5. The mis-identification in the Laborers/Helpers, Operators and Tradesman categories could
lead to inaccurate workforce goals.
Response: MSD needs additional clarification regarding the term “mis-identification” and the
context of the statement made with regards to “inaccurate workforce goals.”
6. Page 38 states "since any person meeting the minimum requirements can join an
apprentice program, the availability for apprentices was defined as residents within the
service area between the ages of 20 and 44." Is this reasonable? What are the minimum
requirements, and have all residents between the ages of 20 and 44 met these
requirements?
Response: In the broad scope of identification of an Apprentice, we know that they are
considered to be an unskilled worker with minimum requirements for age and high school
education (dependent on the apprenticeship program for a specific trade) with availability of
data limited to what’s provided from the general population Census. Considering that the data
from ACS is only available in age brackets, it seemed reasonable that use of the age range
identified by the ACS was reasonable for purposes of conducting the analysis.
In the Overview of Availability Analysis (VI.A.) the report indicates states, “The 2019 United
States Census American Community Survey (ACS) data were used to drive the availability of
workers listed in the MSD’s Workforce Utilization Form. The Census releases the ACS data
every five years. ACS, which is a mandatory nationally representative survey that ascertains
demographic information, including current occupation EEO Tabulation, reports workforce data
by SOC job titles. The workforce data were downloaded from the table titled “EEO 2r Detailed
Census Occupation by Sex and Race/Ethnicity for Residence Geography, Citizen Universe:
Page 3
Civilian labor force 16 years and over who are US Citizens EEO Tabulation 204 -2018 (5-year ACS
data).” MSD’s market area for the workforce study was determined to be the City and County
of St. Louis.” Not that MSD does not require a certain percentage of apprentices on a project ,
just a diversity goal if apprentices are used.
7. Page 58 states "under a fair and equitable system of hiring, the proportion of utilized
minorities and females in the workforce should be relatively close to the corresponding
proportion of those workers available in the relevant market area." Does this mean that for
every profession, the proportion of workers corresponds to the availability in the market
area? For example, auto body repair technicians, aircraft mechanics, dental hygienist,
bakers, butchers, bank tellers these should all reflect the proportion of workers available in
the relevant market area? This assumption does not seem reasonable.
Response: All things equal, the proportion of workforce utilized should be relatively close to
the proportion of workers that are available in the market area. There is a ratio of expected
difference. You would expect the utilization to be within 20% of the availability. It would be
unreasonable to expect the utilization to exactly match the availability.
Submitted by: Jennifer Bouquet, J & J Boring
Date: April 30, 2022: 22:17:51
Section: Comments on Utilization Report:
1. Page 10-8 of the 2022 Disparity Study states, "To meet the narrowly tailored standard,
the MWBE construction subcontract goals should be based on the availability levels for
each ethnic group determined to be underutilized at a statistically significant level." The
recommendations for Non-Building Construction do not seem to be based on the
availability levels for each ethnic group determined to be underutilized. According to
the Table 10.6 on page 10-7 the ethnic groups shown to be statistically underutilized in
Non-Building Construction are Asian Americans, Hispanic Americans and Caucasian
Females. The availability of those groups per Table 7.3 are 3.11%, 3.91% and 17.69%
respectively. It seems that the subcontracting goals for Non-Building Construction
should be 6-7% MBE and 17% WBE. Can you please give more detail as to why the
recommendation for Non-Building Construction is 10% MBE and 10% WBE?
Response: In response to your example- “The 6-7% MBE and 17% WBE totals you cite are
correct. Since the maximum amount of sub-contracting is 50% of the total contract, you can
divide these by 2 to get to a 3.5% MBE and a 8.5% WBE to get to an overall contract goal, which
we rounded up for the reasons stated below.”
MSD adjusted the subcontract goal less than 2% above the availability of the eligible groups, as
documented in the 2021 Disparity Study. MSD’s adjustment is a rationale programmatic policy
given the available socioeconomic and regional disparity data, and economic trends. Factors
that indicate MWBEs are less likely to remain solvent, and particularly during the post pandemic
Page 4
era, because the documented discrimination in the market area has had a disparate impact on
the availability of ethnic and female owned businesses.
Furthermore, the regression analysis in the Disparity study revealed private sector racial and
gender discrimination in the St. Louis market area that also adversely impacts MWBE availability.
The documented disparate impacts on minority and female business earnings, and business loan
approval rates depress the groups business ownership and growth rates. Such discrimination
creates hostile economic conditions that impede minorities and females’ efforts to create and
grow businesses.
The goal setting process should not omit the effects of discrimination on MWBE availability in the
marketplace. Accordingly, a slight upward adjustment in MSD’s MWBE availability goal is
appropriate given the persistent discrimination in the St. Louis marketplace.
Submitted by: Aaron Griesheimer, SITE Improvement Association
Date: April 22, 2022: 16:14:05
Section: Comments on Disparity Report: SITE hosted a roundtable meeting with its contractors
who bid on MSD projects. Here is a collection of the questions produced through the meeting:
1. If there is no disparity with certain ethnicity groups, why is there still a goal?
Response: Goal recommendations are based on all ethnic groups that were identified to have a
statistically significant disparity. For long term sustainability of diverse participation levels on
MSD’s projects, any and all MBE’s participation would count towards meeting subcontract goals
participation based both on statistical results as well as race and gender-neutral measures
which are designed to grow and increase the capacity of diverse businesses.
2. Under the workforce goals, it shows only 5% of Caucasian females are available to
perform MSD work. However, the disparity study recommendation is to raise the
workforce goal to 11%. What is the justification for this action?
Response: The proposed goal recommendations are not solely based on the percentage of
availability. It also includes assessment based on actual project utilization workhours compared
to the goals assigned by the 2012 study along with analysis of the availability of construction
workers in the relevant trades who are located within MSD’s market service area then
comparing these datasets allows for the identification of any utilization deficiencies on MSD
projects.
Page 5
3. What are the suggested revisions for MWBE requirements for truckers?
Response: The recommendation entails program modification to limit trucker’s participation to
only count for transportation service cost. Credit for MWBE truckers would be limited to the
total value of the transportation service provided when the MWBE operates trucks it owns and
ensures that the drivers are employees of the trucker providing transportation/hauling services.
4. Is there a breakdown of subcontractors by scope and size of company?
Response: Chapter 3 of the Disparity Study Update prepared by Mason Ti llman and Associates
details Subcontractor Utilization. Tables 3.2, 3.3, and 3.4 details the sizes and industry scopes
of the projects analyzed.
5. In general, which MWBE subcontractors are referenced in the disparity study?
Response: The Disparity Study Update does not reference specific names of contractors who
performed as subcontractors and was not provided to MSD as the analysis was performed on
an independent basis by the consultant, Mason Tillman Associates, Ltd. However, Chapter 3 of
the Disparity Study Update details the “Data Sources” of the information that was analyzed.
6. Since the study was conducted five years ago, are some of the companies still in
business? If so, could we see their NAICS codes?
Response: The Disparity Study Update analysis was not conducted five years ago and was
performed on an independent basis by the consultant, Mason Tillman Associates, Ltd. who
began contracted services in 2018. The utilization data analyzed was from contracts awarded
between January 1, 2013 to December 31, 2017. Businesses were not classified by NAICS codes
in the study.
7. Will the district be flexible if a MWBE trucker is unable to provide trucks due to demand
on a certain day?
Response: MSD’s practices currently limit participation of MWBE Truckers to 100% of only the
certified MWBE’s participation and does not allow non-MWBE participation to count towards
goal attainment. MSD will evaluate all options for on demand truckers/haulers when the
MWBE trucker is unable to provide trucks on a certain day.
Page 6
8. Is the data from the disparity study broken down per year? If so, are we moving in the
right direction to justify an increase in workforce goals?
Response: The data provided to the consultant for analysis is specific to the timeframe being
analyzed (January 1, 2013 through December 31, 2017). The workforce goals are based on an
increase in minorities and women in the workforce as reported in the 2014 -2018 Census data.
9. Why did MSD hire an out-of-state firm to conduct the disparity study, instead of a local
firm or local university?
Response: MSD chose to seek a sole source procurement for the Disparity Study Update with
Mason Tillman Associates, Ltd. in order to maintain the use of original methodology used by the
consultant rather than seek a whole new study. The contract scope is highly technical and
requires specialized knowledge and experience in this field that Mason Tillman Associates, Ltd.
has qualifications to fulfill. Mason Tillman has a national reputation and experience performin g
disparity studies in the St. Louis metropolitan area.
10. What information will be required on the list of non -MWBE contractors?
Response: Primes will report payments made to Non-MWBE subcontractors performing work
on MSD projects. In order to track non-MWBE participation MSD would require the same
information currently obtained for reporting on MWBE’s to include address, city, state, zip,
phone, email, owner contact information, etc.
11. Why are apprenticeship goals increasing in the recommendations?
Response: The increase in proposed goal recommendations for apprentice are based on the
increase of available minorities and females who have indicated they are ready, willing, and
able to work on MSD projects. It also includes assessment of current project ut ilization
workhours compared to the goals mandated by the 2012 study along with the analysis of the
availability of construction workers in the relevant trades that work on MSD projects.
12. Will the raw data for this study be made available for review?
Response: MSD can provide raw data via FOIA requests. However, consultant, Mason Tillman
Associates, Ltd. did not provide analysis data once raw data was transformed using certain
methodologies to perform the required analysis. The results of Mason Tillman Associates
analysis are provided as the Disparity Study Update findings and results.
13. Why doesn't an WMBE business count for both goals?
Response: By industry best practice standards, this is considered to be “double dipping” and
misrepresents actual participation on a project.
Page 7
14. Has MSD begun preparations for the next disparity study?
Response: It is within MSD’s strategic plans to conduct another full study of verified contracting
data five years after implementation of disparity study findings.
15. What is the dollar amount threshold in which these goals go into effect?
Response: There were no recommendations to change the $50,000 threshold amounts for
which goals are currently applied to contracts.
16. Even though work hours have increased, how many minorities were counted in the
workforce study?
Response: The overall summary for Utilization of Construction Workers by ethnicity and gender
is located on page 12 of the Disparity Study Workforce Report. Table 7 (Page 13) gives a
complete breakdown for the hours and percentage of hours worked by all construction trade
workers on MSD’s construction that were included in the analysis.
17. Instead of having a gender and ethnicity-based apprenticeship goal, would MSD be
willing to establish a general apprenticeship goal?
Response: MSD has established apprentice goals as an affirmative step to ensure participation
of minority and female apprentices on its CIRP projects.
18. Instead of setting a blanket subcontractor goal for all MSD projects, would MSD
consider establishing MWBE goals on a project-by-project basis?
Response: MSD will take this into consideration for unique or rare projects, however, the past
10 years have proven that MSD’s approach to working with industry partners to address Good
Faith requirements have been sufficient to address instances of these rare issues in the past.
19. In the disparity study, it references “five highly used non-building prime contractors”.
What are the names of these businesses so MWBE contractors can reach out to them?
Response: The data reflects highly used contractors that were awarded prior to December 31,
2017. The highly used are vendors who were awarded contracts five to nine years ago. The
analysis is not on active contracts.
Page 8
Submitted by: Bill Buell, Premier Demolition
Date: April 7, 2022: 18:05:57
Section: Comments on Disparity Study Report: I would like to make an additional important
question to be considered by MSD and all parties involved.
1. Per the Mason Tillman study it states that goal percentages are based on the number of
"available, willing and able to perform" MBE subcontractors. However, the percentage
goals are being calculated on all MBE companies in the area, whether they are
construction type companies or not. This artificially inflates the percentages higher of
what is supposed to be "available, willing and able to perform '' construction type
companies. In the past I was told this was allowed because none wants to limit what a
business owner wants to do. But does this really make sense? That an owner of a
clothes store would consider bidding and performing work on a sewer or building
projects?
Response: The percentage goals were calculated on MWBEs within the market area that were
willing and able to perform the type of subcontract work that the prime contractors awarded
during the study period.
2. Another note, the last time I asked to see the exact details on how the goal numbers
were being calculated with which MBE companies in relation to non MBE companies, I
was told that any detailed information was proprietary and was not available to the
public for review. Not sure if this is a fair and honest approach by those making and
using the study.
Response: The analysis is based on proprietary systems.