ACC Utilization Study_Draft

Austin Community College
Statistical Analysis of Utilization of Contracts
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
2. INTRODUCTION
2.1 GOVERNING LAWS AND REGULATIONS
2.2 STATUTORY AUTHORITY AND CASE LAW
2.3 KEY DESIGNATIONS AND DEFINITIONS
3. RESEARCH AND METHODOLOGY
3.1 STUDY APPROACH
3.2 AGENCY CLASSIFICATIONS
3.3 INDUSTRY CLASSIFICATIONS
3.4 CERTIFICATION CLASSIFICATIONS
3.5 RELEVANT DISPARITY STUDIES
3.5.1 STATE OF TEXAS
3.5.2 CITY OF AUSTIN
4. CONTRACTING AND PROCUREMENT ANALYSIS
4.1 OVERVIEW OF PROCUREMENT PROCESS
4.2 BOARD APPROVED SOLICITATIONS
4.3 NON-BOARD APPROVED SOLICITATIONS
4.4 EXEMPTIONS FROM ACC’S PROCUREMENT PROCESS
5. PRIME CONTRACTOR UTILIZATION ANALYSIS
5.1 OVERVIEW
5.1.1 PRIME CONTRACTOR UTILIZATION ANALYSIS
5.2 CONTRACT DATA SOURCES
5.3 PRIME CONTRACTOR UTILIZATION THRESHOLDS
5.4 ALL PRIME CONTRACTORS
5.4.1 HIGHLY USED PRIME CONTRACTORS
5.4.2 ALL CONTRACTS (BY INDUSTRY)
5.4.3 CONTRACTS UNDER $500,000 (BY INDUSTRY)
5.4.4 INFORMAL CONTRACTS UNDER $100,000 (BY INDUSTRY)

6. SUBCONTRACTOR UTILIZATION ANALYSIS
6.1 OVERVIEW
6.2 SUBCONTRACT DATA SOURCES
7. MARKET AREA ANALYSIS
7.1 ACC’S MARKET AREA
7.2 MARKET AREA ANALYSIS
7.3 MARKET TRENDS
7.3.1 RACE-GENDER NEUTRAL PROGRAMS
8. FINDINGS (ALL)
8.1 OVERALL HISTORICALLY UNDERUTILIZED BUSINESS UTILIZATION
8.2 VENDOR LISTS
8.3 LACK OF OUTREACH EFFORT
8.4 SOLICITATION AWARENESS
8.5 CONTRACT COMPLIANCE
8.6 SUBCONTRACTOR UTILIZATION TRACKING AND REPORTING
8.7 DATA MANAGEMENT
8.8 PAYMENT POLICY
9. RECOMMENDATIONS
9.1 IMPLEMENT A SMALL/LOCAL BUSINESS ENTERPRISE PROGRAM
9.1.1 SMALL BUSINESS WEBSITE
9.1.2 DEFINITION OF SBDP PROGRAM GOALS
9.2 ESTABLISH A VENDOR REGISTRATION DATABASE
9.3 ESTABLISH SMALL/LOCAL BUSINESS COMMUNICATION (OUTREACH)
9.4 PRE-BID CONFERENCES
9.5 REQUIRED CONTRACT PROVISIONS
9.5.1 COMPLIANCE MONITORING AND REPORTING OF CONTRACTOR
PARTICIPATION
9.6 BIDDER PACKAGE BREAKDOWN
9.6.1 MANDATORY SUBCONTRACTING
9.6.2 GOOD FAITH EFFORT STANDARD
9.6.3 BIDDER ROTATION
9.6.4 CREATE SHELTERED MARKET (SOLICITATIONS)
9.7 DOCUMENTED POLICIES AND PROCEDURES
9.8 IMPLEMENT PROMPT PAYMENT POLICY
9.9 CONDUCT OR TAKE PART IN DISPARITY STUDY IN THE FUTURE (2-5 YEARS) TO
FURTHER NARROW TAILORING OF SLBE PROGRAM
9.10 PERFORMANCE MEASURES – (IN-REACH)

9.10.1 DEVELOP ANNUAL ASPIRATIONAL GOALS
9.11 PERFORMANCE REVIEWS – (SENIOR LEADERSHIP COMMITMENT)
10. ABOUT THE ENTERMEDIA GROUP, LLC.
11. TECHNICAL APPENDICES
11.1 APPENDIX A – DEFINITIONS
11.2 APPENDIX B – VENDOR APPLICATION
11.3 APPENDIX C – FISCAL YEAR 2010 UTILIZATION
11.4 APPENDIX D – FISCAL YEAR 2011 UTILIZATION
11.5 APPENDIX E – FISCAL YEAR 2012 UTILIZATION
11.6 APPENDIX F – FISCAL YEAR 2013 UTILIZATION
11.7 APPENDIX G – FISCAL YEAR 2014 UTILIZATION
11.8 APPENDIX H – LISTING OF OBJECT CODES
12. CONCLUSION
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In August 2014, Austin Community College (“ACC” or “the
College”) commissioned The Entermedia Group, LLC
(“TEG” or the “Consultant”) to conduct its first ever
utilization study of ACC’s contracting with Historically
Underutilized Businesses from 2010-2014 to determine

the effectiveness of ACC’s utilization of Historically
Underutilized Businesses in the areas of construction,
professional services for architectural and engineering
services, professional services for non-architectural and
engineering services and other goods and/or services.
The purpose of the statistical analysis is to examine
ACC’s contracting history and determine the number of
contracts awarded and level of expenditures with
Historically Underutilized Businesses. The study is
designed to determine the following: (1) whether ACC’s
existing policies, procedures and procurement efforts are
satisfactory for promoting utilization of historically
underutilized businesses on its contracts; (2) to analyze
the College’s procurement trends and practices for the
five (5) year period beginning September 1, 2009; and (3)
document the Consultant’s findings and make formal
recommendations.
Over a twelve-month period, the data from procurement
and contractual activity of ACC’s construction,
professional services and other goods and services
obligations for fiscal year 2010 through fiscal year 2014
were analyzed. The analysis produced nearly $350.94
million in expenditures over the five fiscal years
evaluated. The utilization percentages of Historically
Underutilized Businesses that were utilized in the
College’s contracting and procurement totaled 9.38%,
with 8.18% of the firms certified on paid date. The table
below summarizes these findings:

Austin Community College
Statistically Adjusted Historically Utilized Business
Rates
Table 1
Total Expenditures
HUB
Utilization ($)
HUB
Utilization (%)
Fiscal Year 2010 $ 105,302,241.25 $ 8,843,873 8.40%
Fiscal Year 2011 $ 40,611,146.87 $ 5,416,552 13.34%
Fiscal Year 2012 $ 44,475,971.38 $ 3,118,364 7.01%
Fiscal Year 2013 $ 73,044,448.29 $ 5,442,101 7.45%
Fiscal Year 2014 $ 87,501,741.01 $ 5,882,037 6.72%
Total $ 350,935,549 $ 28,702,927 8.18%
When this study began ACC did not have supplier
diversity in place, but encouraged the utilization of
Historically Underutilized Businesses on its contracts by
requesting certified vendors to provide for their respective
certification information. This study and analysis of ACC’s
purchasing policies and procedures and historical
expenditures identified specific areas requiring
management’s attention (i.e. findings) and led to
recommendations for improvement that must be
implemented to achieve the objectives of the College’s G-
2 Purchasing Board Policy.
Policies and Procedural Review
To effectively assist the College with increasing its
participation with historically underutilized businesses, the
Consultant attempted to understand the overall
procurement policies and procedures employed. The
Consultant conducted interviews purchasers, inspected
current documentation and review historical data to
ascertain the following:

o Methods of advertisement and solicitation
o Bid Packaging development
o Technical, insurance and financial requirements
o Evaluation and selection criteria and procedures
o Payment policies and provisions
o Bonding requirements (bid and performance)
o Subcontractor/vendor reporting
o Other prerequisites and provisions
A thorough objective evaluation of these areas will
perhaps indicate existing features that may serve as
inhibitors to small business participation or provide
insight as to potential changes that can be made. In turn,
this analysis helped to define and target the types of
historically underutilized businesses that must be
identified for procurement participation.
Historical Review of Expenditures
Based upon the information gathered during the
utilization project meetings, our team evaluated and
analyzed the College’s expenditure levels by business
category (i.e. supplies, equipment, construction,
consulting, professional services, etc.) to determine the
volume of activity as well as the extent of the historically
underutilized businesses participation. As a result of the
College not having a mechanism in place that could
track, monitor, and report subcontractor participation,
obtaining reliable subcontracting data was limited. At the
time of this study, ACC purchasing and construction staff
relied on prime contractors to provide subcontractor data
reporting.
Given the College’s plan for upcoming bond projects, it
was imperative to access its procurement needs for the

time specified with the expectation that its needs would
be greater in its upcoming years.
Historical Outreach Efforts to Historically Underutilized
Businesses
As part of our internal review the Consultant evaluated
the College’s outreach efforts and its effectiveness in
building awareness and relationships with the vendor
community. To determine the perceptions regarding
doing business with ACC as well as specific
recommendations for improvement, the Consultant
recommended that anecdotal analysis be conducted by
surveying Historically Underutilized Businesses, trade
associations and Chambers within the Austin MSA. The
College requested that this analysis begin with the
Chambers. This request was made in anticipation with
upcoming bond projects initial solicitation of professional
services. After meeting with the Greater Austin Black
Chamber Commerce (GABCC), the Hispanic Chamber of
Commerce (GAHCC), and the Austin Asian Chamber of
Commerce (AACC), it became clear that there was a lack
of strong vendor community ties on the part of ACC. The
general local community consensus communicated there
was a non-existent relationship with ACC and a lack of
understanding of their procurement practices or
opportunities available for their member base. Each of
the organization surveyed expressed excitement about
the future and welcomed a partnership with ACC. In light
of the upcoming bond election, ACC requested that the
Consultant develop an Outreach plan to assist staff
members with forging stronger strategic alliances
between the College and the Historically Underutilized
Business community. As part of the Outreach plan, TEG

recommended that the College conduct a Key
Stakeholder meeting in order to gain local member
organization support, educate organization as to its
procurement practices, allow for question and answers
with regard to upcoming opportunities and the direction
of the College’s commitment to the utilization of
Historically Underutilized Businesses.
After communicating the status of the utilization study
during its various phases to the Board, the Board
amended the G-2 Purchasing Policy and implemented a
Small Business Development Program (SBDP), with the
focus on small and local business enterprises, prior to the
completion of the College’s utilization study. During
various ACC Board Meetings, the College expressed its
desire to contribute to the success and economic
development of the small and local vendor community.
2. INTRODUCTION
Below is an outline of TEG’s approach and methodology
for conducting this scope of work. The Consultant’s

analyses was properly documented and submitted to
ACC in this Final Report.
The utilization analysis is a comparative analysis to
determine the percentage of contract dollars awarded to
Historically Underutilized Businesses. TEG examined
utilization of Historically Underutilized Businesses as
prime contractors and subcontractor in ACC’s
construction related contracts including engineering,
professional services and other goods and services.
TEG’s utilization study methodology included three
analyses, which lead to overall conclusions and
recommendations.
1. Analysis of Procurement Policies and Procedures
qualitatively and quantitatively examines Austin
Community College District’s contracting history over
the past five years to determine the impact of Austin
Community College District’s policies, procedures and
practices on Historically Underutilized Businesses
ability to do business with Austin Community College
District, along with the effectiveness of the Historically
Internal Analysis Statistical Analysis Market Analysis Conclusion Recommendations
Austin Community College District Utilization
Study
•
Analysis
of
Procure
ment
Policies
and
Procedur
es
•
Utiliz
ation
Anal
ysis
• Higher
Education
Sector /
Market
Analysis
• Finding
of
discrimina
tion
passive or
active, if
any
•
Identificati
on of
barriers to
Historicall
y
Underutili
zed
Businesse
s
participati
on
• Procurement and
Historically
Underutilized
Businesses
programmatic
initiatives
• Outreach
Efforts/Initiatives
• Non-discrimination
initiatives
• Management and
Technical
Assistance
• Goal Setting

Underutilized Businesses program operations on
increasing Historically Underutilized Businesses
participation.
2. Utilization Analysis quantitatively examines ACC’s
contracting history and determines the number of
contracts and levels of expenditures with Historically
Underutilized Businesses.
3. Relevant Market Analysis determines the geographic
boundaries within which Austin Community College
District performs the substantial part of its business
activities. The identification of the bounds is also
guided by ACC’s service area encompasses all of the
following counties: Hays, Caldwell, Blanco, Gillespie,
and most of Travis, Bastrop and parts of Fayette,
Gonzales, Guadalupe, Lee and Williamson Counties.
Furthermore, identify and examine similar institutions
and their procurement practices related to small
business program participation.
As part of this utilization study, the procurement analysis
is critical to understanding the results of the statistical
analysis from an organizational standpoint, regardless of
whether the utilization study reveals over-utilization or
under-utilization. As such, the procurement analysis
drives the customized recommendations for Austin
Community College District to improve its level of
contracting and procurement with Historically
Underutilized Businesses. With this analysis in hand,
Austin Community College District will be positioned to
move forward on achieving its objectives related to
Historically Underutilized Businesses participation.
1.1 Governing Laws and Regulations

The laws and regulations that govern Austin Community
College procurement procedures follow the standards
established by federal and state laws in addition to City
regulations specified below:
• State Law
i. Texas local government code, chapters
252; 271
ii. Texas government code, chapters
2161
iii. Texas administrative code
34 TAC §20.23
• City of Austin Regulation
i. City of Austin Charter and Ordinances
ii. MBE/WBE Ordinances 2-9A-4 (32), 2-
9B-4 (32), 2-9C-4 (32) and 2-9D-4
(33)
• Austin Community College Policies
i. G-2 Purchasing Policy
ii. Purchasing Handbook

1.2 Statutory Authority and Case Law
US Supreme Court in City of Richmond v. J.A. Croson,
488 US 469 with regard to procurement programs for
minority and women owned firms. The Supreme Court’s
decision in City of Richmond v J.A. Croson Co. held that
programs established by local governments to set goals
for the participation of minority and women-owned firms,
must be supported by evidence of past discrimination in
the awarding of their contracts.
Prior to the Croson decision, many agencies and
jurisdictions implementing race-conscious programs did
so without developing a detailed public record to
document discrimination in their awarding of contracts.
Instead, they relied upon common knowledge and what
was viewed as widely recognized patterns of
discrimination, both local and national.
Croson established that a local government could not rely
on society0wide discrimination as the basis for a race-
based, but, instead, was required to identify
discrimination within its own jurisdiction. In Croson, the
Court found the City of Richmond’s Minority Business
Enterprise (MBE) construction program to be
unconstitutional because there was insufficient evidence
of discrimination in the local construction market.
Croson was explicitly in saying that the local construction
market was the appropriate geographical framework
within which to perform statistical comparisons of
business availability and business utilization Therefor, the
identification of the local market area is particularly
important because that factor establishes the parameters
within which to conduct a disparity study.

2.3 Key Designations and Definitions
Through out this study, historically underutilized
businesses are referred to an entity with its principal place
of business in this state that is:
(A) a corporation formed for the purpose of making a
profit in which 51 percent or more of all classes of
the shares of stock or other equitable securities are
owned by one or more economically disadvantaged
persons who have a proportionate interest and
actively participate in the corporation's control,
operation, and management;
(B) a sole proprietorship created for the purpose of
making a profit that is
completely owned, operated, and controlled by an
economically disadvantaged person;
(C) a partnership formed for the purpose of making a
profit in which 51 percent or more of the assets and
interest in the partnership are owned by one or
more economically disadvantaged persons who
have a proportionate interest and actively participate
in the partnership's control, operation, and
management;
(D) a joint venture in which each entity in the venture is
a historically underutilized business, as determined
under another paragraph of this subdivision; or
(E) a supplier contract between a historically
underutilized business as determined
under another paragraph of this subdivision and a
prime contractor under which the historically
underutilized business is directly involved in the
manufacture or distribution of the goods or
otherwise warehouses and ships the goods.
"Economically disadvantaged person" means a person
who:

(A) is economically disadvantaged because of the
person's identification as a
member of a certain group, including:
(i) Black Americans;
(ii) Hispanic Americans;
(iii) women;
(iv) Asian Pacific Americans;
(v) Native Americans; and
(vi) veterans as defined by 38 U.S.C. Section
101(2) who have suffered at least a 20 percent
service-connected disability as defined by 38
U.S.C. Section 101(16); and
(B) has suffered the effects of discriminatory practices
or other similar insidious
circumstances over which the person has no
control.

3. RESEARCH AND METHODOLOGY
3.1 Study Approach
Due to the amount of disparity studies conducted over
the last 30 years, the key measures of Minority and
Women-Owned Business utilization, availability, capacity
and disparity are not new. TEG expended great effort to
craft a methodology that could be replicable, so that side-
by-side comparisons could be made against future ACC
studies.
The actual expenditures were taken directly from warrant
data provided by the College’s Procurement Office, from
the beginning of Fiscal Year 2010 to the end of Fiscal
Year 2014. The actual study dates are September 1,
2009 to August 31, 2014.
The advantage of this approach is that taking
expenditure information reduces the amount of potential
error introduced into the analysis by differences between
contracted amounts and the actual dollars paid to
contractors and suppliers.
The warrant data provided by the College does not
provide a specific nexus between a check written to a
specific vendor and a contract or other procurement
document. In order to keep as close to ACC methodology
as possible, the following process was used:

1. The consultant examined the
construction, professional services and
other goods and/or services contract
documents for the College included in
the study and noted where there was
historically underutilized business
participation, both in prime and sub-
contractual arrangements.
2. Prime participation by with historically
underutilized businesses was noted as
100% and historically underutilized
subcontractors were noted as a
percentage of the total contract value.
3. Using tax-identification numbers, state-
specific accounting conventions and
other analytical processes, the
consultant then matched those contract
amounts with warrants and applied the
appropriate pro-rata share of the
contract to each warrant pertaining to
that business transaction. If non-certified
historically underutilized business
participation was found on a specific
contract, those amounts were counted
as bona fide participation, as was prior
practice.
4. Once that data were collected, the
consultant totaled the amount of dollar
utilization on an aggregate (statewide)
and per-agency basis for historically
underutilized businesses. This dollar
utilization (versus total spend) amount
will provide the numerator of the fraction
used to calculate the percentage
utilization (participation or dollars spent)
for each agency, as well as across the
whole of State government.

5. Total spend amounts (all included
warrants) were then calculated to create
the denominator of the historically
underutilized businesses utilization
fractions.
3.2 Agency Classifications
The study utilized certifications from certifying agencies
requested on their vendor application form (City of Austin
and State of Texas). Additionally, the Consultant included
certifying agencies within the State of Texas (SCTRCA,
NCTRCA and the City of Houston).
3.3 Industry Classifications
The study utilized four main industry classifications –
construction, professional services and other goods and
services. Cumulative utilization figures for the entire study
period (Fiscal Year 2010 – Fiscal Year 2014) are detailed
later in the report.
3.4 Certification Classification
In addition to examining expenditure data on a per fiscal
year basis and by industry classification, data was
compiled by diverse certification type. These
certifications, as specified by the College, are historically
underutilized businesses. The College recognized the
historically underutilized business certifications from the
State of Texas Building and Procurement Commission
(TBPC), City of Austin and Capital Metro (TUCP is the
certifying agency).

3.5 Relevant Disparity Studies
Traditionally, disparity analysis allowed experts to
examine, explain or convey awareness to the potentially
significant differences in government contracting, with
respect to minorities, women and other disadvantaged
groups. In the wake of the Croson decision, impacting the
use of race-conscious programs in the selection of state
and local government contractors and purchasing,
another purpose became necessary – for jurisdictions to
ensure compliance or to bring their programs back into
line. This concerned effort on the part of state and local
governments to protect themselves from lawsuits,
generated an expanded body of disparity study literature,
by academic institutions, think- tanks and private
consulting firms. This type of analysis is now a common
programmatic evaluation component for states and
localities, with many jurisdictions now requiring disparity
studies be conducted on a regular basis.
Below are excerpts of disparity studies that have been
completed within the geographical and product markets
in which ACC conducts business. Please refer to the
respective completed studies for additional context and
additional details.
3.5.1 State of Texas
In 2008, MGT of America, Inc. (MGT), was
retained to conduct a minority and women
business enterprise (M/WBE) disparity study for
the state of Texas, to determine whether there
was a compelling interest to continue a
narrowly-tailored historically underutilized
business (HUB) program.
The 2009 Disparity Study (2009 Study)
consisted of fact-finding to examine the extent to

which State race- and gender-conscious and
race and gender-neutral remedial efforts had
effectively eliminated ongoing effects of any past
discrimination affecting the state’s relevant
marketplace, by analyzing state procurement
trends and practices for the study period from
FY2006 through FY2008. The purpose of the
study was twofold: to provide a comprehensive
review of the State’s utilization of historically
underutilized businesses (HUBs); and to
evaluate various options for future program
development. All state agencies along with state
medical and health centers, and institutions of
higher education were included in this study.
The objectives of the 2009 Texas Disparity
Study were to:
• Identify from the most accurate
sources, the availability of HUBs
that are ready, willing and able to do
business with the state.  
• Analyze the contracting and
procurement data of specific state
agencies to determine their
respective utilization of HUBs, as
well as the state’s utilization as a
whole.  
• Determine the extent to which any
identified disparities in the utilization of
available HUBs by the state might be
impacted by discrimination.  
• Examine what, if any, disparities exist
between the proportion of ready, willing
and able HUBs and the actual
proportion of utilization of HUBs in

state contracting.  
• Collect anecdotal and qualitative data
on HUB participation in state
procurement. Determine whether there
is a factual predicate for measures to
foster inclusion of HUBs in state
procurement.  
• Recommend programs to remedy the
effects of any discrimination identified,
and to reduce or eliminate barriers that
adversely affect the contract
participation of such HUBs.  
3.5.2 City of Austin
In 2014, NERA Economic Consulting was
retained to conduct a minority and women
business enterprise (M/WBE) disparity study for
the City of Austin.
The results of this Study provide the evidentiary
record necessary for the City’s consideration of
whether to implement renewed M/WBE policies
that comply with the requirements of the courts
and to assess the extent to which previous
efforts have provided M/WBEs full and fair
opportunities to compete for its prime contracts,
purchases and associated subcontracts.
This Study finds statistical evidence consistent
with the presence of business discrimination
against M/WBEs in the private sector of the City
of Austin market area. These findings are
presented in Chapters IV and V. Statistical
analyses of the City’s own contracting and
purchasing, which also document evidence
consistent with business discrimination, are

contained in Chapters II, III and VI. As a check
on our statistical findings, documented in
Chapter VII, we surveyed the contracting
experiences of M/WBEs and non-M/WBEs in
the market area and also conducted a series of
in-depth personal interviews with business
enterprises throughout the market area, both
M/WBE and non-M/WBE.
Additionally, the City of Austin asked that we
evaluate whether veteran-owned businesses
(“VOBs”) and service-disabled veteran-owned
businesses (“SDVOBs”) have full and fair
opportunities to compete for its prime contracts,
purchases and associated subcontracts.
Because the constitutional standards applicable
to adopting preferences for VOBs or SDVOBs
are far less strict than those that apply to
preferences for M/WBEs, a disparity study is not
a prerequisite in order for the City to consider
such preferences for VOBs or SDVOBs.1
Nevertheless, the City took the opportunity
presented in conducting a new Disparity Study
to examine the status of VOBs and SDVOBs in
addition to that of M/WBEs.2 The Study’s
findings for VOBs and SDVOBs were mixed,
with some results consistent with the presence
of business discrimination and other results not.
All of these results are discussed, individually,
below.3

4. CONTRACTING AND PROCUREMENT ANALYSIS
4.1 Overview of Procurement Process
Austin Community College adopted procurement
procedures, as set forth in the ACC Board Policy, G-2
Purchasing, with the intention to provide guidance and
instruction for the purchasing process and avoid curbing
or disregarding competition. Specifically, ACC’s
procurement procedures are intended to avoid practices
that would place unreasonable requirements on firms in
order for them to qualify to do business with the College.
The procurement of construction services, architecture

and engineering services, professional services and other
goods are subject to different advertisement, informal and
formal solicitation, and approval requirements. The
procurement methods used are small purchases, micro-
purchases, commercial purchase card, sealed bids,
competitive negotiations, and noncompetitive
procurements such as immediate remedial measures and
sole source purchases. The requirements are determined
by the industry and value of the purchase.
Informal procurements are not subject to advertising
requirements. Formal procurements must be advertised
and procured through a competitive process.
For each procurement method, Table 4.2 and 4.3
summarizes the requirements by industry, which are
described in Section 4.
Formal Procurement Process
Table 4.2
Procurement
Category
Dollar Threshold Advertising
Requirement
Solicitation
Process
Procurement
Process
Construction
Services
$500,000
Local papers &
ACC’s website
3 Quotes Board Approval
Architectural and
Engineering
Services
$500,000
Local papers &
ACC’s website
3 Quotes Board Approval
Non-Architectural
and Engineering
Services
$5,000.01 -
$30,000
Local papers &
ACC’s website
3 Quotes
Over $30,000
Submit
Specifications or
Statement of Work
to ACC Buyer
Other Goods and
Services
$10,000.01-
$30,000
Local papers &
ACC’s website
3 Quotes
Over $30,000
Submit
Specifications or
Statement of Work
to ACC Buyer

4.2 Formal (Board Approved) Solicitations
• Purchases of other Goods Valued
Over $30,000
• Purchases of Construction
Services Valued Over $500,000
• Purchases of Architectural and
Engineering Services Valued
Over $500,000
Purchases of Non-Architectural and Engineering Services
Valued Over $100,000
Informal Procurement Process
Table 4.3
Procurement
Category
Dollar
Threshold
Advertising
Requirement
Solicitation
Process
Procurement
Process
Construction
Services
$50,000
Local papers &
ACC’s website
Single quote
Approved by
President/Designee
Architectural and
Engineering
Services
$50,000
Local papers &
ACC’s website
Single quote
Approved by
President/Designee
Non-Architectural
and Engineering
Services
$5,000 & under None Single quote
Purchasing
Department
Other Goods and
Services
$10,000
& under
Limited Single quote
Purchasing
Department
3.3 Informal (Non-Board Approved)
Solicitations
a. Purchases of other Goods Valued at
$30,000 or Less

Solicitations under $30,000 for other goods and
services, professional services, and equipment
are not subject to advertising and may have
limited solicitation requirements.
b. Purchases of Construction Services
Valued at $100,000 or Less
c. Purchases of Architectural and
Engineering Services Valued at Less
Than $100,000
d. Purchases of Non-Architectural and
Engineering Services Valued at Less
Than $100,000
The President, or his designee, can approve purchases
under $100,000. A purchase more than $100,000 must
have Board approval. For construction and architectural
services in excess of $500,000, the potential recipient(s)
shall make presentations to the Board.
For purchases of Equipment under $5,000 and under
purchasing management will make decision. For
purchases $5,000.01-$30,000 purchasing solicits three
(3) quotes and process the order with the best value. For
purchases over $30,000, Purchasing will submit
specifications or state of work to ACC Buyer.
For purchases of other Goods and/or Services less than
$10,000, Purchasing management evaluates and makes
decision. For purchases $10,000.01 - $30,000,
Purchasing solicits three (3) quotes and processes the
order with the best value to the College. For purchases
over $30,000, Purchasing submits specifications or state

of work to ACC Buyer.
The President, or his designee, can approve any contract
and/or expenditure of $100,000 or less. A contract or
expenditure over $100,000 needs to be presented to the
Board for final approval.
4.4 Exemptions from ACC’s Procurement Process
Certain procurements are exempt from ACC’s G-2
Purchasing Policy’s competitive procurement process.
Exemptions apply to purchases for necessary repairs or
replacement an existing functionality that has been
unexpectedly lost, or is immediately necessary to meet an
unforeseen catastrophe or emergency.
This exemption is:
a. Public Calamity – Emergency
In the event an expenditure is immediately necessary
to repair or replace an existing capability that has
been unexpectedly lost, or is immediately necessary
to meet an unforeseen catastrophe or emergency
(i.e., a situation in which immediate action must be
taken without Board approval to avoid harm to the
College), the President may approve such
expenditure, and such expenditure must be reported
to the Board at its next meeting, or by written
notification provided through the President prior to
the next Board meeting. In such an event, the
requirements of state law shall apply, unless the
Board determines that the delay posed by the
methods provided therein would prevent or
substantially impair the conduct of classes or other
essential school activities. Upon such finding,

contracts for the replacement or repair of the
equipment or the part of the College facility may be
made by methods other than those typically required
by state law.
Additionally, there are exemptions from ACC’s internal
procurement process state in its Purchasing Handbook.
These exemptions are:
Specific Exceptions to Purchasing Procedures
a. Purchase of Automated Information
Systems (AIS or IT) products and
services: For software licenses and
maintenance of computers, the college may
use the Catalog Information Systems Vendor
purchasing program (CISV) as provided by
Texas Administrative Code. These
purchases shall always be made with
Purchasing Department advice.
b. Sole Source Purchasing:
The College may purchase personal property, which
is available from only one source without further
competitive solicitation. Requesting Departments
must complete and submit a Sole Source Request
form to the Purchasing Department
c. Emergency Purchases:
Subject to Education Code Chapter 44, Subchapter B
44.031(h) and Board of Trustee Policy, the college
may make emergency purchases necessary to repair
or replace damaged buildings or equipment that is
destroyed or severely damaged, as result of an
unforeseen catastrophe, or emergency, undergoes
major operational or structural failure, and the board
of trustees determines that delay imposed by
competitive bidding would prevent or substantially
impair the conduct of classes or other essential

school activities. The contracts for the replacement or
repair of the equipment or the part of the school
facility may be made by methods other than the
competitive bidding process. This is the only
emergency purchase authority available to the
college.
HISTORICALLY UNDERUTILIZED BUSINESS
PROGRAM
Austin Community College encourages the participation
of Historically Underutilized Businesses (HUBs) in the
College’s procurement process. Contractors bidding on
City projects must agree to use reasonable and best
efforts to select and employ qualified HUB subcontractors.
ACC recognizes the HUB certification of the State of
Texas Building and Procurement Commission (TBPC),
City of Austin and Capital Metro (TUCP is the certifying
agency).

4 PRIME CONTRACTOR UTILIZATION ANALYSIS
5.1 Overview
The objective of the prime contractor utilization analysis is
to determine the level of historically underutilized
business prime contractor utilization compared to non-
historically underutilized business prime contractor
utilization.
One very important step in this utilization study is the
analysis of expenditures to document contracting history
in the jurisdiction under review. The objective of the prime
utilization analysis is to determine the level of historically
underutilized businesses utilization as prime contractors.
In the case of ACC, an analysis was done on the college’s
expenditures with State of Texas Historically Underutilized
Businesses (HUB) certified vendors.
This chapter documents Austin Community College’s
utilization historically underutilized businesses from
September 1, 2009 to August 31, 2014. ACC’s
expenditures during the study period were classified into
three industries for purposes of the analysis. The
industries are construction, professional services, and
goods and other services. Construction included public
work for new construction, remodeling, renovation,
maintenance, demolition and repair of any public structure
or building, and other public improvements. Professional
Services included architecture, engineering, and other
professional services of an architectural and engineering
nature; consulting and personal, professional, and
technical services; research planning; development;
surveying and mapping; and comprehensive planning.
Construction management services were also included in

this category. Goods and Other Services included
materials, as well as supplies, equipment, and non-
professional services. Construction maintenance was also
included in this category.
At the start of the Utilization Study, ACC housed all of
their contracts on the following systems:
- Colleague UI
- One Note (notepad application)
- Excel Spreadsheet
Even though, these applications allow for accounting,
payment, monitoring and tracking of ACC’s contract
expenditures and manual registration of vendors currently
doing business with ACC, there are some areas we have
identified as a need for improvement.
The first step in this utilization study is the analysis of
expenditures to document contracting history in the
jurisdiction under review. The objective of the prime
utilization analysis is to determine the level of historically
underutilized businesses utilization as prime contractors.
In the case of ACC, an analysis was done on the college’s
expenditures with State of Texas Historically Underutilized
Businesses (HUB) certified vendors.
Below are the findings of the analysis of Austin
Community College’s expenditures for fiscal year 2010 to
fiscal year 2014.

5.2 Contract Data Sources
The prime contractor expenditures were determined by
the payments ACC issued during the five-year study
period in which payment records were the most
comprehensive data available and the most accurate
depiction of ACC’s expenditures during this period.

The unique agreements, against which payments were
made, were determined by the contract number, and if it
was not available, the payment records were grouped by
purchase order (PO) number. These unique agreements
are referred to as contracts.
The payment records were extracted from Colleague IU,
ACC’s financial management system. The payment
records had to be cleansed before they could be grouped
by either contract number or purchase order number. As
part of the data cleansing process, the Consultant
conferred with ACC staff to define the contract
classification system and complete records with missing
or incorrect information. The industry classifications were
also approved by ACC staff. Using a combination of the
line item descriptions provided with the payment data,
and the PO numbering legend each contract was either
classified into one of the three industry categories –
construction, professional services, and other goods and
services – or marked for exclusion. Non-profits were
excluded from the analysis, in addition to contracts with
government agencies, banks, airlines, and payments for
legal settlements, employee reimbursements,
subscriptions, and seminars.
The next phase of the data cleansing process was the
determination of the diverse certification of the prime
contractors. Incomplete ethnicity and gender information
is a common condition characterizing data received from
government agencies for availability and utilization
studies. Additional research was conducted to secure
certification information for each prime contractor.
The certification of the utilized prime contractors was
determined through a combination of research
techniques. Company names were cross-referenced with
certification lists, chambers of commerce and trade

organization membership directories, business listings,
and websites.
5.3 Prime Contractor Utilization Thresholds
Contracts within each of the three industries were
analyzed at four dollar ranges. One category included all
contracts regardless of size. A second size category
included all contracts under $500,000. This was the level
where there was a demonstrated capacity within the pool
of willing historically underutilized businesses to perform
ACC’s contracts. The third size category included
contracts under $100,000, which did not require board
approval. The third size category included the informal
contracts, which did not require advertising. As seen in
Table 4.02, for construction the level was under $10,000;
for professional services the level was under $50,000;
and for goods and other services the level was under
$40,000

1
Informal Contract Thresholds for ACC Departments
Table 5.3
Informal Industry
Contract Threshold
Construction $50,000
Professional Services $30,000
Other Goods and Services $10,000
5.4 All Prime Contractors

As depicted in Table 5.4 below, ACC issued 53,650
unique payment transactions during the Traditionally, the
purpose of disparity analysis was for experts to examine,
explain or bring awareness to the potentially significant
differences in government contracting, with respect to
minorities and women. In the wake of the Croson
decision, impacting the use of race-conscious programs
in the selection of state and local government contractors
and purchasing, another purpose became necessary – for
jurisdictions to ensure compliance or to bring their
programs back into line. This concerned effort on the part
of state and local governments to protect themselves from
lawsuits, generated an expanded body of disparity study
literature, by academic institutions, think- tanks and
private consulting firms. This type of analysis is now a
common programmatic evaluation component for states
and localities, with many jurisdictions now requiring
disparity studies be conducted on a regular basis.
Not all disparity analyses are alike. All seek to examine
differences between minority and/or women
contracting/purchasing balanced against government
expenditure, but there are many ways to show such a
situation does, or does not, exist. Thusly, it may be
difficult to compare among disparity studies conducted
for different jurisdictions, even if done during the same
period of time. One study that sought to aggregate
disparity study information, detailed later in this section,
examined a potential population of ninety-two (92)
disparity studies and used fifty-seven (57), or 62 percent,
due to the disparate methodologies employed.
study period. These transactions are referred to as
contracts in this study. The 53,650 contracts included
8113 for construction, 837 for professional services, and
44,700 for other goods and services.
The payments made by ACC during the study period

totaled $350,935,549 for the 53,650 contracts. These
expenditures included $192,884,583.49 for construction,
$6,162,387 for professional services, and $151,888,578
for other goods and services.
Total Contracts and Dollars Expended:
All Industries, September 1, 2009 – August 31, 2014
Traditionally, the purpose of disparity analysis was for
experts to examine, explain or bring awareness to the
potentially significant differences in government
contracting, with respect to minorities and women. In the
wake of the Croson decision, impacting the use of race-
conscious programs in the selection of state and local
government contractors and purchasing, another purpose
became necessary – for jurisdictions to ensure
compliance or to bring their programs back into line. This
concerned effort on the part of state and local

Table 5.4
Total Number Total
Industry Contracts Dollars Expended
Construction 8113 $192,884,583
Professional Services 837 $6,162,387
Other Goods and Services 44,700 $151,888,577.95
Total Expenditures 53,650 $350,935,549
5.4.1 Highly Used Prime Contractors
As depicted in Table 5.4.2(A) below, the 53,650 ACC
contracts were received by 906 vendors.
Total Contracts, Utilized Vendors, and Dollars
Expended: All Industries, September 1, 2009 – August

31, 2014

Table 5.4.1(A)
Total Contracts 53,650
Total Utilized Vendors 906
Total Expenditures $350,935,549
The majority of the 53,650 contracts were received by
relatively few of the 906 utilized vendors. Traditionally, the
purpose of disparity analysis was for experts to examine,
explain or bring awareness to the potentially significant
differences in government contracting, with respect to
minorities and women. In the wake of the Croson
decision, impacting the use of race-conscious programs
in the selection of state and local government contractors
and purchasing, another purpose became necessary – for
jurisdictions to ensure compliance or to bring their
programs back into line. This concerned effort on the part
of state and local governments to protect themselves from
lawsuits, generated an expanded body of disparity study
literature, by academic institutions, think- tanks and
private consulting firms. This type of analysis is now a
common programmatic evaluation component for states
and localities, with many jurisdictions now requiring
disparity studies be conducted on a regular basis.

As depicted in Table 5.4.1(B) below, 621 of the 906
utilized vendors received 6 percent or $19,999,651 of the
total contract dollars. Three vendors received 42 percent
of the contract dollars.
Distribution of All Contracts by Number of Vendors
Table 5.4.1(B)
Total Percent Number of Percent of
Vendors Dollars of Dollars Contracts Contracts
3 Vendors Received $149,036,618 42% 118 .3%
10 Vendors Received $52,186,639 15% 4318 8.06%
60 Vendors Received $82,849,385 23% 20,411 38.04%
212 Vendors Received $47,863,255 14% 18,001 33.6%
621 Vendors Received $19,999,651 6% 10,802 20%
906 Vendors Received $350,935,549 100% 53,650 100%
The seven vendors that received $149,036,618
represented 0.3 percent of all vendors utilized during the
study period. Table 5.4.1(C) below presents the negligible
utilization of certified historically underutilized contractors
as prime contractors. The overwhelming majority of the
highly used prime contractors were non-certified prime
contractors.
Total Prime Contractors Utilization by Vendor Status
Table 5.4.1(C)
Vendor Status Dollars of Dollars Contracts Contracts
Certified Historically
Underutilized Vendors
$28,702,927 8.18% 3015 5.62%
Non - Certified Prime
Vendors
$322,232,622 91.82% 50,635 94.38%
Total $350,935,549 100% 53,650 100%

5.4.2 All Contracts (By Industry)
Construction Contractor Utilization
Table 5.4.2(A) summarizes all contract dollars expended
by ACC on construction contracts. Certified historically
underutilized contractors received 3.4% percent of the
construction contract dollars; while non-certified prime
construction contractors received 96.6% of the
construction contract dollars.
Prime Construction Contractors Utilization
Table 5.4.2(A)
$6,594,152 3.4% 858 10.6%
Vendors
$186,290,431 96.6% 50,635 89.4%
Total $192,884,583 100% 8113 100%

Professional Services Utilization
Table 5.4.2(B) summarizes all contract dollars expended
by ACC on professional services contracts. Certified
historically underutilized contractors received 10%
percent of the construction contract dollars; while non-
certified prime professional services contractors received
90% of the professional services contract dollars.
Professional Services Contract Utilization:
Total Contract Payments, September 1, 2009 – August
31, 2014

Prime Professional Services Contractors Utilization
Table 5.4.2(B)
$619,250 10% 174 20.8%
Vendors
$5,543,136 90% 663 79.2%
Total $6,162,386 100% 837 100%

Other Goods and Services Contract Utilization
Table 5.4.3(C) summarizes all contract dollars expended
by ACC on other goods and services contracts. Certified
historically underutilized contractors received 14%
percent of the construction contract dollars; while non-
certified other and services vendors received 86% of the
other goods and services contract dollars.
Other Goods and Services Contract Utilization:
Total Contract Payments, September 1, 2009 – August
31, 2014

Prime Other Goods and Services Vendors Utilization
Table 5.4.2(C)
$21,489,524 14.1% 1983 4.4%
Vendors
$130,399,054 85.9% 42,717 95.6%
Total $151,888,578 100% 44,700 100%
5.4.3 Contracts in under $500,000 (By Industry)
Construction Contract Utilization:
Total Contract Payments under $500,000, September
1, 2009 – August 31, 2014

difficult to compare among disparity studies conducted for
different jurisdictions, even if done during the same period
of time. One study that sought to aggregate disparity
study information, detailed later in this section, examined
a potential population of ninety-two (92) disparity studies
and used fifty-seven (57), or 62 percent, due to the
disparate methodologies employed.
Construction Contract Utilization: Contracts under
$500,000
by ACC on construction contracts under $500,000.
Certified historically underutilized contractors received 7%
percent of the construction contract dollars under
$500,000; while non-certified prime construction
contractors received 93% of the construction contract

dollars under $500,000.
Prime Construction Contractors Utilization (under
$500,000)
Table 5.4.3(A)
Prime Contractor Ethnicity
Number of
Contracts
Percent of
Contracts
Amount of
Dollars
Percent of
Dollars
African Americans 0 0.00% $0 0.00%
Asian Americans 51 22.08% $5,079,789 7.70%
Hispanic Americans 6 2.60% $2,023,151 3.07%
Native Americans 0 0.00% $0 0.00%
Caucasian Females 24 10.39% $1,904,428 2.89%
Caucasian Males 150 64.94% $56,921,709 86.34%
TOTAL 231 100.00% $65,929,076 100.00%
Number of
Contracts
Percent of
Contracts
Amount of
Dollars
Percent of
Dollars
African American Females 0 0.00% $0 0.00%
African American Males 0 0.00% $0 0.00%
Asian American Females 0 0.00% $0 0.00%
Asian American Males 51 22.08% $5,079,789 7.70%
Hispanic American Females 1 0.43% $361,163 0.55%
Hispanic American Males 5 2.16% $1,661,988 2.52%
Native American Females 0 0.00% $0 0.00%
Native American Males 0 0.00% $0 0.00%
Caucasian Males 150 64.94% $56,921,709 86.34%
TOTAL 231 100.00% $65,929,076 100.00%
Number of
Contracts
Percent of
Contracts
Amount of
Dollars
Percent of
Dollars
Minority Females 1 0.43% $361,163 0.55%
Minority Males 56 24.24% $6,741,776 10.23%
Caucasian Males 150 64.94% $56,921,709 86.34%
TOTAL 231 100.00% $65,929,076 100.00%
Number of
Contracts
Percent of
Contracts
Amount of
Dollars
Percent of
Dollars
Minority Male Business
Enterprises
56 24.24% $6,741,776 10.23%
Female Business Enterprises 25 10.82% $2,265,591 3.44%
Minority Male and Female
Business Enterprises 81 35.06% $9,007,368 13.66%
Caucasian Male Business
Enterprises
150 64.94% $56,921,709 86.34%
TOTAL 231 100.00% $65,929,076 100.00%
$ 2,086,447 7.3% 11 8%
$ 26,486,432 92.7% 124 92%

Vendors
$ 26,486,432 92.7% 124 92%
Total $ 28,572,880 100% 135 100%
Professional Services Contract Utilization:
1, 2009 – August 31, 2014

Professional Services Contract Utilization: under
$500,000
by ACC on professional services contracts under
$500,000. Certified historically underutilized contractors
received none of the contract dollars under $500,000;
while non-certified prime professional services contractors
received 100% of the professional services contract
(under $500,000)
Table 5.4.3(B)
$ 0 0% 0 0%
Vendors
$ 528,061 100% 4 100%
Total $ 528,061 100% 135 100%

1
Other Goods and Other Services Contract Utilization:

1, 2009 – August 31, 2014

Other Goods and Services Contract Utilization: Under
$500,000
by ACC on other goods and other services contracts
under $500,000. Minority Male Business Enterprises
received 3.27 percent of the other goods and services
contract dollars; Female Business Enterprises received
4.17 percent; and Caucasian Male Business Enterprises
received 92.56 percent.
(under $500,000)
Table 5.4.3(C)
$ 2,562,963 10% 15 11%
Vendors
$ 22,669,416 90% 124 89%
Total $ 25,232,379 100% 139 100%
5.4.4 Informal Contracts Under $100,000 (By
Industry)
Construction Contract Utilization

1, 2009 to August 31, 2014
Certified historically underutilized construction contractors
received 10 percent of the construction contract dollars;
while non-certified prime contractors received 90 percent
of the construction contract dollars under $100,000.
$100,000)
Table 5.4.4(A)
$ 2,562,963 10% 15 11%
Vendors
$ 22,669,416 90% 124 89%
Total $ 25,232,379 100% 139 100%
Professional Services Contract Utilization
1, 2009 to August 31, 2014
Certified historically underutilized professional services
contractors received 11 percent of the construction
contract dollars; while non-certified prime professional
services contractors received 89 percent of the
professional services contract dollars under $100,000.

(under $100,000)
Table 5.4.4(B)
$ 611,524 11% 171 21%
Vendors
$ 4,999,987 89% 632 79%
Total $ 5,611,511 100% 803 100%
1, 2009 to August 31, 2014
by ACC on other goods and services contracts under
$100,000. Certified historically underutilized other goods
and services vendors received 11 percent of the other
goods and services contract dollars; while non-certified
prime professional services contractors received 89
percent of the other goods and services contract dollars
under $100,000.
(under $100,000)

Table 5.4.4(C)
$ 8,714,436 11% 1554 4%
Vendors
$ 71,902,518 89% 32,976 96%
Total $ 80,616,954 100% 34,530 100%
5.5 Informal Contracts (By Industry)
The utilization analysis was performed separately for
informal and formal contracts. The

informal levels included contracts under $50,000 for
construction, contracts under
$50,000 for professional services, and contracts under
$40,000 for other goods and
services. The analysis of formal contracts was limited to
contracts under $500,000 for
each industry.
Construction Contract Utilization
Total Contract Payments under $50,000, September 1,
2009 to August 31, 2014
Table 5.5(A) summarizes all contract dollars expended by
ACC on construction contracts under $500,000. Certified
historically underutilized construction contractors received
.8 percent of the construction contract dollars; while non-
certified prime contractors received 99.2 percent of the
construction contract dollars under $50,000.
$50,000)
Table 5.5(A)
$ 109,092 .8% 254 4%
Vendors
$ 12,914,316 99.2% 6,773 96%
Total $ 13,023,408 100% 7,027 100%
Professional Services Contract Utilization

2009 to August 31, 2014
Table 5.5(B) summarizes all contract dollars expended by
ACC on construction contracts under $50,000. Certified
historically underutilized professional services contractors
received 33 percent of the construction contract dollars;
while non-certified prime professional services contractors
received 67 percent of the professional services contract
(under 50,000)
Table 5.5(B)
$ 126,075 33% 74 21%
Vendors
$ 254,239 67% 136 79%
Total $ 380,314 100% 210 100%
2009 to August 31, 2014
Table 5.5(C) summarizes all contract dollars expended by
ACC on other goods and services contracts under
$40,000. Certified historically underutilized other goods
and services vendors received 10 percent of the other
goods and services contract dollars; while non-certified
prime professional services contractors received 90
percent of the other goods and services contract dollars

under $40,000.
(under $40,000)
Table 5.5(C)
$ 297,114 10% 234 4%
Vendors
$ 2,730,920 90% 5,362 96%
Total $ 3,028,035 100% 5,596 100%
Summary
ACC’s prime contractor utilization analysis examined the
$350,935,549 expended on 53,650 contracts issued
between Traditionally, the purpose of disparity analysis
was for experts to examine, explain or bring awareness to
the potentially significant differences in government

The $350,935,549 expended included $192,884,583 for
construction, $6,162,386 for professional services, and
$151,888,578 for other goods and services. A total of
53,650 contracts were analyzed, which included 8113 for
construction, 837 for professional services, and 44,700
for other goods and services.

5 SUBCONTRACTOR UTILIZATION ANALYSIS
6.1 Overview
At this time, ACC is not able to track/monitor its utilization
of subcontractors and the value of their subcontracts. In
particular, ACC still does not have a tracking system to
maintain subcontractor utilization and availability data.
Currently, its filing system for Construction, Architectural,
and Engineering is maintaining the file as a hardcopy.
Colleague UI by Ellucian, also referred to as Datatel, is
not currently configured to track important
details/information throughout the life of the contract
regarding subcontractor payments including, goals set
forth in a contract.
At present, ACC provides limited tracking of historically

underutilized business certifications and utilization. It is
therefore difficult to measure the results of increased
outreach or the attainment of goals. It is recommended
that, along with the institution of goals, there be put in
place a system for tracking the attainment of those goals,
as well as incentives for procurement personnel that are
responsible for reaching the desired goals.
In our analysis of ACC’s procurement practices, TEG
recognized that ACC had not been tracking subcontractor
payments (paid from prime contractor) effectively nor
consistently. This was later confirmed by both ACC
Purchasing and Facilities departments during utilization
project meetings. Currently, ACC’s Contracts
Administrator relies upon prime contractors to report
dollars spent with subcontractors and designations of the
subcontractors, of which some may be, certified HUB
subcontractors. There are currently no authentication
mechanisms in place to verify those payments. Without a
complete/verifiable view of procurement trends (accurate
data) makes managing bond project expenditures and
conducting any future robust study of disparity very
difficult. Other institutions with Best practices (State of
Texas, City of Austin, and TCCCD) all “own” an internal
system in order to implement an all-encompassing Small
Business Development Program.
6.2 Subcontract Data Sources
Currently, ACC’s Contracts Administrator relies upon
prime contractors to report dollars spent with
subcontractors and designations of the subcontractors, of
which some may be, certified HUB subcontractors. There
are currently no authentication mechanisms in place to
verify those payments.

6 MARKET AREA ANALYSIS
7.1 ACC’s Market Area
As part of the Utilization Study, the Consultant conducted
a market analysis or benchmark study of universities and
public entities throughout the State of Texas. This was
done to enable the College to obtain general knowledge
of various types of supplier diversity programs, to
reference best practices, and to provide a means of
becoming a market leader in local economic development
policies.
In total, the Consultant provided analysis of eight (8)
entities: Tarrant County College District, Dallas County
Community College District, Alamo Community College,
El Paso Community College, Lone Star Community
College, Houston Community College System, Austin
Independent School District, and Travis County
Purchasing. The entities were selected based on the
following criteria:
a) Similar enrollment numbers
b) Multiple campuses
c) Texas colleges
d) Have existing supplier diversity
programs
e) No formal supplier diversity program;
Peer college
f) Multiple certifications recognized

g) Purchasing policies – In accordance with
Texas Education Code/Texas
Government Code
h) Similar procurement needs –
Construction, Professional Services,
other Goods and Services
Of which, El Paso Community College and Lone Star
Community College did not have established programs
(as of 10/2014). Tarrant and Dallas County Community
College District’s both participated in Disparity Studies
and therefore had Race/Gender-Conscious programs
implemented since 2004/2006 respectively. Also, while
Alamo Community College did not participate in a
disparity study, they accept the State of Texas HUB
program, Department of Transportation’s SBE program,
and SCTRCA certifications. Lastly, Houston Community
College System while not participating in a disparity study,
opted to implement a Race/Gender-Neutral program.
Our team recommends the College consider several
factors from these entities when evaluating best
practices, including but not limited to; desire to increase
minority participation, outreach efforts, and capacity
building of small, minority, and/or women owned
businesses with or without a known disparity present
(Race/Gender Neutral approach). Please see (Table 7.2)
for a table representation of this analysis.
7.2 Market Area Analysis

7.3 Market Trends
7.3.1 Race-Gender Neutral Programs

Houston Community College System
Small Business Development Program

Overview: The Houston Community College System’s
Small Business Development Program (“SBDP” or the
“Program”) was created to provide business opportunities
for local small businesses to participate in contracting and
procurement at Houston Community College (HCC). By
formalizing existing practices and implementing new
procedures, the SBDP allows HCC to produce more
effective small business participation and create
opportunities relating to HCC contracting and
procurement
• Policy Statement
o In accordance with Board Policy B.1.7.7,
the Houston Community College Board of
Trustees delegated authority to the
Chancellor to adopt a Purchasing
Procedure; which shall include the Small
Business Development Program (“SBDP” or
the “Program”) Procedures Manual for the
Houston Community College (HCC)
System. As adopted, the SBDP is a goal-
oriented program, requiring Contractors who
receive Contracts from HCC to use Good
Faith Efforts to utilize local SBDP-Certified
Small Businesses.
• Strategy
o To increase capacity of small business
while at the same time a best value scenario
for HCSS via a more competitive pool of
vendors
o Federal SBA size standards
o GFE, Non-Discrimination, and Harassment
Policies

o One dedicated FTE (coordinator)
• Goal setting
o Required on all contracts (regardless of
purchasing method) over $50K
o 35% overall goal, but can vary based on
internal decision making
o Non-Discrimination policy for HCCS and
contractors
o Sliding scale bid preference based on
participation percentage (not weighted
against competitors but against overall goal
i.e. 35% or more = 10pts)
• Development of Website
o Contract information
o Database/directory of certified firms,
registration portal
• Contract clauses
o All RFP’s/RFQ’s/Bids/Etc. must include
SWMBE, prompt payment, non-
discrimination assurance, and a letter of
intent to all subs
o Reduction in contract sizes in order to make
more feasible for SBE
• SBE Modifications/Substitutions
o Must have pre-approval from HCCS, a sub
who is listed on the proposal must perform
work (commercially acceptable function)
o If sub was SBE, then a GFE to replace
must be made

• Monitoring of progress:
o HCC monitors the progress of the SBDP,
reviewing participation reports, community
input, recommendations, and operational
efficiency. Quarterly reports are made to the
HCC Board of Trustees addressing the
number of Contracts awarded to small
businesses, general categories of
Contracts, and dollar value of Contracts.
• Small Business Enterprise certification
o Certifications accepted from seven
agencies
▪ Port of Houston Authority SBE
Certification;
▪ Metropolitan Transit Authority of Harris
County (METRO) SBE Certification;
▪ City of Houston SBE Certification;
▪ Texas Department of Transportation
SBE Certification;
▪ City of Austin SBE Certification;
▪ South Central Texas Regional
Certification Agency SBE Certification;
and
▪ Small Business Administration 8(a)
o Based on Federal SBA Size Standards
• Good Faith Effort: (Required if prime does not
meet goal)
o Documented steps that describe attempts
to include small businesses in procurement
and contracting opportunities. HCC requires
all Contractors to make Good Faith Efforts
to utilize small businesses in the

performance of an SBDP-Eligible Contract.
o Pass-thru clause
• Sanctions for non-compliance
o The Bidder or Proposer must submit a
Contractor’s Small Business Plan (the
“Plan”) setting out how the SBDP goal for
the proposed project is to be met. The Plan
is to be submitted with the proposal
response or within a period designated
within the solicitation document, or upon
notification of finalist or successful Proposer
status. Failure to respond within the
designated period could result in a
determination by HCC that a Bidder or
Proposer is nonresponsive and thereby
removed from consideration for an award.
• Conclusion
o HCCS has established a very respectable
race-neutral programs in one of the most
diverse cities in the United States. And while
they plan on using data to determine
disparity in the future, they implemented this
program legally without having done one.
Yes, they intend to have very high minority
participation based on community
partnership and outreach.
o They have not dedicated as many
resources as other entities though and the
program effectiveness may suffer do to the
administrative burden of executing a race-
neutral program.

Dallas County Community College District
Minority/Women Business Enterprise (MWBE) Plan
Overview: Program was initiated in 2006 after Dallas
County Community College District (DCCCD) participated
in a disparity study with several other entities in the D/FW
area. These program highlights are a direct result of the
disparity study.
• Broad Policy Statement
o It shall be the policy of the Dallas County
Community College District (DCCCD) to
provide equitable business opportunities to
all of its contractors/consultants and
vendors, to increase the competitiveness
and qualifications of minority and women-
owned business enterprises (MWBEs), and
to address identified underutilizations and
inequitable contracting and procurement by
MWBEs found in the DCCCD marketplace
and in most local public contracting entities.
o Non-Discrimination policy
• Develop both “race-neutral and “race-
conscious” approaches
o Qualified MWBE firms
o Focused and narrowly tailored
o Outreach and promotion of opportunities
o Establishment of a Business Diversity
Programs Department
o Sunset provision (expiration of program
after 3 years unless reauthorized)
o Goal setting on per contract bases
• Development of internal procedures

o Cross departmental communication plans
(internal and external)
o Partnership with other entities whom
promote minority/women business
enterprises
o All RFP’s/RFQ’s/Bids/Etc. must include
MWBE clauses; GFE, reporting, etc.
o No substitutions/modifications of contracts
without prior approval (by providing
justification to DCCCD’s Business Diversity
Program Department).
• Joint Venture
o An association of a minority business
enterprise or a woman business enterprise
and/or one or more other firms to carry out a
single for profit business enterprise, for
which the parties combine property, capital,
efforts, skills, and knowledge, and in which
the MWBE is responsible for a distinct,
clearly defined portion of the work of the
contract and whose share in the capital
contribution, control, management, risks,
and profits of the joint venture are
commensurate with its ownership interest.
• Good Faith Effort: (Required if prime does not
meet goal)
o Positive efforts that were actively and
aggressively made to meet the DCCCD’s
MWBE goal(s), where applicable by a Prime

contractor/consultant, which by their scope,
intensity, and appropriateness to the
objective, can reasonably be expected to
fulfill the MWBE program’s objective. The
DCCD’s Business Diversity Programs
Department shall interpret make
determinations of good faith efforts in their
sole discretion.
o Only required if goal was not met and Prime
is subcontracting portions of work
o General breach of contract language during
all phases of contract (submittal to
termination).
• Conclusion
o DCCD has implemented a somewhat
confusing and diluted program. While they
did participate in a disparity study and are
legally defensible in regards to their Race-
Conscious program, we feel it was not
sensible to also have a race-neutral aspect.
Again, per Franklin Lee’s memo, TEG
recognized ACC’s need to establish a
program that was very narrowly tailored to fit
its objectives.
o The development of an entire department is
a high indicator of executive level by in
though and dedication to the program
objectives by aggressively addressing the
disparity and providing sound resources.

Tarrant County College District
Small M/WBE Plan
Overview: Program was initiated in 2004 after Tarrant
County College District (TCCD) hired consultant Ware &
Associates to assist in designing and implementing a
robust SMWBE Program.
o To create an alliance with SMWBE community. A philosophy to
develop, maintain, and enhance SMWBE involvement in the
contracting process.
• Develop a database
o Ready, Willing, and Able ideology (demonstration of
competitiveness in all areas of proposal)

o Qualified SMWBE firms
• Certification(s) Recognized
o MBE (NCTRCA)
o WBE (NCTRCA)
• Goal setting on per project and overall institution level
o 20% District-wide goal (not broken down for ethnicities)
o 15% Tarrant County goal (local)
o Not sure how goals were created
• Create an internal culture that spreads externally
o Corporate responsibility
o Grants 10 points (out of 100) for achieving SMWBE goal
o Involve other departments (HR, Community Affairs)
o All RFP’s/RFQ’s/Bids/Etc. must include SWMBE, prompt payment,
non-discrimination assurance, and a letter of intent to all subs
• SMWBE Modifications/Substitutions
o Unless granted written pre-approval from TCCD, a sub that is listed
on the proposal must perform work (scope, amount, etc.)
o Acceptable reason includes: sub was not able, produced
unacceptable work, or unreasonable escalation in price
o If sub was SMWBE, the replacement must be SWMBE (or every
effort made to do so)
• Joint Venture
o Applicable when SMWBE performs 30% or more of the work
o Can be a mentor-protégé relationship
o Highly scrutinized to eliminate a pass-through
▪ Capital investment of all partners
▪ Allocation of profits
▪ Sharing the right to control the ownership and management of
the joint venture team
▪ Actual participation of the SMWBE Firm
▪ Method of responsibility for, accounting
▪ Other pertinent joint venture factors
▪ Equal business opportunity commitment
▪ Protégé firm must be NCTRCA certified
▪ Protégé work cannot be “re-subcontracted” out
▪ Protégé can perform 100% of the entire SWMBE goal (20%)
• Monitoring of progress: Record-keeping system designed to
o Assess SMWBE use on all TCCD contracts and subcontracts
o Identify and monitor prime & sub SMWBE inclusion and utilization
o Identify and list certified SMWBE firms. Available to all
contractors/bidders/proposers

o Track all related activity
• SMWBE Utilization
o All contracts have stated goals (and they apply to change orders),
clauses, forms, instructions, and non-compliance information.
o Clearly defined Good Faith Effort (GFE) policy and requirement
o Required on all contracts valued at $25K or more
• Good Faith Effort: (Required if prime does not meet goal)
o No GFE = non-responsive and potentially future exclusion
o Primes failure to pay stubs = TCCD stops payment to Prime
o No less than 1 year suspension for misrepresenting facts (GFE,
achievement of goals, etc.) in SWMBE Program efforts
• Conclusion
o TCCD has implemented a well thought out, well documented, and
highly effective S/MWBE Program. They consider it critically
important to be more engaged in the community and assisting
emerging minority and women owned businesses. Establishing a
culture of inclusion.
o Strategies include: In-reach. Outreach. Monitoring (Reporting).
Accountability.

Travis County Purchasing
Historically Underutilized Business (HUB) Program
Overview: In May 1994, the Travis County Commissioners Court passed a
resolution creating the program within Travis County. The primary objective of the
program is to ensure that minority and woman-owned businesses receive fair and
equal opportunity to participate in the county's procurement process.
Use Vendor Tracking System (VTS) to monitor prime and subcontractor payments
throughout the contract process. Data collect from VTS will be evaluated and
analyzed for the disparity study. HUB staff works with peers from the City of Austin,
State of Texas and other minority trade associations.
Policy Statement: It is the policy of the Travis County Purchasing Office to ensure a
good faith effort is made to assist certified HUB vendors and contractors in receiving
contracts in accordance with the HUB Program policies and the Minority and Woman-
Owned Business goals adopted by the Travis County Commissioners Court. City of
Austin Minority and Woman-Owned Business Goals were adopted unanimously by
the Travis County Commissioners Court in the July 15, 2003 Voting Session.
HUB Search Database: Travis County does not certify vendors. They recognize the
certifications from the following agencies:
o City of Austin
o State of Texas
o Texas Unified Certification Program (TUCP) DBE
HUB Goals:
The HUB Program policies and Minority/Woman-Owned Business goals shall be
applicable to the eligible procurement dollars spent in the following areas:
o Purchase of supplies, materials, products, services,
and equipment.
o Maintenance and/or service of County assets and
property
o Contracts for professional and non-professional
services
o Contracts for commodities, equipment, or
supplies/materials
o Contracts for repair/alteration of real property.
o Contracts for the construction of real property.

o Contracts for the repair/construction of roads,
bridges, or other related structures/surface

1
Approach:
Each buyer shall, to the maximum extent practical, ensure the HUB
goals are met through the award of purchase orders and contracts, in
each area defined above, to certified HUBs. This will be achieved
through a systematic approach of soliciting quotes, bids, and proposals
from certified HUBs as follows:
Requisitions:
• Up to $2,499 - One HUB is
selected from the county's
"Automated
Certified HUB Listing", to solicit a quote
from.
• $2,500 to 50,000 - Requires
at least three written
(informal) bids/quotes,
which may be faxed, one of
which must be from a
certified HUB.
Competitive Bids & Proposals:
• Bid or Proposals for
Commodities, Equipment
Services
(Professional and Non-professional), and
Repairs or Maintenance - Requires that all
certified HUBs registered with Travis County

be informed of the county's intent to solicit
bids/proposals.
• Bids or Proposals for
Construction - Requires
that all certified HUBs
registered with Travis
County be informed of the
county's intent to solicit
bids/proposals. Also, all
vendors/contractors will be
responsible for making a
good faith effort to ensure
subcontracts are awarded
to minority and woman-
owned businesses.
Outreach Program:
The key element in developing a successful outreach program is to first
determine the needs of the targeted business community. This will be
accomplished through dissemination of a needs survey. This survey will
provide HUBs with an avenue to inform the Purchasing Office of
programs they feel would be beneficial.
Outreach activities will also help to educate the HUB community on the
logistics of doing business with Travis County. The marketing and
outreach programs will entail:
• conducting workshops and
seminars on the HUB
Program and how it can help
the HUB Entrepreneur in
being an active participant in
the Travis County
procurement process.
• identifying certifying agencies
accepted by Travis County,
and whom within those
agencies the vendor should
contact (name, phone
numbers, etc.).

• providing overall assistance,
within the limits of the
Purchasing Act, to HUBs in
various areas as required.
Good Faith Effort:
Criteria:
Prime Contractors who are awarded contracts with the County are
required to make a "Good Faith Effort" to subcontract with HUBs. This
includes professional services associated with the projects.
The Prime Contractor will be required to comply with the following
criteria:
• divide the contract work into
the smallest feasible portions
to allow for maximum HUB
Subcontractor participation,
consistent with standard and
prudent industry practices.
• notify HUBs of work that the
prime contractor plans to
subcontract, allowing
sufficient time for effective
participation. The notification
shall include:
o adequate information
about the project and
intended subcontracting
work (i.e. plans and
specifications , scope of
work)

o bonding and
insurance
requirements of
HUB
subcontractor
o a point of
contact within
the Prime
Contractor's
organization that
can answer any
questions a HUB
may have about
the project.
• provide written notice and
explanations to the
Purchasing Agent or HUB
Coordinator if the Prime
Contractor is unable to
meet the required goal for
HUB subcontractor
participation, and why the
goal was not met.
• negotiate in good faith
with interested HUBs,
not rejecting bids from
HUBs that qualify as
lowest, responsive
and responsible
bidders.
• communicate to the
Purchasing Agent when no
HUB participation is
achieved and include
reasons why.

• obtain pre-approval from the
Purchasing Agent or the
HUB Coordinator of all
changes involving Certified
HUB Subcontractors.
Modifications to the HUB
Subcontractor Participation
Plan are permitted only
after award of the bid and
solely with the prior written
approval of the Purchasing
Office.
The HUB staff provides a list of certified HUBs, upon request, to any
prime contractor experiencing difficulty locating certified HUBs to fulfill
their subcontracting goals
Disadvantaged Business Enterprise:
Exhibit 2395 - Memorandum of Understanding - Travis County adopted
TXDOT's Federally Approved Disadvantaged Business Enterprise
Program.
Posting opportunities:
• Posted on BidSync

1
Alamo Community College District:

o SMWBE Program (Small and
Minority/Women)
o Race/Gender Neutral Philosophy –
Increase opportunities, educate, and
stimulate growth
o SCTRCA certifications
o State of Texas HUB certification
• Monitoring of progress
o Dedicated SMWBE Staff aside from
Purchasing Department
o Bids get 5 point preference for SWMBE
participation
o MOU for SWMBE participation
o Paper PAR reports
• Database
o Paper vendor registration form
• Non-Discrimination clause

Austin Independent School District:
Overview: The Austin Independent School District (AISD)
promotes and strongly encourages the involvement of
Historically Underutilized Businesses (HUBs). AISD is
committed to providing opportunities in the Construction
Management Bond Program.
Broad Policy Statement
o The Community Bond Oversight Committee (CBOC) has
undertaken a series of initiatives to promote HUB participation in
construction-related projects.
• Monitoring of Progress
o The district encourages the participation of Historically
Underutilized Businesses (HUBs) in AISD Bond Programs and
provides reports to the board of trustees through the Community
Bond Oversight Committee (CBOC) twice each year. The (HUB)
Subcommittee of the CBOC reviews data on HUB participation
each month, except July and December, and gives a report to the
full CBOC.
o State of Texas HUB certification

• Monitoring of progress
o The district encourages the participation of Historically
Underutilized Businesses (HUBs) in AISD Bond Programs and
provides reports to the board of trustees through the Community
Bond Oversight Committee (CBOC) twice each year.
o The (HUB) Subcommittee of the CBOC reviews data
on HUB participation each month, except July and December, and
gives a report to the full CBOC.
7 FINDINGS (ALL)
Successful supplier diversity programs require
comprehensive internal analysis, objective evaluation,
and structured, time-phased implementation.
7.1 Overall Historically Underutilized Business
Utilization
8.2 Vendor Lists
Vendor Registration form does not clearly
state/capture accurate date for the type(s) of
certified firm that ACC is trying to encourage
the utilization. Reference Appendix 11.2 Exhibit

1 (Vendor Application).
Each buyer in the Purchasing department
(which reports to the Director of Procurement
and Material Management) maintains separate
vendor list according to the type of commodity
purchased by ACC. Internally, there are no
written guidelines specifying how vendors are
placed on individual buyer lists and no written
policy for soliciting Historically Underutilized
Businesses for purchases.
Additionally, ACC does not have a process or
mechanism in place to capture information on
available and capable vendors in the
marketplace willing to do business with ACC.
8.3 Lack of Outreach Effort
After meeting with several vendors and key
stakeholders, it was noted that there was need
on the part of ACC to improve upon its
communication of its upcoming opportunities
and solicitations.
8.4 Solicitation Awareness
Several Chambers complained of lack of
information on upcoming projects and
consistent communication with ACC
Purchasing staff.
8.5 Contract Compliance
Currently, the College relies on its prime
contractors to provide reporting on subcontract
participation. There is no consistency of
tracking and reporting of subcontractor

utilization over the life of each contract.
Contractor certification is not monitored for
expiration or decertification once received
during proposal submission
8.6 Subcontractor Utilization Tracking and Reporting
The College does not currently have a tool in
place to track subcontracting participation. ACC
purchasing staff has been relying on primes to
report on subcontractor participation. This could
lead to inconsistencies and inaccurate reporting
to the Board. In addition, there will be lack of
comprehensive data for future disparity studies.
8.7 Data Management
Contract data is not consistently entered/code
into Colleague U/I by individual purchasers.
There is no standardized coding system.
8.8 Payment Policy
Currently, ACC does not have a policy in place
that addresses prompt payment. ACC provides
payment to its vendors on a net 30 basis, but
does stipulate when those vendors are
expected to pay its subcontractors upon receipt
of payment from ACC. This can lead to
inconsistencies among vendors.
Expedited payments should be implemented to
remove the major barrier to small businesses-
late payments from prime contractors.
Payments to prime contractors would be made
within 15 days of the College receiving an
undisputed invoice, and prime contractors

ACC Utilization Study_Draft

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to ACC Utilization Study_Draft

Similar to ACC Utilization Study_Draft (20)

ACC Utilization Study_Draft