Disparity Study
Findings
February 10, 2026
Study Purpose
2 Government adopted procurement
and equity policies
Departments adhered to the policies
MWBEs are underutilized
Any underutilization is due to
discrimination
Determine if:
Study Parameters
3 Statistical Analysis
Utilization Analysis
Formal and informal prime contracts and subcontracts
Availability Analysis
M/WBE and non-minority contractors domiciled in the City willing and able to perform City contracts
Disparity Analysis
Actual dollars spent (utilization) divided by expected contract dollars (availability) should be at parity
Anecdotal Analysis
Perceptions of willing and able businesses doing business with the City July 1, 2016, to June 30, 2021
Ethnic and gender groups: African Americans, Asian Americans, Hispanic Americans, Native Americans, Caucasian Females, Minority Females, Non-minority Males
Industries studied:
Study Period
Construction
Professional Services
Architectural and Engineering
Goods and Services
Legally Sound Statistical Outcomes
4 Option I.
Parity: Percent $ spent with MWBEs =
MWBEs availability
Option II.
Disparity: Percent $ MWBEs received is
less than the MWBEs availability
Option III.
Discrimination: Disparity is not due
to chance
Key Statistical Findings
Contract Dollars Awarded
Over $486M prime contract dollars awarded
• Policy analysis:
Equity policies and procurement standards were in place • Statistical data:
Department procurement practices deviated from the policy Deviations produced statistically significant underutilization of M/WBEs • Administrative practices linked to discriminatory outcomes • Disparity systemic not simply market-driven
6 Size of the Contracts Awarded
7 70.94% of the City’s prime contracts awarded under $100,000 Size of Contract
Non-minority Minority Total Number
Females Males Females Males
Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Under $5,000 54 2.39% 303 13.38% 16 0.71% 22 0.97% 395 17.45% 17.45% $5,000 - $24,999 59 2.61% 426 18.82% 33 1.46% 56 2.47% 574 25.35% 42.80% $25,000 - $49,999 39 1.72% 272 12.01% 14 0.62% 32 1.41% 357 15.77% 58.57% $50,000 - $99,999 23 1.02% 207 9.14% 17 0.75% 33 1.46% 280 12.37% 70.94% $100,000 - $249,999 27 1.19% 242 10.69% 16 0.71% 37 1.63% 322 14.22% 85.16% $250,000 - $499,999 13 0.57% 104 4.59% 7 0.31% 23 1.02% 147 6.49% 91.65% $500,000 - $999,999 0 0.00% 75 3.31% 5 0.22% 8 0.35% 88 3.89% 95.54% $1,000,000 - $2,999,999 3 0.13% 65 2.87% 1 0.04% 13 0.57% 82 3.62% 99.16% $3,000,000 and greater 0 0.00% 18 0.80% 0 0.00% 1 0.04% 19 0.84% 100.00% Total 218 9.63% 1,712 75.62% 109 4.81% 225 9.94% 2,264 100.00% 200.00% Most Prime Contract Dollars Awarded to Few Contractors
8 59 businesses awarded 50% of the dollars in each industry Industry Highly Used
Businesses
Total
Dollars
Percent
of Dollars
Construction 4 $107,997,979 50%
Architectural and Engineering 7 $14,306,457 50%
Professional Services 14 $39,450,573 50%
Goods and Services 34 $82,319,613 50%
Discretionary Procurement Circumvented Competition
9 Emergency contracts, on-call contracts, and cooperative agreements = Preferential Treatment Industry
On-Call Contracts Emergency Contracts COOP Contracts
Number of
Vendors
Number of
Contracts
Amount of
Dollars
Percent of
All Dollars
Number of
Vendors
Number of
Contracts
Amount of
Dollars
Percent of
All Dollars
Number of
Vendors
Number of
Contracts
Amount of
Dollars
Percent of
All Dollars
Construction 20 36 $39,371,947 18.34% 12 21 $10,690,858 4.98% 9 28 $5,940,329 2.77% Architectural and
Engineering 44 67 $12,970,803 45.37% 2 2 $2,743,437 9.60% 3 4 $198,682 0.70% Professional Services 43 68 $22,204,891 28.15% 11 16 $11,404,620 14.46% 25 45 $12,738,972 16.15% Goods and Services 6 9 $1,411,506 0.86% 58 86 $21,145,675 12.85% 270 609 $97,625,305 59.31% Total 180 $75,959,148 15.61% 125 $45,984,590 9.45% 686 $116,503,288 23.94% Industry
Preferential Treatment Contracts
Number of
Vendors
Number of
Contracts
Amount of
Dollars
Percent of
All Dollars
Construction 31 66 $45,558,862 21.23%
Architectural and Engineering 47 71 $13,169,485 46.07%
Professional Services 66 115 $34,264,922 43.44%
Goods and Services 293 648 $102,938,641 62.54%
Total 900 $195,931,911 40.26%
Disparity Highest Where Oversight is Weakest
10 Low-Dollar Contracts with High Discriminatory Impact • Informal no bid prime contracts valued at $50,000 and under are58.88% of all awarded contracts and 4.56% of the dollars
• Informal construction contracts are 3.68 percent of all awarded informal contracts and 4.3% of the dollars
• Goods and Services are 74.72 percent of all awarded informal contracts and 63.95 percent of the dollars Total dollars MWBEs lost on informal no bid contracts is $3,003,079 (13.54%) Informal Contracts Produced the Highest Disparity Rates Low-Dollar Contracts and High Discriminatory Impact
Disparity Documentedfor Informal Goods and Service Contracts Valued at $50,000 and under 11 Largest disparity where oversight was weakest
Non-minority male
businesses:
67.97% availability
82.36% utilization –
statistically
significant
overutilization
Women-owned
businesses:
15.22% availability
10.23% utilization –
statistically
significant
underutilization
African American
businesses:
13.31% availability
1.35% utilization –
statistically
significant
underutilization
Asian American
businesses
:
6.91% availability
5.23% utilization –
statistically
significant
underutilization
Hispanic American
businesses
:
4.74% availability
3.11% utilization –
statistically
significant
underutilization
Informal Contracts Produced the Highest Disparities
Low-Dollar Contracts and High Discriminatory Impact
Disparity Documentedfor Informal Construction Contracts Valued at $50,000 and under 12 Largest disparity where oversight was weakest
Non-minority male businesses :
58.75% availability
74.13% utilization—
statistically significant
overutilization
Women-owned businesses :
10.89% availability
1.90% utilization—
statistically significant
underutilization
African American businesses :
19.11% availability
2.45% utilization—
statistically significant
underutilization
13 Good and Services
Construction
Architectural and Engineering
Professional Services
Ethnicity Actual Dollars Expected Dollars Dollars Lost
African Americans $31,000 $93,854 -$62,854
Non-minority Males $534,701 $609,009 -$74,308
TOTAL $565,701 $702,864 -$137,162
Ethnicity Actual Dollars Expected Dollars Dollars Lost
African Americans $518,722 $754,357 -$235,635
Asian Americans $336,642 $507,027 -$170,385
Hispanic Americans $222,885 $234,964 -$12,079
Native Americans $0 $12,367 -$12,367
Non-minority Males $3,778,345 $3,813,009 -$34,664
TOTAL $4,856,594 $5,321,723 -$465,130
Informal Prime Contract Under $50,000 - Dollars Lost
Ethnicity Actual Dollars Expected Dollars Dollars Lost
African Americans $23,326 $182,208 -$158,882
Native Americans $0 $1,703 -$1,703
Caucasian Females $18,094 $54,492 -$36,398
TOTAL $41,420 $238,403 -$196,983
Ethnicity Actual Dollars Expected Dollars Dollars Lost
African Americans $191,836 $1,887,461 -$1,695,625
Asian Americans $740,919 $979,120 -$238,201
Hispanic Americans $440,741 $672,408 -$231,667
Native Americans $47,232 $58,983 -$11,751
TOTAL $1,373,495 $3,538,988 -$2,165,493
Formal Prime Contracts Disparity Findings – Dollars Lost 14 Construction
Goods and Services
Professional Services
Architectural and Engineering
Ethnicity Actual Dollars Expected Dollars Dollars Lost
African Americans $3,407,173 $4,937,258 -$1,530,086
Asian Americans $2,844,687 $3,318,485 -$473,798
Hispanic Americans $1,161,556 $1,537,835 -$376,279
Native Americans $0 $80,939 -$80,939
TOTAL $7,413,416 $9,874,517 -$2,461,101
Ethnicity Actual Dollars Expected Dollars Dollars Lost
African Americans $628,658 $22,173,158 -$21,544,499
Asian Americans $4,511,277 $8,496,257 -$3,984,980
Native Americans $0 $207,226 -$207,226
Caucasian Females $83,028 $6,631,225 -$6,548,197
TOTAL $5,222,963 $37,507,865 -$32,284,902
Ethnicity Actual Dollars Expected Dollars Dollars Lost
African Americans $1,089,921 $9,739,886 -$8,649,966
Asian Americans $4,737,914 $5,052,566 -$314,652
Hispanic Americans $2,531,970 $3,469,834 -$937,864
Native Americans $0 $304,371 -$304,371
Caucasian Females $3,368,223 $4,869,943 -$1,501,720
TOTAL $11,728,028 $23,436,601 -$11,708,573
Ethnicity Actual Dollars Expected Dollars Dollars Lost
African Americans $0 $1,015,484 -$1,015,484
Hispanic Americans $460,130 $586,724 -$126,594
TOTAL $460,130 $1,602,208 -$1,142,078
Subcontract Disparity Findings – Dollars Lost
15 Construction
Professional Services
Architectural and Engineering
Ethnicity Actual Dollars Expected Dollars Dollars Lost
African Americans $755,675 $5,330,005 -$4,574,330
Caucasian Females $3,615,420 $3,738,673 -$123,253
Non-minority Males $20,289,615 $21,415,885 -$1,126,270
TOTAL $24,660,710 $30,484,563 -$5,823,853
Ethnicity Actual Dollars Expected Dollars Dollars Lost
African Americans $117,815 $686,840 -$569,025
Asian Americans $385,319 $459,910 -$74,591
Hispanic Americans $37,000 $272,315 -$235,315
Native Americans $0 $9,077 -$9,077
Caucasian Females $440,579 $577,913 -$137,334
TOTAL $980,713 $2,006,056 -$1,025,343
Ethnicity Actual Dollars Expected Dollars Dollars Lost
African Americans $6,376 $300,271 -$293,894
Asian Americans $175,620 $200,642 -$25,022
Hispanic Americans $85,500 $113,466 -$27,966
Native Americans $0 $6,919 -$6,919
TOTAL $267,496 $621,297 -$353,801
Total Dollars Lost By Ethnicity and Gender
16 Ethnicity
Informal Contracts Formal Contracts Subcontracts All Contract Types Dollars Lost Dollars Lost Dollars Lost Total Dollars Lost African Americans -$3,105,626 -$32,740,034 -$5,437,249 -$41,282,909 Asian Americans -$190,976 -$4,589,732 $836,252 -$3,944,456 Hispanic Americans -$353,969 $16,545,510 $4,402,179 ---- Native Americans -$25,821 -$592,536 $206,532 -$411,824
Caucasian Females $673,312 -$6,689,934 -$2,189 -$6,018,810 Availability Not the Problem
17 Availability analysis confirmed that:
M/WBEs had comparable capacityto non-M/WBEs
Median revenue between M/WBEs and non-M/WBEs differed by less than $15,000in each industry
Federally Assisted
Contracts
18 Federally Assisted Caltrans Contracts
19 Failure to meet Caltrans DBE goal
• The City was obligated to award DBEs the maximum feasible portion of Caltrans’ USDOT-approved 17.06% DBE goal
• Only 2.16% of all dollars awarded on contracts with USDOT financial assistance were awarded to certified DBEs
Certification Category Number
of Contracts
Percent
of Contracts
Amount
of Dollars
Percent
of Dollars
Oakland DBEs 4 6.06% $967,489 2.16%
DBEs Outside Oakland 0 0.00% $0 0.00%
Non-DBEs 62 93.94% $43,911,809 97.84%
TOTAL 66 100.00% $44,879,298 100.00%
Federally Assisted Contracts Subject to Title VI
20 Disparity in the award of contracts with federal financial assistance Ethnicity Total Payments
Percent of
Total
Payments Availability Expected Dollars Dollars Lost
African Americans $1,082,103 0.97% 12.05% $13,507,575 -$12,425,471 Asian Americans $4,044,095 3.61% 7.30% $8,175,637 -$4,131,542 Hispanic Americans $5,890,663 5.26% 4.62% $5,173,954 $716,709 Native Americans $47,232 0.04% 0.21% $236,975 -$189,743 Caucasian Females $5,398,201 4.82% 8.64% $9,676,479 -$4,278,278 Non-minority Males $95,587,381 85.31% 67.18% $75,279,056 $20,308,325 TOTAL $112,049,675 100.00% 100.00% $112,049,675
19.52% of prime contracts had federal assistance and represented 23.02% of prime contract dollars awarded Contracts
Number
of Contracts
Awarded
Percent
of All Contracts
Awarded
Total Dollars
Awarded
Percent
of Total Dollars
Awarded
Federally Assisted
Prime Contracts 442 19.52% $112,049,675 23.02%
Non-Federally
Assisted Prime
Contracts
1,822 80.48% $374,656,232 76.98%
No Evidence of Title VI Compliance
Local and Small
Local Business
Enterprise Program
22 L/SLBE Prime Contract Awards
Local and Small Local Business Enterprise Program Implementation Industry
L/SLBE Certified Firms
Number of
Contracts
Percent of
All Contracts
Amount of
Dollars Awarded
Percent of
All Dollars
Construction 137 71.73% $183,447,504 85.47%
Architectural and
Engineering 68 60.71% $16,692,444 58.39%
Professional Services 101 22.10% $17,615,545 22.33%
Goods and Services 52 3.46% $9,500,002 5.77%
Total 358 15.81% $227,255,496 46.69%
23 Local and Small Local Business Participation by Race and Ethnicity Ethnicity and Gender
Contracts Awarded to L/SLBE Certified Firms
Number
Contracts
Percent
All Contracts
Amount
Dollars
Percent
All Dollars
African Americans 22 0.97% $3,043,051 0.63%
Asian Americans 33 1.46% $6,612,726 1.36%
Hispanic Americans 50 2.21% $30,252,691 6.22%
Native Americans 0 0.00% $0 0.00%
Caucasian Females 56 2.47% $9,509,734 1.95%
Non-minority Males 197 8.70% $177,837,293 36.54%
TOTAL 358 15.81% $227,255,496 46.69%
Waiver Provision Undermined L/SLBE Program Integrity
24 Impact:
• Routine waiver approval neutralized L/SLBE participation goals • Waiver overuse directly correlated with statistically significant underutilization findings Outcomes:
Departments submitted 128 L/SLBE waiver requestsduring the study period
77.34% Approved
18.75% Denied
3.9% Reduced
Findings
25 Key Program Findings
26 City adopted procurement and equity policies were designed to ensure fair access Departments:
Exercised discretion without guardrails Approved waivers as a routine practice Failed to enforce prime contract
compliance requirements
Exercised preferential treatment in
awarding no-bid contracts
City’s Policy Sound - Departmental Practices Not
Failure to Enforce Subcontractor Payment Provisions
Policy Requirement
• Prime contractors were required to:
Submit subcontractor payment reports
with each invoice
Pay subcontractors within20 business
days
• Departments were responsible for verifying
compliance
27 Documented Outcomes
• Subcontractors reported:
Missing or nonexistent payment
reports
Payments delayed up to 12 months
Policy Existed, Enforcement Did Not
• Delayed payment is a material barrier to MWBE
participation and business sustainability
Procurement Policy Framework vs. Implementation
• Oakland Municipal Code Chapter 2.04 authorized:
Competitive procurement as the default method
Contract approval thresholds for Council and City Administrator Application of L/SLBE participation goals for all contracts 28 • Departments required to adopt Standard Operating Procedures Only two departmentsprovided SOPs for review during the study period • Departments operated with personal “checkbooks"
• Lack of written guidance or executive oversight created inconsistent application of equity and procurement requirements across departments
Controls Existed, but Compliance Did Not
Non-Compliance Produced Discrimination
29 MARKET FORCES DID NOT EXPLAIN THE OBSERVED OUTCOMES
ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION-MAKING DID…
Economic Impact of Procurement Practices
30 • Two decades, four disparity studies, and African Americans and Woman-owned businesses’ disparity persists
• SLBE program, established in 2003 –a quarter of a century ago –is still ineffective Most MWBEs did not receive their fair share of city-funded contracts • Over 50 percent of the City’s prime contract dollars awarded to 27 businesses who controlled most subcontract awards
• Nearly 65 percent of the City’s prime contracts were awarded to non- Oakland businesses
• Direct loss of revenue to Oakland businesses and business tax to the City • Indirect loss of sales and property taxes, increased commercial office vacancies, and empty retail space
Good Procurement Policy but Poor Enforcement
3131
Consultant Recommendations
Consultant Recommendations
32 Increase Local and Small Local Business Enterprise Program Accountability • Structure and Enhance the Certification Process
• Include Subcontracting Provisions
• Publish Standard Operating Procedures
• Eliminate L/SLBE Waiver
• Apply the L/SLBE Requirements to Cooperative Agreements and On-Call Contracts Assess Penalties for Failure to Achieve L/SLBE Subcontract Goals • Compliance reviews should occur throughout the term of the contract Verify Participation and Require Approval to Substitute Listed L/SLBE Subcontractors • Listed subcontractor should perform the work unless the City approves a substitution • Any substitutions should be approved in writing by the project manager and DWES
Consultant Recommendations
33 Conduct an L/SLBE Program Outreach and Marketing Campaign • New program goals and objectives should be promoted through extensive outreach and marketing.
Develop a Contract Opportunities Forecast to Provide Adequate Lead Time When Advertising Solicitations • Solicitations should be advertised with a minimum of six weeks’ notice to allow for competitive response • Annually publish a 6-12 month contract opportunities forecast Establish Dispute Resolution Standards
• A protocol for formal contract dispute resolution should be established • An ombudsperson with procurement experience should be engaged to facilitate the resolution process
Consultant Recommendations
34 Publish Prime Contractor Payments
• Prime contractor payments should be published on the City's website, and the site should be updated weekly or bi-weekly on the same day and time, allowing prime contractors, subcontractors and suppliers to monitor invoice approvals and payment status Provide Debriefing Sessions for Unsuccessful Bidders and Proposers • Proceedings of the evaluation committee should be made available for inspection at the time the intent to award is published
Produce Quarterly L/SLBE and M/WBE Utilization Reports
• An independent monitor should prepare quarterly utilization reports documenting contract awards and L/SLBE/M/WBE prime and subcontractor participation
• The information should be reported by the department
• All waivers granted should be reported
Specific Race and Gender Remedies Post 209
35 Apply Caltrans DBE
Goals to USDOT
Comply with Title VI
Requirements
Reflect the City’s Business
Community’s Ethnic and Gender
Makeup on Selection Panels and
Publish Evaluator Scores
Apply an Independent Lens to
Determine Discrimination or Use
of Preferences in the Procurement
and Contracting Process
36 Thank You