1 Attached please find the transcript of the online chat room associated with the Department’s December

5, 2013 public listening session for the proposed rule that would amend various aspects of the

Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) program. Further details on the listening session can be found

at the Federal Register notice announcing the meeting (78 FR 68016), the agenda of the meeting, and

the official transcript of the meeting, all of which may be found in this docket. The video recording of

the listening session can be viewed at: https://connectdot.connectsolutions.com/p1keddvwzbb/

.2 Transcript of Online Chat Room for December 5, 2013 DBE Public Listening Session

Eddie Cruz: (12/5/2013 11:34) what is the toll free number and pin to enter the conference Eddie Cruz

VIA??

Yvonne Schuman 2: (11:34) How will web participants be able to speak? will their audio be turned on?

Jeffery Pretti, DOT: (11:35) Eddie Cruz, you should be able to hear the participants in the listening

session through your computer speakers. There is no teleconference line necessary.

Fran Weaver: (11:35) I think you have to dial in to be heard

Darla Carroll: (11:36) I am having audio issues and wonder if a transcript of the conference will be

available after the conference?

Jeffery Pretti, DOT: (11:36) Yvonne Schuman, web participants are able to submit their comments to

the docket directly through this chat environment (which is being recorded) or via the modes outlined in

the NPRM

JWade: (11:37) I would like them to change the Uniform Reporting from "completed contracts" to

"payments made".

christina perez: (11:37) IL UE firms are actually paying 100K for administrative assistance to complete

the form. The application process is designed to ensure qualified minority and women owned firms are

provided an opportunity to participate on government assisted contracts. The forms aked for

information that validate the individuals are who they say they are and deviating from the current

process would only open the

Jeffery Pretti, DOT: (11:37) Darla Carroll, I'm sorry you are having audio issues. I will attempt to find

that answer for you.

Laura Cote: (11:37) The volume is very low and I'm having trouble hearing. I'm hoping that the

microphones for the web can be turned up?

Eddie Phillips: (11:38) Yes, I concur on the volume. Please turn up.

KATHRYN MARTURANO: (11:38) I am having audio issues as well (the volume on my computer is maxed

out and I am still having troubles hearing)>

Laura Custance: (11:38) volume is low

‐ please speaker louder

Fran Weaver: (11:38) I have the same volume problem, but am using the closed caption feature

Kathryn Bique: (11:38) Can a copy of the transcript be sent to participants? I had trouble logging in and

missed some of the speakers. Thanks.

Thiane Edwards: (11:38) I also had volume issues...I turned up the volume on my computer, my

speakers as well as the menu option at the top of this screen

Ross Mitchell: (11:39) Eddie call me I have a link for you

christina perez: (11:39) program don't understand how it should be administered.

Carla Brown: (11:39) Disabled Veterans are now included in the Minority for DBEs?

JWade: (11:40) That may be particular to Geogia3 Eric Davis: (11:40) In response to Topic 1, I agree with Kenneth Canty and Leslie Saunders, the

paperwork is extremely time consuming and redundant. Each state requires the same information there

should be no need to fill out 50 different forms for the same information.

Sonia Cantu, McAllen International Airport: (11:40) If the speakers could speak louder it would really be

helpful. My audio is also maxed.

guest 3: (11:40) They are not, last time I checked (Ben Baftiu MDOT)

Dana Shaffer 2: (11:40) Simplify the ongoing recertification process for existing DBE/UDBE companies.

Do not set a time limit to remain in the program but monitor for fraud and abuse throught the recert

requirements. Penalizing legitimate DBE/UDBE by limiting particpation.

Jeffery Pretti, DOT: (11:40) The microphones do not have volume controls. Following one of the other

commenters, we recommend checking your system settings to ensure the volume is turned up.

Alternatively, another commenter made a comment about the close captioning, which will be available

throughout the listening session.

Yvonne Schuman 2: (11:41) NDOT supports the collection of data required by the various forms. We

suggest and support the implementation of a single uniform application to eliminate the concerns raised

today by some speakers. That application should be available online and accessible to all UCPs. We

recognize there may be some costs or burdens to applicants, but overall, the application requests

information that should be readily available to the applicant and we believe necessary to ensure that

only eligible firms are certified.

Vijay Deodhar, 3D InFusion: (11:41) In today's day and age of technology, it is extremely easy to create

a central common repository of PNW and other forms which other states can access if a DBE application

comes up for renewal or someone is applying in different state. It is absolutely rediculous to have 50

different ways of gathering the same information and coming to same conclusion. If putting personal

highly confidenctial information out in the world is risky enough in today's "identiy theft" age, can you

imagine how much difficulty and risk the DBE's exposing to if they decide to do it every year and at so

many places if they are certified in multiple states?

Dana Shaffer 2: (11:42) sorry Penalizing legitimate UDBE/DBE by setting time limits in the program is

not a solution

Paul Diederich: (11:42) Paul Diederich, Industrial Builders, Inc.

Eddie Phillips: (11:43) Yes, please check your controls and turn up the master volume for the web so

that we can choose to lower on our individula controls if necessary. At the moment I am maxed on both

controls and it is very hard to hear.

Eric Davis: (11:44) Much of the information regarding including tax returns is also repetitive. For

instance, each year an update if required, which includes the prior 3 years of individual and corporate

tax returns. An online system that maintains this data should eliminate the need for a DBE that has been

in the program to have to resubmit tax documents that were submitted in the prior year.

Kevin Weeden: (11:44) I think that the PNW forms and the certification application forms are not cost

‐

effective as they now stand. The forms need to be revised as far as the information that is requested. I

also think that the form should be digitized and the information requested should be able to be

collected electronically. The information submitted should be secured.

Randy Liljenberg: (11:44) CDOT would like to comment on the proposed changes to the semi

‐ annual

report. If modifications are made to this report, it will create significant financial costs for our agency.4 We support changes, but believe they should be thoughtfully and rarely made because of the cost of

updating and implementing new technology to adjust to the reporting requirements.

Eddie Cruz: (11:45) Thanks it is my audion and i can now hear audio

... VIA

Araceli Gonzales: (11:45) We have asked the panel and the facilitators to speak up! thank you for your

patience.

Shelton: (11:45) Comment from Shelton A. Russell, Evolution Supportive Services, LLC, DBE Firm from

North Carolina...My comment is that although I give and exact cost of completing the DBE certification

forms, it certainly takes me at least a full day to assemble all of the forms and then time for

correspodence between the certifying entity. This time estimate is probably low compared to much

larger DBE firms. However, since every state has there own process and forms, it would baasically takke

me 50+ days to get certified accross the country (also a very conservative estimate). This should not be

the case give the standardized forms and identical nature of the program accross the states. There has

to be a better way to ensure certification integrity while not causing unneccessary burden to firms that

are clearly eligible for the program. I would like to be certified in all states, but it is not economically

feasible for me to do so.

Eleonor Oshitoye: (11:46) My video is frozen

Kathryn Bique: (11:46) Mine is frozen also.

Carla Brown: (11:46) Yes

Eleonor Oshitoye: (11:46) Thank you

DeLores Perez: (11:46) Mine is frozen as well

Kathryn Bique: (11:47) Thanks, it is working now.

JWade: (11:47) Randy, I think the Semi

‐ Annual report should be modified to account for "payments

made" during the relevant period, rather "completed contracts". What do you think?

Carla Brown: (11:47) I agree JWade

Darla Carroll: (11:47) My video and audio are continuing to freeze since the very beginning of the

conference

‐ thus a transcipt will be essential to get the full understanding of the conference.

Thiane Edwards: (11:48) I agree JWade...there may be a space for contracts completed, but the truly

relevant info is payments made

christina perez: (11:48) can the facilitator asked commentors to stick to the topic.

Kim Smith: (11:48) Kim Smith, City of Huntsville, AL, topic 1, addressing something a commentor

suggested that a mentoring program should be across the board for every DBE program. As a small

agency we do not have the staff to devote time to an effective mentoring program.

DeLores Perez: (11:49) I agree JWade, some of reporting reflects on those that are closed out and some

of those are as old as 1999 in some instances

JWade: (11:49) When an agency is completing contracts that last more than 5 years, that means

agencies would not receive DBE credit until 5 years after award. That is not accurate tracking and does

not help FTA determine if an agency is utilizing DBE's.

JWade: (11:51) That also does not fit with the Triennial reviews.

Rowena Altaha: (12/5/2013 12:54) Good morning This is Rowena Altaha from C2PM5 Bryna Helfer 2: (12:57) we are now opening the chat room for Topic 2: What are the specific

, quantifiable costs and benfits associated wtih requiring certificied DBE to submit additional documents..

Bryna Helfer 2: (12:58) please identify your name and affiliation. also, please be sure that you focus on

topic 2....thank you

Reggie Nunnally: (12:58) My name is Reggie Nunnally, Executive Director of the Massachusetts Supplier

Diversity Office, the MBE/WBE certifying entity for the Commonwealth, sub recipient to the Mass

Department of Transportation for DBE certification and coalition member of the New England Summit, a

collection of states including Connecticut, Maine, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Vermont and

Massachusetts. If in fact we have a national program with one set of regulations, one set of policy and

procedures, a standardized application, that basically indicates that all applicant must go through the

same procedures for certification. These procedures indicate that all firms seeking certification outside

of their home state must first be certified in their home state. If this holds true why is it not true that if

a DBE firm loses or fails to maintain their DBE certification status in their home state why aren’t they

automatically found ineligible for the program in any state they have received DBE status. The

certification units aroun

Yvonne Schuman 2: (12:58) NDOT only requests the most recent year taxes with the AONC as we have

the prior year taxes already. We think it is important to continue to require that documentation for us to

analyze the continued eligibility of the DBE. We cannot tell you how many times the tax returns have

told a different story than the DBE. We believe the benefits of continuing to collect that data outweigh

any costs to DBEs.

Timothy Warren: (12:59) Timothy Warren, City of Houston, Topic 1: Certifying Agencies would incur

additional costs associated with reviewing the proposed forms (PNW and Certification Application). The

additional costs would be centered around the training of staff to review and evaluate the forms

properly and the recruitment of additional staff with the necessary expertise to review the proposed

forms. Quantifiable costs are unknown.

Timothy Warren: (12:59) Timothy Warren, City of Houston, Topic 2: Certifying Agencies would ensure

that firms maintain eligibility by reviewing updated (personal tax returns and updated PNW

information). Without this safeguard as a part of the annual no change process, ineligible firms could

remain in the program and place sponsors and recipients at risk by allowing ineligible firms to remain in

the program and potentially continue to benefit from the program beyond its eligibility period.

Quantifiable costs are unknown.

Yvonne Schuman 2: (13:00) NDOT concurs with the comments of Timothy Warren on this topic.

Lisa Fresquez WYDOT: (13:01) Lisa Fresquez Wyoming DOT DBE Program Coordinator. There could be a

centralized location that would be managed by USDOT/FHWA that states could upload certification

information too that would eliminate the redundancy for contractors to submit the same

documentation to each state. Also if FHWA provided oversight in the certifications that are being

completed my hope would be that fraud would be eliminated prior to Supreme Court decisions and

billions of dollars in fraud. If the program regulations are requiring a Uniform Certification then one

certification from a home state should suffice. It would then be the responsibility of the oversight

agency to verify that each state is certifying only DBE firms. With all the technology available today there

has got to be a better way to manage these certifications from state to state. It is not my responsibility

as a State DBE program coordinator to oversee the certification process from other states. We need to

simplify regulatory requirements not add more.6 Eric Davis: (13:02) Unfortunately many other states are apparently not structured like NDOT

recognizing that they have prior year returns. If others would be as organized the process would be so

much easier.

Loring Danielson: (13:05) If Certifgication was National, as a requirement of the program to sign off on

checking against personal and corporate tax returns, would make it less complicated, and easily

verifyable. Individual states will only know what happened in each state. It wouls also be easier for all

the states and dbes to apply once, plus credit could more easily be given to contracors who qualify,

because it would all ready be accepted once.

Derek Sakaguchi 2: (13:05) lots of echoing on the audio

Loring Danielson: (13:05) Also Reduce the burden of Certifying agencies.

Reggie Nunnally: (13:07) My name is Reggie Nunnally, Executive Director of the Massachusetts Supplier

Diversity Office, the MBE/WBE certifying entity for the Commonwealth, sub recipient to the Mass

Department of Transportation for DBE certification. The cost for housing the increased documentation

will uldoubtably increase the cost of operations. Depending on the real estate market a UCP could pay

any where from $18.00

‐ $24 per square foot to store the information. The program must move in the

direction of a national centralization of DBE documents that would make the procesing of information

more efficient for all states to reveiw.

Brittany Goode

‐ MMT: (13:09) My name is Brittany Goode, DBE Liaison Officer for the City of Colorado

Springs, Mountain Metropolitan Transit and I agree that there should be a national UCP which would

increase the efficiency and effectiveness of the DBE Program overall.

Derek Sakaguchi 2: (13:10) we can't hear them speaking

Tonya Doyle

‐ Bicy: (13:11) Tonya Doyle: MDOT

‐‐ electronic filing systems would solve any storage

problems. The problem I find with a national UCP is that the levels of agency staffing and certification

decision knowledge varies greatly across the country.

Yvonne Schuman 2: (13:11) Could not hear the new panelists are.

Bryna Helfer 2: (13:12) we are going to keep the chat room open during the break. we will return in 30

minutes for TOPIC 3. Please specify your name and affiliation and the TOPIC you are addressing in your

comment. Please keep comments on separate topics

‐‐ separate. so Topic 2: specific comment. thank

you

Sophia Soler: (13:12) I have been experiencing chopy audio, the sound goes in and out.

Jeffery Pretti, DOT: (13:12) The new panel members are Nicole McWhorter from FHWA and Wilbur

Barham from FAA

Brittany Goode

‐ MMT: (13:12) Certifying knowledge and training should be the same since this is a

federal program

Shuchi: (13:15) Shuchi Nagpal, SMWBE Program, Small Business Office, City of San Antonio

J: (13:15) Justin Talbot

‐ Stern

‐‐ A national UCP would certainly streamline the process for multi

‐ state

DBE firms and related staff. However, the firms with multi

‐ state certification represent a small portion

of the total DBE directory (about 20%

‐ 30%). Another item to consider is that many firms wish to only do

business in their local area. The UCP agency they certify with might also offer MBE, WBE, SBE, etc.

credentials (for example, a city's program) and by applying through that agency, the firm is able to

obtain all relevant types in a single step. To apply nationally could actually require two application and7 negatively impact the 70%

‐ 80% of firms that don't seek multi

‐ state certification (although I will admit

that the lack of multi

‐ state status is likely due to the time required).

Bryna Helfer 2: (13:16) just a reminder

‐‐ that we are taking a 30 minute break at 2pm. for Topic 3.

However, we are leaving the chat room open

‐‐ so you can offer your comments on Topics 1 OR 2 right

now. Plesae specify your name, affiliation

, and specific topic you are addressing.

. THANK YOU

Loring Danielson: (13:17) IF the DBE was required to get a business license in the prospective state

(which they would have to do anyway) or they would not be considered a candiadate in that state is

one way to organize it.

Randy Liljenberg: (13:28) As we noted in our original comments to the NPRM, CDOT favors

federalizing/centralizing certification under USDOT. That would solve two problems

‐ different

interpretations of facts and the Regulation by the numerous certifying agencies across the country and

the burden imposed on firms seeking to apply outside their home state. Regarding interstate

certification, CDOT is concerned about recent guidance received from USDOT. That guidance appears to

limit our ability to request documents from out

‐ of

‐ state applicants that aid in conducting a thorough

eligibiliy review of firms whose certification is questionable. If that is the position the Department is

going to take, it must take affirmative steps to ensure that the home

‐ state UCP/certifying agency has

obtained all relevant documentation.

Mark Dougherty, AGC of North Dakota: (13:31) Mark Dougherty, AGC of North Dakota: Based on my 11

years of experience working with DBEs and Non

‐ DBEs in North Dakota, the best times we've had in

meeting goals and having very little controversy has been when little or no change has been made to the

program. The USDOT has to be very sure the changes they make to these programs are extremely

necessary due to the very real unitended consequence of all changes. We have lost good DBE

participation due to these types of changes. Please keep in mind, you have goals required for this

program and if you keep moving the target how is anyone expected to hit the marK?

Merka Flynn: (13:35) Merka Flynn Ohio Department of Transportation. In order to eliminate the

problem (perceived and actual) of "too many cooks in the kitchen" regarding the actual certifiation

process, my collegues and I suggest that FHWA, FTA and FAA assume the role of certifying entity. This

woiuld allow the STate DOTs to concentrate on the post certification compliance that was mentioned

earlier as lacking.

Brittany Goode

‐ MMT: (13:39) I would have to agree with Randy and Mark. You have some certifying

agencies on both ends of the spectrum and therefore if an agency that follows a strict certifying regimen

requests more documentation because the certification is questionable it should be able to do so with

backing from USDOT which is why a federal centralized certification program would be beneficial. In

regards to Mark's comment

‐ a moving target can't be hit the majority of the time. I have heard from

eligible potential DBEs that they'd rather not bother becoming certified.

Bryna Helfer 2: (13:44) Thank you for your comments on Topic 1 and 2. We are going to now shift

attentino to Topic 3. we ask that you focus your comments on Topic 3 at this time: what are the specific

,quanntifable costs and benefits associated with requiring good faith efforts documentation when bids

are due adn requiring additional documetns....

Bryna Helfer 2: (13:44) thank you. Please remember to identify yourself with name and affiliation also.

many thanks

Michael Sturino: (13:58) What organization is the current speaker with?

Merka Flynn: (14:00) Merka Flynn Ohio DOT,. Mr. Ashby wrote the regs.....8 Darla Carroll: (14:00) Has it been determined if we will be able to get a transcript of this conference

and it's speakers?

maryanne hruby: (14:00) It's not clear what organization the speaker represents.

Yvonne Schuman 2: (14:00) NDOT concurs with Bob Ashby's comments on Topic #3

christina perez: (14:01) Il UCP concurs with Bbo Ashby on Question # 3

Randy Liljenberg: (14:03) Katherine Williams (CDOT): In recently rewriting its DBE contract provisions,

CDOT discussed the proposed change of requiring all documentation with the bid with the Colorado

Contractors Association. The primary concern was requiring the DBE commitment confirmation with the

bid. There is not sufficient time before bid to select the DBE and receives. We currently require DBEs to

be selected but not confirmed before the bid. We want the DBEs to have the best opportunity to

participate in the contract. Requiring a confirmation before bid may result in the DBE not being selected

because they have not yet returned the confirmation documentation.

Yvonne Schuman 2: (14:06) NDOT agrees that DBE commitment should be allowed to be submitted

within a reasonable time after bid, e.g. 3 days, but not other DBE documentation.

Randy Liljenberg: (14:13) CDOT concurs that there needs to be flexibility for innovative contracts such

as design build, etc.

Yvonne Schuman 2: (14:14) NDOT concurs that a different approach is required for alternative delivery

projects.

Jeffery Pretti, DOT: (14:14) Thank you for your patience. The transcript of this listening session will be

shared.

Kevin Duris: (14:19) Kevin Duris, Trumbull Corporation, contractor hedquartered in PA with work in PA,

OH, MD and WVA. We totally agree with Dragados comments as these additional documents would

increase our costs of submitting bids, take additional time, require owner to hire more people to review

without any benefit to the contractor. On a typcial $15M bid, we received 108 quotes from subs and

suppliers that amounted to 329 pages. These pages would be extremely burdensome to submit with

the bid. Some quotes are received minutes before the bid due time and some are verbally changed up to

that bid due time. Since some of these quotes are received close to the bid due time, they are not

reviewed completely and may need additional review after the bid due time. It is common practice to

review most quotes from subs and suppliers after the bid, if we are low bidder, to understand their

scope and make sure we are comparing quotes with the same scope.

Paul Diederich: (14:23) Paul Diederich, Industrail Builders, Inc. The NDDOT often has bid lettings where

our firm submits bids on 10 or more projects that are all due at 9:30 am. In addition to the increased

staffing required in order for us to contact the DBEs and obtain their written concurrence as to the

amount and value of the work the we commit to use on the morning of the letting, which will

undoubtedly increase payroll costs, the risk of having low bids which utilize the maximum percentage of

DBE participation being considered non

‐ responsive and rejected because they lack the written

confirmation from the DBE will also potentially increase the cost of the project because of the NDDOT

having to award to the second or third highest bidder.Additionally, many of the very busy and well

‐ qualified DBE firms most likely would not have the ability to respond to all of the prime contractor

requests for written concurrence in the proposed very short prior to bid letting timeframe, because they

are currently required to provide similar

Paul Diederich: (14:23) Paul Diederich IBI continued provide similar concurrence within 5 days after the

bid letting and that is often difficult to accomplish now. I urge you not to adopt the requirement of9 including all of the GFE and subcontractor concurrence documentation with the bid; instead allow this

information to be submitted within a reasonable timeframe after the bid letting.

Dianne Holte: (14:24) Dianne Holte, Holte Contracting, Inc.: As a DBE I do not want "DBE listed at time

of letting". It takes away my ability to negotiate. Please do not implement this. It would hurt rather

than help me. 95% of the work I do is DOT as a subcontractor.

Jason Koss: (14:28) Jason Koss, Constructors Association of Western Pennsylvania, Denying the prime

contractor the time to fully evaluate DBE subcontractors’ quotes post

‐ bid may lead primes to reject

incomplete or potentially inaccurate quotes and to just focus on meeting the minimum DBE contract

goal. Often times, the time spent on going back to mutually clarify quotes leads to increased DBE

participation, which is an opportunity that will be lost if these proposed changes are implemented. This

will inevitably lead to the opposite intent of the DBE program, which is less DBE utilization. It is for

these many reasons that we strongly oppose the listing of DBE’s and the summary of the subcontracts

with the bid.

Eric Davis: (14:29) Eric Davis, DLR Distributors, agrees with Rene Banks in consideration of an equal

distribution of the DBE goal across all disciplines in a contract.

Bob Schafer: (14:31) Good points by Jason Koss. I agree.

Yvonne Schuman 2: (14:33) NDOT believes the current rules do not provide us with the tools to require

contractors to utilize DBEs across disciplines, or even to ensure that minority DBEs are considered in

meeting a DBE project goal. A chnage to the rule that provides that tool or give STAs the flexibility to do

that on their own would be very helpful in reducing issues of over

‐ concentration and over

‐ utilization.

Theresa Kern: (14:42) Theresa Kern: I am a DBE subcontractor in the State of Illnois. A year or two ago,

the rules were changed in Illinois which required the Prime Contractors to attach their DBE Utilization

Plan to their estimate at the time their bid is presented. To my knowledge, there might be one prime

contractor that had an issue with this new procedure. All other primes are in compliance. I'm not

saying that it wasn't a learning curve, but it has been accomplished and in a very short time. One other

point, if prime contractors are allowed to "negotiate" with their subs, suppliers and DBE contractors

after the fact there may be a cost reduction to the prime but this savings is not passed on to the State.

christina perez: (14:45) IL UCP you said it perfectly Theresa

Dana Shaffer 2: (14:46) when will the chat open for Topic 3 during or after the session is complete?

Bob Schafer: (14:46) To Theresa Kern, you can't say that the State is seeing a benefit from the cost

savings. Primes tend to bid cheaper inititally knowing that they'll receive cost savings after the fact.

Theresa Kern: (14:46) Theresa Kern: The easiest way to stop bid shopping is to follow the legislation

that the American Subcontractors Association has endorsed for YEARS......Bid Listing, people !!!

Yvonne Schuman 2: (14:47) lost audio

Yvonne Schuman 2: (14:47) lost audio

Bryna Helfer 2: (14:47) Audio should be back on now...

Jeffery Pretti, DOT: (14:47) Dana Shaffer, the comments are open now for Topic 3, and we will keep it

open for the 15 minutes during the rebuttal section following the speakers.

Theresa Kern: (14:49) Bob Schafer: Why would anyone in their right mind bid below cost to hope to

make it up on the back end. That is a bad job from the beginning that will only get worse on the backs

of their subs and suppliers. I didn't say that the State was receiving a benefit from the bid shopping10 after the fact

‐ I said the State was not receiving a benefit

‐ the only person receiving a benefit is the

Prime that gets to buy out the job for less than what they presented.

Bob Schafer: (14:50) I meant to say that the State DOES get the benefit. And they are. Are long as

subs continue to negotiate, DBE or not, it is going to happen.

Brittany Goode

‐ MMT: (14:50) Brittany Goode

‐ City of Colorado Springs, MMT When primes bid below

cost that leads to them changing ordering the agencies to death which isn't a cost savings...

Bryna Helfer 2: (14:51) Please provide specific examples, and also possible solutions forward.

Michael Sturino: (14:51) Illinois Road and Transportation Builders Association respectfully and strongly

disagrees with Theresa Kern. The No Cure rule in Illinois has lead to less DBE participation,

oversubscribed DBE firms, less competition among prime contractors, added costs, and greater

uncertainty in the bidding process.

Theresa Kern: (14:51) Theresa Kern: I agree Brittany and that's a huge risk to take.

Brittany Goode

‐ MMT: (14:53) Theresa, do you agree that having primes submit GFE when the bid is

due is beneficial to you as a DBE sub?

Brittany Goode

‐ MMT: (14:54) I personally, would like to see more DBEs bid on pieces of the project as

primes at times.

Theresa Kern: (14:58) Theresa Kern: Brittany...I am not familiar with the term GFE? Unfortunately, a

job can only be broken down so far. If a trade is "carved out", it has to be something that is a stand

alone craft....like seeding and sodding, or maybe signage. I really don't know how some carve outs

would work if the activity is part of a much larger project.

Dianne Holte: (14:58) Dianne Holte, Holte Contracting.: This is not the right forum for this line of

commenting. And isn't there a five minute limit?

Brittany Goode

‐ MMT: (14:59) Theresa, GFE is Good Faith Effort

Paul Diederich: (14:59) Mr. Ashby referred to the fact that many of the comments in opposition to

some of the proposed changes the DBE rules were identical. That is because the people who submitted

the “form letters” agree with the content of the identical letter that they submit under their signature

but do not have the time to write a letter on their own. I do not believe that that makes their response

any less valid.

Stephanie Menning: (14:59) Stephanie Menning, MUCA: Dianne

‐ I agree.

Theresa Kern: (15:00) Theresa Kern: Mike Sturino....can you please let me know where your statistical

evidence comes from? I haven't seen it to be true but you may be entirely right. I would just like to see

where it came from.

Brittany Goode

‐ MMT: (15:00) In his defense I think he is frustrated and wants to be heard.

Teresa Herrera H&R Trucking: (15:01) Teresa Herrera H&R He has the right to speak and be heard.

Kim Smith: (15:02) Kim Smith, City of Huntsville, AL, referencing the commentor on Set Asides. This is

not possible as it is against the local procurement laws and possibly state law.

Gretchen Wolfe: (15:03) hello

Jennifer Krug McNaughton: (15:03) As an owner and prime contractor in Illinois, I respectfully disagree

with previous comments that the no

‐ cure issue is a non

‐ issue. Subs have no idea what primes need to

compile and in order to be read low bidder. If subcontractors, ALL subcontractors were pre

‐ qualified,11 primes would have the ability to assess how busy, capitalized, and stable subcontractors are. Without a

transparent, quality controlled, and thorough pre

‐ qualification of subs, primes have no idea if the sub,

any sub for that matter, can actaully perform the work they quote on bid night. The state has an

insurance policy when if comes to primes, in the form of a pre

‐ qual, it's only logical and prudent to have

the same stipulation on all subs.

Amanda McGennis: (15:03) Well said Denise Richardson, so far your comments are very factual and

represent real world scenario.

Bryna Helfer 2: (15:06) thank you for your thoughtful comments. we are continuing with topic 3. If you

have specific examples, and specific ideas about possilble solutions

‐‐ please also send these forward

Bryna Helfer 2: (15:07) as a reminder

‐‐‐ folloiwng this session, that you can continue to submit

comments on the docket.

Brittany Goode

‐ MMT: (15:07) Would leaving the solicitation on the street longer allow for more time

to receive the DBE and non

‐ DBE quotes to be submitted with the bid?

Jennifer Krug McNaughton: (15:09) From the prime's persepective, the no

‐ cure issue in Illnois has

inclreased our costs as there are no clear definitions of 'excessive and unreasonable' with regard to

accepting a higher DBE bid. As I prime, I would appreciate knowing what DOT thiks is unreasonable. I

take quotes from subs based off them being low bid. I my goal is to be read low, how can I measure

what is excessive?

Bryna Helfer 2: (15:09) the docket can be found at www.regulations.gov docket number 78 FR 68016

Bob Schafer: (15:09) Brittany: No it wouldn't. It's a downhill flow from vendor to sub to prime. The

vendors will wait until next

‐ to

‐ the

‐ last

‐ minute to give the subs their prices. Then the subs wait until the

last minute to quote the primes. It's still a competitive, low

‐ bid environment.

Merka Flynn: (15:10) Merka Flynn Ohio Department of Transportation "Excessive or unreasonable

high" for quotes received by DBEs is defined in one of the Federal Registers as 10%.

Mark Dougherty, AGC of North Dakota: (15:13) Mark Dougherty, AGC of North Dakota: Listening to all

the comments from both sides it seems to me this change would surely hurt as many or more DBEs than

it will help. Again, I stress be careful with changes and their Unintended Consequences that come from

moving the target.

EEO Netwoking Solutions: (15:19) Is DBE sub quote activity a variable that is used in the Goal setting

process?

Brittany Goode

‐ MMT: (15:21) What do you mean by DBE sub quote activity?

ADOT: (15:22) The final rule should be a win

‐ win scenario for both DBEs and Contractors. Devisiveness

is not good for the program.

EEO Netwoking Solutions: (15:23) The number of DBE firms that are activily submitting sub quotes to

primes regarless if the DBE firm is chosen for the work or not. The fact that the firm is activley bidding

on projects

Brittany Goode

‐ MMT: (15:24) I would think agencies would have that information in their Bidders

Lists.

Brittany Goode

‐ MMT: (15:24) And therefore would take that into account in their overall goal setting

procedures.12 Kim Smith: (15:25) Kim Smith, City of Huntsville, AL. Topic No. 3 leveling the playing field should not

mean a guarentee of acquiring a contract, either as a prime or a sub on projects. An award on a

contract should remain based on the low bid, or best qualified with substantive supporting

documentation. A required DBE goal in all construction RFP's ensures that DBE's are given the

opportunity to participate and the contract.

Brittany Goode

‐ MMT: (15:25) Kim, the ultimate goal of the DBE program is to increase the race

neutral participation to level the playing field as well.

Brittany Goode

‐ MMT: (15:26) All contracts also do not have DBE opportunities and therefore

requiring a goal would be burdensome

Bryna Helfer 2: (15:27) we will keep the chat room open for 15 minutes following the conclusion of the

session. However, if you have additional comments, examples, suggestions

‐‐ you can submit thsese to

the docket until December 26

EEO Netwoking Solutions: (15:27) Brittany

‐ Do you mean Certtified DBE list?

Jennifer Krug McNaughton: (15:27) On the last IDOT (Illinois) letting, I requested a waiver modification

on three jobs; Job #1, DBE was 38% higher than non

‐ DBE in one category, 73% higher in another

category and 25% higher in another category. Job #2, DBE sub was 8.1% higher in one category, 43%

higher in another category and 93% in another. Job #3, we could not solict a single DBE quote in 5

categories. We were success in submitting one category. The goal on this Job (#3) was 13%, we

submitted 6.3%. I head up our Good Faith Efforts team at my firm, we are constantly pushing ourselves

to bring more bidders to the table. I firmly believe the geographic area in Job #3 contributed to the lack

of DBE bids

‐ it was a remote job, very far from most DBE firm headquarters and market share.

Kim Smith: (15:27) Brittany, the required goal, in and of itself, affords the opportunity for non

‐ DBE

firms to interact and become familiar with DBE's that may have not been possible before.

Brittany Goode

‐ MMT: (15:28) EEO Networking

‐ No I am referring to the agency's bidders list not the

UCP

Brittany Goode

‐ MMT: (15:30) Kim, the opportunity exists but many non

‐ DBE firms do not take full

advantage of the opportunity or provide true Good Faith Effort.

Lisa Fresquez WYDOT: (15:30) Lisa Fresquez WYDOT Just for the record with regards to the changes of

the Uniform Report in rulemaking changes WYDOT would like to comment on the associated cost for

these kinds of changes. We are currently paying for a system that is only tracking DBE information to

meet the requirements currently and to make changes is very costly.

Darla Carroll: (15:31) how do we access the transcript? Can you provide the web address?

Sherrin Coleman: (15:31) Tiffany Hamilton, DBE Program Manager

‐ Oregon DOT: On topic 3

‐ ODOT

requires submission of GFE documentation with bids, and it's worth noting that the GFE documentation

is only required when a bidder has not met the assigned goal. If a bidder commits sufficient work to

eligible DBEs to meet the goal, no additional documentation is required. However, ODOT does give the

prime 10 additional days to provide a breakdown of the work committed to the DBEs identified at time

of bid.

ADOT: (15:32) When will the final rules be published?

Araceli Gonzales: (15:40) ADOT

‐‐ At this time we are not sure when the rule will be published.

Sherrin Coleman: (15:40) Tiffany Hamilton, DBE Program Manager

‐ Oregon DOT: On proposed changes

to the Uniform Report, I agree with WYDOT comment that any changes will cost DOTs that have13 invested in civil rights tracking databases that have been structured around the current reporting

requirements.