Search results for: DBE

Last week, as a result of the federal government shutdown, news outlets reported on a pause in processing project reimbursements for the massive bi-state Hudson Tunnel Gateway Program and New York City’s Second Avenue Subway line. Beyond the political finger-pointing and investigation into the pause’s impact (the billions of dollars already appropriated remain untouched) is the federal Department of Transportation’s publication, also last week, of its interim final rule (“IFR”) Docket No. DOT–OST–2025–0897. Effective October 3, 2025, this IFR removes from its regulations at 49 C.F.R. Parts 23 and 26 race and gender-based presumptions of social and economic disadvantage from DOT’s regulations governing its Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) and Airport Concession Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (ACDBE) programs. In doing so, it replaces terms like “race-neutral/race-conscious” with “DBE-neutral/DBE-conscious” frameworks, and adds new sections (§§ 23.81 and 26.111) that require each Unified Certification Program (UCP), i.e., each state’s agency that sets the criteria for firms seeking DBE/ACDBE certification, to reevaluate any currently certified DBE, to recertify any DBE that meets the new certification standards, and to decertify any DBE that does not meet the new certification standards or fails to provide additional information required for submission under the new certification standards.

There have been strong reactions to not just the substance of DOT’s rule, but to the agency’s issuance of a rule without first seeking public comment. Although the federal Administrative Procedure Act does generally require agencies to provide the public with notice of proposed rulemaking and an opportunity to comment prior to publication of a substantive rule, it contains exceptions. For example, 5 U.S.C. § 553(b)(B) authorizes agencies to publish a final rule without first seeking public comment on a proposed rule “when the agency for good cause finds (and incorporates the finding and a brief statement of reasons therefor in the rules issued) that notice and public procedure thereon are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.”

In its IFR, DOT explains that it was constrained to determine that race- and sex-based presumptions of the DBE and ACDBE programs violate the U.S. Constitution in light of:

  • The September 23, 2024, decision of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky (Mid-America Milling Co., LLC v. U.S. Department of Transportation, et al., No. 3:23-cv-72-GFVT, previously discussed) determining that the DBE program’s statutory race- and sex-based presumptions likely do not comply with the Constitution’s promise of equal protection under the law, and issuing a preliminary injunction that prohibits DOT from mandating the use of presumptions with respect to its contracts; 
  • The President’s three Executive Orders: Executive Order 14151, Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs and Preferencing, January 20, 2025; Executive Order 14173, Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity, January 21, 2025; and Executive Order 14219, Ensuring Lawful Governance and Implementing the President’s “Department of Government Efficiency” Deregulatory Initiative, February 19, 2025; and 
  • The U.S. Attorney General’s March 21, 2025, memorandum directing all Federal agencies to implement these Executive Orders. 

Without this IFR, DOT explained, its own regulations would continue to require funding recipients to apply those very same presumptions, thus rendering “impracticable and contrary to the public interest a confusing and contradictory situation to continue during a notice-and-comment process.” Further, DOT added, notice-and-comment is unnecessary where a regulatory action is required as a matter of law to ensure consistency with rulings of the United States Supreme Court, which in this instance include Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. Harvard, 600 U.S. 181 (2023) (previously discussed).

As for eliminating the presumption that individuals from certain racial or gender groups are “socially disadvantaged,” DOT explained that its small business initiatives were always “intended to level the playing field for businesses seeking to participate in federally assisted contracts and in airport concessions,” and yet:

Although the Programs aim to assist small businesses owned and controlled by “socially and economically disadvantaged individuals,” Congress has mandated by statute that DOT treat certain individuals—women and members of certain racial and ethnic groups—as “presumed” to be disadvantaged. Other individuals do not benefit from that statutory presumption. This means that two similarly situated small business owners may face different standards for entering the program, based solely on their race, ethnicity, or sex.

* * *

[T]here is not a strong basis in evidence that the race- and sex-based presumptions used by the DBE and ACDBE programs are necessary to support a compelling governmental interest, and the presumptions are not narrowly tailored (both of which are necessary to comply with the Constitution). The government has no compelling justification for engaging in overt race or sex discrimination in the awarding of contracts in the absence of clear and individualized evidence that the award is needed to redress the economic effects of actual previous discrimination suffered by the awardee.

Thus, through the IFR, DOT is implementing amendments that “center the DBE program’s purpose of leveling the playing field for businesses owned and controlled by socially and economically disadvantaged individuals while providing excellent service to the American people.”

DOT’s new standard for qualifying as a DBE or ACDBE will be determined on a case-by-case basis: in addition to the already-required personal net worth statement, applicants (and existing certified firms) must now submit a Personal Narrative (PN) that details specific instances of hardship, systemic barriers, or denied opportunities, and explain how those impediments caused economic harm relative to similarly situated non-disadvantaged individuals. The states’ UCPs shall use this standard in reevaluating all currently certified DBE/ACDBE firms and must suspend goals and “counting” DBE/ACDBE participation toward overall goals until re-certification is complete.

There are number of practical consequences not addressed by the IFR. In the midst of the frenzy of currently qualifying firms assembling supporting evidence to accompany their PNs, states’ UCPs will need, first, an objective set of criteria by which to determine “socially and economically disadvantaged,” and second, the staffing to sort through the submissions in what will necessarily be a more rigorous review. Government agencies using DOT funds may be halted in their public procurement pending their establishment of new goals and certification of qualifying firms. General contractors completing projects using DOT funds and dependent on currently qualifying subcontractors to meet their DBE/ACDBE goals may be unable to close out that portion of their compliance, slowing down payment. And it is almost a foregone conclusion that the pending uncertainty will engender a wave of bid protests and appeals regarding DOT-funded projects that, it seems, presently cannot be resolved.

The IFR does acknowledge that “[s]everal provisions may lead to increased or decreased burdens for applicants, certifying agencies, and recipients related to transitional documentation requirements, the degree of technical rigor in disparity studies, and changes in program reporting.” It does not deny that there will be quantified costs as well, projected to be $95 million, although noting they will be “transitional and one-time, … with recurring annualized burdens of about $1.8 million.”

The UCPs, directly affected firms, and prospective new applicants will likely need DOT to offer guidance, training, and resources for administering the new rules and attainment of the new evidentiary standard. This is a big ask even in times where there is no government shutdown. In the meantime, small firms should consider specific historic, personal examples of disadvantageous environments and perceived deprivation of opportunities when formulating their PNs. The burden of proof may not ultimately be that high, especially where there are UCPs inclined to award certifications. Plus, there may be more open doors to newly qualifying firms, creating more options for general contractors in their bidding and project progression, perhaps lowering overall bids, with reverberating benefits to the general public.

The end of the U.S. Department of Transportation’s (USDOT) Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) program is getting closer. The DBE program presumes women and minority-owned firms are disadvantaged and sets goals for them to be awarded at least 10% of the value in federal contracts. In a well-reasoned and compelling decision, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky granted a limited preliminary junction against USDOT’s DBE program in the case Mid-America Milling Co., LLC v. U.S. Department of Transportation, et al., No. 3:23-cv-72-GFVT, 2024 WL 4267183 (E.D. Ky Sept. 23, 2024). The Mid-America court found that the race and gender-based rebuttable presumptions used in the DBE program violate the U.S. Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment.

The plaintiffs in Mid-America challenged the use of the DBE presumption when determining whether a person is socially disadvantaged on the grounds that such a program giving preference to certain companies based on race and gender constitutes unconstitutional racial discrimination. The plaintiffs alleged that the DBA program prevents them from competing on government contracts on equal footing with firms owned by women and certain racial minorities and filed suit seeking a declaratory judgment and preliminary and permanent injunctions enjoining the USDOT from applying the DBE’s race and gender-based classifications.  

The court methodically dismantled the government’s arguments against the plaintiffs’ standing to bring the lawsuit as well as its arguments against the requirements necessary to sustain a preliminary junction. The plaintiffs have standing to bring suit because they sufficiently established an injury resulting from the denial of equal treatment, which is fairly traceable to the DBE program’s race- and gender-based presumption. The plaintiffs also established that their injury resulting from the denial of equal treatment is redressable by a favorable decision by the court.

The court examined the requirements for a preliminary injunction and found all were satisfied. The court held that the plaintiffs would likely win on the merits of their constitutional claims. The government failed to prove that the racial classifications in the DBE program were being employed to further the only applicable compelling government interest of remediating past discrimination. The government offered only broad societal discrimination types of evidence, such as disparity studies, statistical disparity evidence, anecdotal evidence, and expert reports— the court found that such evidence is too broad and insufficient to prove past discrimination against the many groups to whom it grants a preference under the DBE program. The government also failed to prove that the DBE program’s race-based rebuttable presumption was narrowly tailored because it only covers some minority groups and lacks a logical endpoint. The government offered similar societal discrimination evidence to support the DBE program’s gender classifications to remedy past discrimination, which the court also rejected because it failed to prove that the government participated in intentional discrimination within the context of USDOT-funded contracts.

The court also found the plaintiffs would suffer irreparable harm if a preliminary injunction was not issued because contracts with DBE goals would continue to be issued, and when they are, the plaintiffs would be at an automatic disadvantage to certain types of competitors. Lastly, the court concluded that the temporary relief sought would not cause substantial harm to others and would serve the public’s interest.  

While this decision is limited to the contracts the plaintiffs bid on in Kentucky and Indiana, its comprehensive analysis of the applicable law might serve as a guideline for similar actions nationwide and ultimately the U.S. Supreme Court.

Below is an excerpt of an article published in the Winter 2023 issue of CONNstruction magazine, the quarterly publication of the Connecticut Construction Industries Association.

After several decades, Governor Ned Lamont signed a bill into law, effective July 1, 2023, An Act Concerning Liability for False and Fraudulent Claims, Public Act No. 23-129, eliminating language that previously limited enforcement of Connecticut’s False Claims Act to claims relating to a state-administered health or human services program. The revisions dramatically expanded potential liability under the False Claims Act, allowing both private citizens and the Attorney General to bring actions under the Act in any context, including the construction industry. Consequently, contractors, subcontractors, suppliers and design professionals on public construction projects in Connecticut must be familiar with this newly enacted law and take steps to reduce the risks of doing business on such projects.

Construction and construction-related entities now need to make additional efforts to ensure any submissions to state or local governmental entities are accurate. In general, the Act broadly prohibits individuals and entities from knowingly presenting or utilizing false information to make a claim for payment or receive funds from the State of Connecticut, except for any claim, record, or statement made or presented relative to the payment of any tax to the state. The statute does not limit enforcement of the Act to any particular part of a project, nor does it limit its application to specific parties. Rather, the Act applies to any application for or receipt of state funds, meaning that the Act’s enforcement on public construction projects applies equally to contractors, subcontractors, suppliers and design professionals; it may even apply to claims consultants and others submitting claims to the state on behalf of a contractor. Read the full article.

In the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President & Fellows of Harvard College, 600 U.S. 181 (2023) (SFFA), which limits the reach of race-based affirmative action programs in college admissions, a federal lawsuit was recently filed in the Eastern District of Kentucky alleging discrimination against the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) program: Mid-America Milling Co., LLC v. Department of Transportation, Case No. 3:23-cv-72.

Initially adopted in 1983, the DBE program aimed to address discrimination in federally assisted transportation projects. Most recently, it was reauthorized in November 2021 when President Biden signed the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA). The IIJA also mandated that 10% of all new surface transportation funding (which amounts to more than $37 billion) shall be expended through small business concerns owned and controlled by socially and economically disadvantaged individuals. The DBE program requires state and local transportation agencies receiving federal assistance to establish overall goals for the participation of disadvantaged business enterprises and contract-specific DBE subcontracting goals. The applicable federal regulations (15 U.S.C. § 637(d) and 13 C.F.R. § 124.103-104) require the local transportation agencies to presume that certain racial and ethnic groups and women are socially and economically disadvantaged when considering bids for federally funded projects.  

The plaintiffs in Mid-America have challenged the use of the DBE presumption when determining whether a person is socially disadvantaged on the grounds that such an affirmative action program giving preference to certain companies based on race and gender constitutes unconstitutional racial discrimination. The plaintiffs allege that such a program prevents them from competing on government contracts on equal footing with firms owned by women and certain racial minorities and should be permanently dismantled under SFFA.

The plaintiffs seek a court order declaring the race and gender-based classifications in the DBE program unconstitutional and an order to enjoin the federal government from applying both the presumption of social disadvantage in the DBE program and the IIJA 10% set aside for socially and economically disadvantaged individuals. Mid-America may be heading toward the U.S. Supreme Court, where the viability of the DBE program will hang in the balance.

Below is an excerpt of an article published in High Profile on April 4, 2023

After a public hearing held on March 6, House Bill No. 6826, An Act Concerning Liability for False and Fraudulent Claims was voted out of committee by a wide margin, and then added to the House Calendar on March 28. This bill expands the scope of Connecticut’s current False Claims Act by eliminating the limitation that it only applies to state-administered health and human services programs. It would expand potential liability and penalties under the act to allow both private citizens and the attorney general to bring False Claims Act allegations in any context, including construction projects involving state funds. Read the full article.

The Department of Transportation (DOT) recently published a notice in the Federal Register of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend the Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) and the Airport Concession Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (ACDBE) regulations.  87 Fed. Reg. 43620 (July 21, 2022). This proposal is the first NPRM update since 2014.  While the DOT was originally scheduled to close the comment period on September 19, 2022, it agreed to extend the comment period until October 31, 2022, to provide sufficient time to prepare and submit comments to the docket. 

The proposed revisions to the regulations were drafted by the DOT’s Office of Civil Rights, together with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), the Federal Highway Administration and the Federal Transit Administration, in an effort to help small businesses better compete for contracts on aviation, highway, and transit projects with federal funding.  While some of the NPRM changes were minor, others would significantly expand program eligibility and modify airport sponsors’ regulatory duties.  The bulk of the NPRM addresses the DBE program, which is regulated under Part 26 of Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) and contains approximately 20 changes (found here.)  Highlights of some significant changes are summarized below.

Personal Net Worth – Perhaps the most significant change is the proposal to increase the Personal Net Worth (PNW) cap for owners of both DBEs and ACDBEs from $1.32 million (last adjusted in 2011) to $1.6 million and exclude retirement assets from the calculation.  Additionally, community property rules are excluded and while “household contents” of the primary residence are still divided equally, the NPRM is modified to clarify that motor vehicles of any type belong to the person who holds the title. Finally, the DOT may make future adjustments to this amount without the need for rulemaking by using Federal Reserve data.  Such modifications should allow more owners to qualify as DBEs and permit existing DBEs to stay in the program longer.   

Ownership Requirements – The NPRM replaces the “real, substantial, and continuing” capital contribution standard with a less-rigid standard of “reasonable economic sense.”  Further, the NPRM clarifies that ownership investment includes purchases, capital infusions, gifts, and additional investments after initial ownership.  Additionally, the marital property provision has been removed.  These modifications that are no longer so narrowly construed provide owners with more flexibility for demonstrating contributions toward ownership.

Limits Total DBE supplier Goals –  The NPRM reduces the allowable credit for a prime contractor’s expenditures with DBE suppliers (manufacturers, regular dealers, distributors, and transaction facilitators) from 60 percent to 50percent of the contract goal.  However, exceptions may be granted by the DOT on a one-off basis, if prior approval is sought and obtained.  This modification is intended to limit a contractor’s ability to receive substantial DBE credit for using DBEs that provide only a gratuitous, pass-through function.  However, this modification may present difficulties for contractors in certain market areas where material resources and DBE participation are limited.

Reciprocity of DBE Certification – The NPRM proposes to establish interstate certification for DBEs.  DBEs certified in one state (State A) will no longer have to resubmit entire applications to other states.  Rather, a DBE seeking certification in State B need only provide evidence of certification and submit a declaration of eligibility.  State B then has 10 business days to certify the firm. However, after certifying the firm, State B may conduct its own certification review and initiate decertification procedures if it finds “reasonable cause” for determining that the DBE is ineligible for certification in State B.  Note that the standard for review has been heightened from the previous “good cause” grounds to “reasonable cause.”  This modification is intended to reduce the administrative burden on the DBEs that must now file comprehensive applications in each state (or city) and which then must be approved by all entities.  While this modification serves to streamline the approval process, if a DBE is decertified and if the DOT upholds the decision upon appeal, the DBE is automatically decertified in all states. Thus, the new modifications may allow for greater business opportunities in more states; however, they also place a DBE at risk of losing all DBE business nationwide should it be decertified.

Decertification Procedural Protections – The NPRM would require the authorizing agency to “meaningfully explain” the basis for any recommendation to decertify a DBE, modify the requirements for decertification hearings, and provide additional procedures for certification appeals.

Annual Reporting – The NPRM proposes to enhance the available information of DBE directories and create a centralized database for a DBE Bidders List through the DOT.   In addition to serving as a reporting system for DBEs to identify available bids and winning bids, data are also proposed to be used for program evaluation and goal setting.

Formalizing COVID-19 Guidance – The NPRM provides for continuation of virtual on-site interviews, virtual certification and decertification hearings, and alternative notarization methods.  These modifications are intended to conserve certification agency resources.

Appeals to DOT – The NPRM reduces the time for a DBE to appeal an in-state certification denial from 90 days to 45 days and permits the DOT to summarily dismiss an appeal, at its discretion.  This modification cuts in half the DBE’s time to file an appeal, a decision which affects the DBE’s ability to become certified or maintain its certification nationwide.

Clarifies Counting after Decertification – The NPRM proposes that prime contractors would only be permitted to add work or extend a completed subcontract with a decertified DBE (that received notice of decertification after the subcontract was executed) if it obtains prior, written consent from the recipient.  This modification was proposed to address the concern that contractors in design-build contracts only commit to work with specific DBEs once they have been awarded a subcontract and then add work to an existing contract with decertified firms.  

Prompt Payment Requirements –   The NPRM requires that recipients affirmatively monitor the contractor’s compliance with subcontractor prompt payment and return-of-retainage requirements.  While this section does not mandate the specific monitoring mechanism, recipients are expected to enforce prompt payment and retainage compliance.  These requirements also flow down to all lower-tier subcontractors.   This modification was intended to address the barriers DBEs face to compete due to lack of prompt payment by taking steps to meet this challenge. 

ACDBE Modifications – The NPRM (1) adds, clarifies, and aligns the ACDBE program definitions with DBE program definitions; (2) replicates the DBE program’s small business element requirements;  (3) establishes procedures for counting ACDBE participation for firms that are decertified during the contract performance period due to exceeding the business size standard or the disadvantaged owner PNW limits; (4) clarifies goals setting and reporting requirements; and (5) seeks comment on whether to increase long-term lease agreements. 

This significant set of proposed rules offers an opportunity for many programming changes.  The comments posted to date range from supportive to critical and suggest that there still remain many questions and recommendations for improvement.  Following the close of the comment period, the DOT will consider modifications to the proposed rules.

Below is an excerpt of an article published in Construction Executive on September 9, 2021.

The prices of raw building materials have risen dramatically over the past year, primarily because of the global pandemic and trade policies implemented by the previous administration, thereby jeopardizing construction projects that did not mitigate the risks of material price escalation.

Material price escalation is not new to the construction industry, which has experienced historic periods of price escalation known as commodities supercycles, often referred to as periods of time when commodity prices rise above their long-term trends for at least 10 years followed by a downturn of similar duration until supply meets demand. The industrialization of the United States in the late nineteenth century, the post-war reconstruction of Europe and Japan in the 1950s, the oil embargos of the 1970s and the industrialization of emerging nations such as China in the early 2000s are identified as commodities supercycles.

Over the past few months, commodities traders and economists have debated whether a new commodities supercycle is underway as raw material prices continue to rise. The Producer Price Index for July 2021 published by the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Statistics, reported for the 12 months ended in July on an unadjusted basis, that the final demand index increased 7.8%, the largest advance since such data was first calculated in November 2010 and that the final demand index less foods, energy and trade services rose 6.1%, the largest increase since such data was first calculated in August 2014.1

Over the past 12 months ended in July, the price of natural gas is up 146.7%, steel mill products are up 108.6% and crude petroleum and unprocessed energy materials are up 102.9% and 93.8%, respectively. The price of softwood lumber is now up 45.0% after decreasing significantly over the past two months.

While history and the market dictate that prices will eventually come down, it is unclear when or if they will not continue to rise as did the price of copper when it quintupled from 2000 to early 2011. Accordingly, it is in the best interests of all stakeholders – owners, contractors, subcontractors and suppliers – to mitigate risks associated with material price escalation on construction projects. Read the article.

Below is an excerpt of an article published in Construction Executive on April 15, 2021.

Modular construction is literally on the rise. It is rapidly displacing traditional stick-built construction for new commercial, industrial and residential buildings. Over the past decade, an increasing number of health care, education facilities and apartment buildings have been built using modular construction. As the need for housing, and especially affordable housing, has grown as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, modular construction is becoming increasingly popular.

Recently, the Canadian government, through the Canadian Mortgage Housing Corporation, launched a “Rapid Housing Initiative,” a $1 billion program utilizing only modular construction to rapidly construct affordable housing for its citizens. Similarly, the city of Toronto (which last year approved a plan to build 250 modular homes in response to homelessness) plans to build 1,000 modular homes by 2030. The pandemic also has resulted in an urgent demand for modules for medical facilities and schools. Modular construction allows contractors to build “leaner” and “greener” buildings while increasing quality control and improving site safety and potentially saving valuable time and money.

The modular process involves unique commercial and legal challenges not present in traditional contracting. In order to successfully navigate these challenges and to properly allocate risk, a well-drafted contract is important. Key legal considerations in drafting such contracts include:  Read the article.

Below is an excerpt of an article published in the Spring 2021 edition of Under Construction, a  newsletter publication of the American Bar Association Forum on Construction Law.

As the construction industry recovers from and adjusts to the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic and prepares for a new normal, post-COVID world, claims for losses of productivity on projects that were in progress when COVID-19 struck will likely increase due to contractors performing work under conditions far different than originally contemplated when they bid the project and signed the contract.  Consequently, as contractors pursue claims seeking compensation for adverse impacts to the productivity on projects shut down or slowed because of the COVID-19 pandemic, and owners defend such claims, documenting causation and accurately assessing loss of productivity will be vital to both parties. While COVID-19 has changed our lives and the construction industry in many ways, it has not changed the fact that claims for loss of productivity remain some of the most contentious, and most difficult to quantify and prove.
Today, contractors must balance common, but often competing, goals of progressing the work to complete projects while at the same time taking unprecedented steps to protect the safety and health of their workers and the public. In addition to impacts due to design errors and omissions, performing work out of sequence or in adverse weather conditions because of delays, or excessive overtime due to acceleration, contractors must recognize that a host of causes—impacts due to social distancing, labor unavailability due to illness, quarantine, owner restrictions and government restrictions, compliance with OSHA and other safety guidelines, medical testing, work stoppages and suspensions, and supply-chain challenges—may result in losses of productivity on projects. To maintain this balancing act, contractors often expend more actual labor hours on the project than planned, resulting in losses of productivity. Successfully identifying, quantifying and proving such losses is critical to a contractor’s financial success, especially in today’s economy.
While the right to recover for losses of productivity is well-settled, there is no universally accepted standard for calculating damages for these claims. Contractors and their experts rely upon various treatises and studies on loss of productivity to present such claims in mediation, litigation and arbitration proceedings. Over the years, courts have decided claims and awarded damages based on different methodologies for quantifying and proving such claims, often leading to inconsistent results. The American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), in conjunction with its Construction Institute, seeks to develop consistency and provide guidance through its soon-to-be-published standard “Identifying, Quantifying and Proving Loss of Productivity”.  Read the full article.

In December 2020, the United States Department of Transportation (DOT) amended the small business size limit under the Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) program (section 1101(b) of the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act (Pub. L. 114-94, Dec. 4, 2015).  The rule, which goes into effect on January 13, 2021, increases the DBE gross receipts cap (averaged over the firm’s previous three fiscal years) to $26,290,000 for Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and Federal Transit Administration (FTA) related work. This inflationary-based adjustment is an increase over the prior gross receipts cap of $23,980,000 enacted in 2015. The effect of this rule, which is “not considered a significant economic impact on a substantial number of size entities”, is to allow “some small businesses to continue to participate in the DBE programs by adjusting for inflation.” This adjustment should provide relief for some DBEs that were close to exceeding the limits from 2018-2020. Continue Reading DBE Gross Receipts Cap Adjusted for Inflation