New report scrutinizes city's contracts to women, minorities

The City of Chicago's minority and women-owned businesses contracting programs have come under the microscope once again as city Inspector General Joseph Ferguson's office released reports this month alleging "widespread fraud and abuse" in such efforts.


More at

A June 9 report about the city's Minority and Women Business Enterprise program, or MWBE, criticized ex-Mayor Daley's administration for measuring the participation of firms rather than actual payments made to those companies.

Ferguson's second report, released June 15, details problems at the Public Building Commission, a critical group that manages construction projects for local public agencies, including the Chicago Transit Authority, park district, library system and others; Mayor Rahm Emanuel is now its chair.

In the second report, Ferguson's office examined 15 of the commission's projects from 2009 and found that minority and women contractors' participation was "far less" than what the commission reported -- 43 percent less for minority contractors and nearly 10 percent less for women-owned firms. That means $40 million fewer dollars went toward those firms than what the commission had reported.

City code sets a goal that at least 25 percent of all city contracts each year goes to firms owned by minorities; 5 percent to companies owned by women. The commission's MWBE contracting rules mirror the city's, Ferguson's office said.

Ferguson's office says the discrepancy between the commission's numbers and his own can be explained by instances like this one:

"[O]n one project, the prime contractor was a joint venture involving a non-MWBE certified company and an MWBE company. The PBC credited the MWBE portion of the joint venture with $1,430,219. However, the lien waivers show that company paid $914,372 to non- MWBE 2nd tier subcontractors, meaning only $515,847 should have counted toward MWBE participation."

As of last Thursday, a spokeswoman for the commission said the agency was still reviewing the report's findings.

There's been some push back about Ferguson's reports, however, from some minority contractors. HACIA, an organization representing Latino construction contractors, said the first, June 9 report went too far, according to the Chicago Sun-Times.

The group also took issue with Ferguson's call to end the city's Target Market program, which sets aside a percentage of the city's contracts for minority- and women-run firms. (In a 2007 investigation, The Chicago Reporter found the city reached half its annual goal under the target market program.)

Ferguson said the trade group challenged only the rhetoric of the June 9 report, not its substance. He said Target Market would not pass muster in the courts.

"We have to drain the swamp and put the program on solid footing," Ferguson said when asked about rolling back programs like Target Market and granting more firms waivers to MWBE contracting rules. "We have to work from actual facts, from solid footing and proper administration and oversight, so we're not actually encouraging the less honorable and illegal entities to operate in this realm and delegitimize the entire mission, so that the public has confidence in it and the minority community has confidence in it."

Over in the City Council, meanwhile, 14 council members have signed onto support an ordinance (PDF) that calls for creating a "Procurement Oversight Committee." The body would review city contracts worth $500,000 or more, signing off or denying them.

Four members of the committee would be appointed by the city's mayor, with the remaining three offered by council members. The race and gender of each executive official of firms recommended for contracts this size or higher would be disclosed.


-- Micah Maidenberg


Thumbnail image for Thumbnail image for Thumbnail image for Thumbnail image for Thumbnail image for Thumbnail image for Thumbnail image for Thumbnail image for Thumbnail image for Thumbnail image for mainLogoNEW.gif


Leave a comment
  • Why do race, ethnicity, and sex need to be considered at all in deciding who gets awarded a contract? It's good to make sure contracting programs are open to all, that bidding opportunities are widely publicized beforehand, and that no one gets discriminated against because of skin color, national origin, or sex. But that means no preferences because of skin color, etc. either--whether it's labeled a "set-aside," a "quota," or a "goal," since they all end up amounting to the same thing. Such discrimination is unfair and divisive; it breeds corruption and otherwise costs the taxpayers money to award a contract to someone other than the lowest bidder; and it's almost always illegal

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to RogerClegg:

    Your comment assumes that there has not been centuries of discrimination in government and business that has given European Americans an unfair economic and other advantage. With that being said I do not favor any preference for the sake of itself based on skin color per se, because that would in fact be the same type of discrimination that we have complained of. But when you see the effects of this history of systemic and institutionalized discrimination in the decimated African American communities and when you see white America still holding on to their privileges, preferences and power something has to be done to even the playing field. Look at the ever widening economic gap between African Americans and whites just in news today. Look at the red-lining that has occurred over the years. Look at the mortgage companies acknowledgement that tghey have charged African American borrowers with the same credit scores as whites higher interest rates. Its obvious that something is wrong with this picture, and its unreasonable to think that these people in those positions are going to chnage their hearts voluntarily. It took legislation to insure Voting and many other rights. Thats all some people are going to respond to.

Leave a comment