Government Affairs |
 |
June 7, 2001
Docket Clerk
Docket No. OST-2000-7639
Department of Transportation
PL-401
400 Seventh Street, S.W.
Washington, DC 20590
RE: Docket Number OST-2000-7639
Dear Docket Clerk:
The American Public Transportation Association (APTA) is pleased to
respond to the Department of Transportation’s (DOT) Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(NPRM) on Participation by Disadvantaged Business Enterprises (DBEs) in Department of
Transportation Financial Assistance Programs.
About APTA
APTA is a nonprofit international trade association of over 1,400
public and private member organizations including transit systems and commuter railroads;
planning, design, construction and finance firms; product and service providers; academic
institutions, and state associations and departments of transportation. APTA members serve
the public interest by providing safe, efficient and economical transit services and
products. Over ninety percent of persons using public transportation in the United States
and Canada are served by APTA members.
Background
On May 8, 2001, DOT published proposed revisions to its rule on
participation by DBEs in DOT financial assistance programs. The proposed rule suggests
uniform reporting and certification applications forms; implementation procedures for a
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between DOT and the U.S. Small Business Administration
(SBA); and several substantive changes to the DBE program, including net worth, retainage,
the size standard, proof of ethnicity, confidentiality, and proof of economic
disadvantage.
Docket Clerk
June 7, 2001
Page 2
Comments
Standard forms
In general, APTA supports the notion of having one standard reporting
form, which would be due only semi-annually. This approach would be an improvement over
the burdensome quarterly submissions currently required by the Federal Transit
Administration (FTA).
However, we have some concerns about the content required by the
proposed form. Reports by both contracts awarded and actual payments will be too costly
for transit properties to compile. Instead, the report should be based only on actual
payments made. This information collection approach is consistent with accounting systems
already in place at a number of transit properties and would not require manual
compilation of data solely for the purpose of DBE reporting.
Also some of the wording on the form referring to "completed
contracts" is confusing. Currently, the new form is worded "Actual payments on
contracts completed this reporting period." The word "completed" should be
eliminated, because it is unclear whether "completed" refers to the contract or
the payment. If it does refer to the contract, DOT should clarify when
"completion" is deemed to have occurred.
Several requirements on the new form would require additional manual
data compilation not currently required on the FTA form. For example, the new report
requires that "total awards or commitments" be broken out by ethnicity and
gender, whereas the FTA report breaks out only awards by ethnicity. In addition, the new
form requires separation of race-conscious from race-neutral efforts, which also requires
additional manual data compilation.
Again, APTA, in general, supports the notion of a uniform application
form for DBE vendors. However, the requirements proposed in this NPRM are still fairly
burdensome. DOT should consider further streamlining efforts in this area. For example,
DOT should consider designing a simpler form for the very smallest DBEs, because many of
these firms cannot and will not take the time and incur the cost to complete an elaborate
application. Simplifying the process would ultimately help transit agencies as well, who
would have access to a larger, more diverse pool of potential vendors.
Docket Clerk
June 7, 2001
Page 3
Substantive Changes to the DBE Program
APTA commends DOT for its thoughtful consideration of several
substantive issues. We appreciate many of the changes proposed regarding personal net
worth, particularly those aimed at keeping personal financial information confidential. To
this end, we support DOT’s proposal to limit a recipient’s ability to release
confidential business information without the submitter’s written consent.
In addition, one of the major concerns cited by our members has been
the requirement to submit personal tax information to prove personal net worth. Therefore,
the alternative proposed that would permit an applicant’s CPA to certify personal net
worth is a good one. We encourage DOT to consider additional alternatives for the smallest
DBEs who may not be able to afford a CPA’s certification; for example, we suggest
that smaller contractors be permitted to self-certify personal net worth by affidavit.
Conclusion
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this NPRM, and stand ready
to help DOT in the implementation of requirements that enhance the use of DBEs in
federally assisted contracts. For further information, please contact Kristin O'Grady at
(202) 496-4808, or internet e-mail at kogrady@apta.com.
Sincerely yours,
William W. Millar
President
WWM/cbo
Some of these pages may include links to documents in the Adobe PDF format. Please download the Adobe PDF reader if you have not already done so.
