New York state recently created a short-term bridge loan program that will invest at least $15 million to expand contracting opportunities for minority and women-owned business enterprises.
Through the Bridge to Success loan program, certified MWBEs will be provided short-term capital and have a better chance of securing state contracts. There is as much as $1 billion worth of contracting opportunities in the state, according to the governor’s office.
Empire State Development Corp., the state’s chief economic development arm, will provide up to $2.25 million in loan loss reserves to support the $15 million in short-term loans provided by participating lenders. Loans will be less than $200,000 with terms under two years and will support $100 million in state contracts.
Empire State Development recently secured a deal with Manhattan-based Carver Federal Savings Bank, which will provide $4.6 million in short-term loans to make it easier for MWBEs to bid on construction projects with the Metropolitan Transportation Authority.
By helping MWBEs, the state hopes to create more jobs and remove barriers that prevent small disadvantaged contractors from accessing short-term capital loans, Gov. Andrew Cuomo said when announcing the bridge loan program.
The program complements the state’s surety assistance program, which provides training and financial support to help MWBEs and other small businesses gain the surety bonds needed to bid on state construction contracts. More than $40 million in surety bonding has been secured by small firms through the program.
Why do race, ethnicity, and sex determine eligibility here and, more broadly, why do they 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 and businesses money to award a contract to someone other than the lowest bidder; and it’s almost always illegal—indeed, unconstitutional—to boot (see 42 U.S.C. section 1981 and this model brief: http://www.pacificlegal.org/page.aspx?pid=1342 ). Those who insist on engaging in such discrimination deserve to be sued, and they will lose.
With all due respect to Roger and the Ctr for Equal Opportunity, funding support for disadvantaged businesses (DBE) should not be attacked, but supported. DBEs, which include women and veterans, besides minorities, do not have the financial resources of the large mega businesses, which the Ctr for Equal Opportunity is allegedly lobbying for.
Large and ineligible firms are the ones that need to be chastised for monopolizing and/or pursuing small business set-aside contracts. Those large companies have no business pursuing solicitations that have been set-aside for small business competition. The Ctr for Equal Opportunity should consider changing its name to reflect those who they are allegedly lobbying for. About 70% of the companies on the list of ‘The Top 100 Small Business Contractors’ every year reflect Fortune 100 companies.
Stop trying to associate race, ethnicity or gender to set-asides. They are only characteristics of those groups. P.L. 95-507 gives DBE the right to receive ‘maximum practicable utilization,’ (MPU) but the record shows they are not receiving it. Who is to blame? There is plenty of bigotry and barriers for DBE and those barriers need to come down. That’s what the Ctr for Equal Opportunity should be attacking. Sorry Roger, your efforts are not helping, but destroying the American Dream for many hard-working Americans!!!