Upcoming Webinars
Access the latest trends and insights shaping the profession—free for members.
.png)
 (1).jpg)
_1.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.png)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
Document
RFQ 25-30 Towing, Storage and Disposal Final.pdf
Year Created: 2025
DOCUMENT
RFP - System of care Development 2012
- YEAR CREATED: 2012
The document discusses the legal case of Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Pena, which involved a challenge to affirmative action programs in federal contracting. The case began when Adarand Constructors, a construction company, sued the United States Department of Transportation (USDOT) over its Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) program, which provided incentives for contracting with minority-owned businesses. Adarand argued that the program violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution.
The case went through multiple court proceedings and appeals. The district court initially ruled in favor of Adarand, finding that the USDOT program was not narrowly tailored and was both over inclusive and under inclusive in its benefits. However, the Court of Appeals later deemed the case moot because Adarand had become certified as a DBE under modified regulations. The Supreme Court reversed this decision, stating that the case was not moot because Adarand's certification was suspect.
The case was then remanded to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, which reversed the district court's injunction against the Colorado DOT's DBE program. The Tenth Circuit found that the program, as revised under post-Adarand regulations, was constitutional. It concluded that Congress had a compelling interest in remedying discrimination in federal contracting and that the program was narrowly tailored.
After the Adarand case, federal agencies made regulatory changes to their minority, women, and disadvantaged small business programs to comply with the "narrowly tailored" requirement. The USDOT regulations, for example, shifted the focus of the DBE program from achieving maximum DBE participation to achieving a "level playing field." States and transit authorities were required to base their DBE participation goals on demonstrable evidence of the number of available DBEs relative to all businesses in the market. The regulations also required states to meet a portion of their DBE goals using race-neutral measures.
The document also mentions that several lower courts have addressed the issue of congressional authority to provide affirmative action remedies since the Adarand case. These courts have looked at the record of committee hearings and other evidence before Congress to determine the government's compelling interest in adopting affirmative action programs. However, there is a lack of judicial consensus on whether states or localities must independently justify the use of racial preferences to implement federal mandates.