City of Somerville Disparity Study — File 25-0583

2 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA, 2025 DISPARITY STUDY Table of Contents I. Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 7 A. Scope of Work .......................................................................................................................................... 7 B. Study Objectives ...................................................................................................................................... 7 C. Technical Approach ................................................................................................................................ 8 D. Report Organization ............................................................................................................................... 8 II. Executive Summary of Findings and Recommendations ..................................................................... 10 A. Findings ................................................................................................................................................. 10 1. Purchasing Policies, Practices, and Procedures Findings ................................................................ 10 2. Quantitative Findings ....................................................................................................................... 13 3. Marketplace Contracting Disparities Findings ............................................................................... 20 4. Anecdotal Findings .......................................................................................................................... 23 5. Legal Finding ................................................................................................................................... 26 B. Commendations ................................................................................................................................... 26 C. Recommendations ................................................................................................................................ 27 III. Legal Review ......................................................................................................................................... 32 A. Introduction ......................................................................................................................................... 32 B. Historical Overview – Development of the Law .................................................................................. 32 C. The Supreme Court’s Decision in City of Richmond v. J.A. Croson.................................................... 33 D. The Supreme Court’s Decision in Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Pena and Subsequent Circuit Court Proceedings .................................................................................................................................................... 35 E. The First Circuit’s Adoption and Application of Croson ..................................................................... 36 F. The Supreme Court’s Recent Decision in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard College .............. 37 G. The Massachusetts Statute Governing Sheltered Market Programs ................................................... 38 H. Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................ 38 IV. Purchasing Policies, Practices, and Procedures ................................................................................... 40 A. Introduction ......................................................................................................................................... 40 B. Document Review and Personnel Interviews ...................................................................................... 40 C. Overview of City Purchasing ................................................................................................................. 41 D. Uniform Procurement Act .................................................................................................................... 42 E. Thresholds ............................................................................................................................................ 42 F. Other Purchasing Methods .................................................................................................................. 42 G. Construction ......................................................................................................................................... 43 1. Small Construction Projects ............................................................................................................ 44

3 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA, 2025 DISPARITY STUDY 2. Blanket Contracts ............................................................................................................................. 44 3. Public Works .....................................................................................................................................45 4. Filed Sub-Bidding .............................................................................................................................45 H. Professional Services ............................................................................................................................ 46 1. Exemptions from Competitive Bidding ............................................................................................ 47 I. Bonding, Insurance and Prompt Payment .......................................................................................... 48 1. Bonding ............................................................................................................................................ 48 2. Insurance.......................................................................................................................................... 49 3. Prompt Payment on Public Construction Projects .......................................................................... 49 J. Vendor Outreach and Prequalification ................................................................................................ 50 K. MWBE State Certification ..................................................................................................................... 51 L. Diversity Catalog ................................................................................................................................... 53 M. MWBE Goals ......................................................................................................................................... 53 1. State Funded Projects .......................................................................................................................54 2. Tax Incentives ................................................................................................................................... 55 3. Minority And Women Workforce Participation Goals ..................................................................... 55 N. Sheltered Market Programs .................................................................................................................. 55 O. Reporting MWBE Utilization ................................................................................................................ 55 P. Business Development Efforts ..............................................................................................................56 Q. Office of Racial and Social Justice Staffing & Budget ........................................................................... 57 R. Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................. 57 V. Quantitative Analysis ........................................................................................................................... 58 A. Introduction ......................................................................................................................................... 58 B. Data Assessment and Requests ............................................................................................................ 58 C. Data Assignment, Cleanup and Verification .........................................................................................59 D. Relevant Geographic Market Area Analysis ......................................................................................... 61 E. Availability Analysis ............................................................................................................................. 63 1. Methodology .................................................................................................................................... 63 2. Measurement Basis for Availability ................................................................................................. 63 3. Capacity ............................................................................................................................................ 63 4. Availability ....................................................................................................................................... 64 F. Utilization Analysis .............................................................................................................................. 70 G. Determination of Disparity .................................................................................................................. 83

4 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA, 2025 DISPARITY STUDY 1. Methodology .................................................................................................................................... 83 2. Determining the Significance of Disparity Indices ......................................................................... 83 3. Prime Disparity Indices ................................................................................................................... 84 4. Subcontractor Utilization Disparity Indices.................................................................................... 86 H. Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................ 87 VI. Analysis of Marketplace Contracting Disparities in the City of Somerville Relevant Market Area ... 88 A. Introduction ......................................................................................................................................... 88 B. Firm Revenue ....................................................................................................................................... 89 C. Self-Employment ................................................................................................................................... 91 D. Building Permit Analysis ...................................................................................................................... 94 E. Bank Loan Denials ............................................................................................................................... 96 F. Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................ 98 VII. Anecdotal Chapter ................................................................................................................................ 99 A. Introduction ......................................................................................................................................... 99 B. The Current Contracting Environment ................................................................................................ 99 C. Key Themes ......................................................................................................................................... 102 1. Efficacy of Certification ................................................................................................................... 104 2. Perceptions of Fairness ................................................................................................................... 105 3. Suggestions for Improvement ........................................................................................................ 115 D. Conclusion ........................................................................................................................................... 122 APPENDICES Appendix A: Definitions Appendix B: Expanded Legal Analysis Appendix C: Data Assessment Report Appendix D: Relevant Market Analysis Appendix E: Availability Analysis Appendix F: Prime and Subcontractor Disparity Ratios Appendix G: Expanded Regression Analysis Appendix H: Survey of Business Owners

5 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA, 2025 DISPARITY STUDY List of tables and figures Table 1: Certified Firms Located in the City of Somerville ................................................................................ 52 Table 2: MWBE Spending on Somerville High Schools Project ........................................................................54 Table 3: Relevant Geographic Market Area ...................................................................................................... 62 Table 4: Availability Estimates for LGBTQ+, Small, Veteran, Disable Veteran, and Disabled -Construction 69 Table 5: Number of Businesses by Fiscal Year-Prime Construction ................................................................ 70 Table 6: Utilization of Businesses by Fiscal Year-Prime Construction ............................................................. 71 Table 7: Number of Businesses by Fiscal Year-Prime A&E ............................................................................... 72 Table 8: Utilization of Businesses by Fiscal Year-Prime A&E ........................................................................... 73 Table 9: Number of Businesses by Fiscal Year-Prime Professional Services .................................................... 74 Table 10: Utilization of Businesses by Fiscal Year-Prime Professional Services .............................................. 75 Table 11: Number of Businesses by Fiscal Year-Prime Other Services .............................................................. 76 Table 12: Utilization of Business by Fiscal Year-Prime Other Services ............................................................. 77 Table 13: Number of Businesses by Fiscal Year-Prime Goods ......................................................................... 78 Table 14: Utilization of Businesses by Fiscal Year-Prime Goods ....................................................................... 79 Table 15: Prime Utilization Analysis in Relevant Geographic Market Area, .................................................... 80 Table 16: Subcontractor Utilization Analysis in Relevant Geographic Market Area ........................................ 81 Table 17: Subcontractor Utilization Analysis in Relevant Geographic Market Area ........................................ 82 Table 18: Prime Contractor Disparity Analysis Summary ................................................................................ 85 Table 19: Subcontractor Disparity Analysis Summary ..................................................................................... 86 Table 20: Firm Ownership Type and Revenue Characteristics ........................................................................ 90 Table 21: Self-Employment/Business Ownership in City of Relevant Market Area ........................................ 93 Table 22: Construction Sector Self-Employment/Business Ownership in City of Relevant Market Area ...... 94 Table 23: Distribution of Building Permits ....................................................................................................... 96 Table 24: Fixed Effects Regression Parameter Estimates-Bank Loan Denials ................................................. 97 Table 25: Fixed Effects Regression Parameter Estimates-Bank Loan Denials ................................................ 98

6 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA, 2025 DISPARITY STUDY Griffin & Strong Project Team • Rodney K. Strong, Co-Project-Executive • Delmarie Griffin, Co-Project Executive • Dr. Imani Strong-Tucker, Chief Operating Officer • Dr. J. Vincent Eagan, Principal Investigator • Dr. Gregory Price, Senior Economist • David Maher, Legal and Policy Analyst • Michele Clark Jenkins, Director of Research and Methodology • Hema Dass-Narinesingh, Sr. Manager, Consulting • Trinity Williams, Project Management Coordinator • Kevin Vega, Deputy Project Manager • Kalvin Walden, Data Analyst • Susan G. Johnson, Project Administrator  • Dr. George White, Anecdotal Analyst • Stephanie Moore, Anecdotal Interviews • Creative Research Solutions, Survey of Business Owners

7 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA, 2025 DISPARITY STUDY I. Introduction A. Scope of Work The City of Somerville was settled in the early 1630s and lies directly northwest of the City of Boston, Massachusetts. After breaking away from nearby Charlestown, Massachusetts, Somerville experienced a period of rapid growth as it became an industrial hub for all New England. As a result, Somerville became home to several ethnic immigrant groups. Although Somerville sits near several of America’s most highly regarded universities, it lacks the elite reputation of neighboring communities like Cambridge and Brookline. After enduring a decline in the latter half of the twentieth century, Somerville has revitalized itself and has returned to growth in the new millennium.1 Governmental entities across the country authorize Disparity Studies in response to City of Richmond v. J.A. Croson Co., 488 U.S. 469 (1989) and subsequent cases in order to determine whether there is a compelling governmental interest for the creation or continuation of remedial procurement programs, based upon race, gender, and ethnicity. For the legal requirements of Croson and its progeny to be satisfied for any race or gender-based activities, G&S must determine whether the City has been a passive or active participant in any identified discrimination. The City of Somerville, Massachusetts (“City”), along with the Town of Brookline (“Town”), contracted with Griffin & Strong (“G&S”) to conduct a Disparity Study to determine if and the extent to which discrimination and barriers exist for Disadvantaged Business Enterprises (“DBE”) and Small Disadvantaged Owned Business Enterprises (“SDB”) resulting in a quantifiable, statistically significant variance of availability versus utilization of such businesses in government purchasing. The Study analyzes the procurement of Construction, Architectural & Engineering Services (“A&E”), Professional Services, Other Services, and Goods (“Industry Categories”) from July 1, 2017, through June 30, 2022 (“Study Period”). SDBs include small firms owned by minorities, women, disabled persons, and LGBTQ+ persons. As a result of the Study findings, G&S provided programmatic recommendations to remedies to assist in addressing any identified disparities and reduce or eliminate any barriers that adversely affect the participation of DBEs and SDBs, should they exist. B. Study Objectives The principal questions of this Study were: • Is there a statistically significant disparity in the relevant geographic market between the percentage of qualified DBEs and SDBs willing and able to provide goods or services to the City of Somerville in each of the Industry Categories and the percentage of dollars spent by the Town and the City with such firms (whether as prime contractors/consultants or subcontractors/consultants)? 1 See “Somerville City, Massachusetts Population, 2024 (with upward population growth trend line since 2010), World Population Review Newsletter, at worldpopulationreview.com, accessed on October 11, 2024; “Assembly Square, the Back Story,” June 22, 2012, The Somerville Times, at www.somervilletimes.com, accessed on October 10, 2024.

8 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA, 2025 DISPARITY STUDY • If a statistically significant disparity exists, have factors other than race and gender been ruled out as the cause of that disparity, such that there can be an inference of discrimination? • Can the disparities be adequately remedied with race- and gender-neutral remedies? • If race- and gender-neutral remedies are not sufficient, does the evidence from the Study legally support a race- and/or a gender-conscious make remedial program • Are the proposed remedies narrowly tailored to the strong basis in evidence from the Disparity Study? C. Technical Approach In conducting this Study and preparing its recommendations, G&S followed a carefully designed work plan that allowed Study team members to fully analyze Availability, Utilization, and Disparity with regard to DBE and SDB participation. The final work plan consisted of, but was not limited to, the following major tasks: • Establishing data parameters and finalizing a work plan; • Legal analysis; • Reviewing policy and procurement processes; • Collecting electronic data, inputting manual data, organizing and cleaning data, and filling any data gaps; • Conducting geographic and product market area analyses; • Conducting Utilization analyses; • Determining the Availability of qualified firms; • Analyzing the Utilization and Availability data for disparity and statistical significance; • Conducting private sector analysis including credit and self-employment analysis; • Collecting and analyzing anecdotal evidence; • Establishing findings of fact regarding the existence and nature of marketplace discrimination and/or other barriers to DBE and SDB participation in the City’s contracts; and • Preparing a final report that identifies and assesses the efficacy of various race- and gender-neutral and narrowly tailored race- and gender-based remedies if indicated by the findings. D. Report Organization This report is organized into the following sections that provide the results of G&S’s analytical findings and offer recommendations for the City. In addition to this introductory chapter, this report includes:  • Chapter II, which presents the Executive Summary of Findings and Recommendations; • Chapter III, which is an overview of the legal framework and basis for the Study; • Chapter IV, which provides a review of the City’s purchasing policies, practices, and programs; • Chapter V, which presents the methodology used in the collection of statistical data from the City and the analyses of the data regarding relative DBE and SDB Availability and Utilization analyses, and includes a discussion on levels of disparity for the City’s prime contractors and subcontractors;

9 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA, 2025 DISPARITY STUDY • Chapter VI, which analyzes whether present or ongoing effects of past discrimination are affecting the City’s marketplace; and • Chapter VII outlines the qualitative analyses: the analysis of anecdotal data collected from the online survey, anecdotal interviews, focus groups, and public meetings. 

10 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA, 2025 DISPARITY STUDY II. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS This chapter presents the findings and recommendations resulting from the Disparity Study for the City of Somerville, Massachusetts related to the Industry Categories during the Study Period. As outlined in Chapter III: Legal Review, the courts have indicated that for race-based or gender-based preference programs to be maintained there must be a strong basis in the evidence for the establishment of such programs or the continuation of existing programs. As the detailed findings below will demonstrate, G&S found statistically significant underutilization of some SDB groups in each of the five (5) Industry Categories that G&S analyzed. The exceptions will be discussed in the findings below. A regression analysis was performed and G&S found that there was evidence to indicate disparities by race, ethnicity, or gender status of the firm owners even after controlling for capacity and other race- and gender- neutral factors. This statistical evidence found support in the anecdotal evidence of the experiences of firms in the City’s marketplace. A. Findings 1. Purchasing Policies, Practices, and Procedures Findings This section presents findings from a comprehensive review of the City’s purchasing policies, including staff interviews to examine the written policies, Commonwealth laws, and the application of Commonwealth laws by the City of Somerville. FINDING 1: A&E SERVICES While state laws have exempted some services from competitive sourcing, the City of Somerville’s operating policy, with limited exceptions, is to seek competitive offers even for exempt services. This is particularly true for A&E services. Service contracts with architects, engineers or related professionals are exempt from M.G.L. c. 30B (1)(b) (32A). Under the Commonwealth of Massachusetts’s designer selection law (M.G.L. c. 7C, §§ 44- 58), there is a mandated advertised, competitive, qualifications-based selection process for choosing designers for public building projects. The City of Somerville’s operating policy is to competitively source all design professionals even when the designer selection law does not apply. The City provides some A&E services through the form of blanket contracts, utilizing the qualifications-based selection procedures outlined in the designer selection law. FINDING 2: CONSTRUCTION SERVICES Blanket contracts are applicable to individual project tasks with construction labor costs up to $50,000. Blanket contracts create a roster of pre-approved vendors in specific trade areas. This enables the City to request quotes from at least three vendors on this list for separate construction tasks as they emerge. The City has competitively sourced and used on-call contracts, a type of blanket contract, for a range of construction trades, including but not limited to painting and plumbing.

11 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA, 2025 DISPARITY STUDY In Massachusetts, awarding authorities have the option to use construction management at-risk (CMAR) and design-build approaches for certain project types. These methods are applicable when the estimated construction cost is $5 million or more. The City has used CMAR but not design-build as construction procurement methods during the Study Period. Massachusetts employs a “filed sub-bid” system. Followed by the City where applicable, for selecting subcontractors on certain public projects. A filed sub-bid system is a process used for public building contracts exceeding a certain cost. Under M.G.L. c.149, municipalities must solicit separate bids for 18 specified subtrade categories, distinct from the project's general bid. Prequalified subcontractors then submit their bids prior to the due date for general bids, which are then reviewed and filed by the municipality. Each prequalified general contractor selects one sub-bidder in each industry category to include in their general bid. This system applies when: • The estimated cost of construction exceeds $150,000. • The subcontractor's work is within a specified category. • The subcontract cost is over $25,000. FINDING 3: BONDING AND INSURANCE A 100% performance bond is required for building projects over $150,000. City procurement staff did not report significant vendor concerns about bonding requirements. City procurement staff also did not report significant vendor concerns about insurance requirements. Most complaints have been from small vendors, and less so recently. In the G&S Survey of Business Owners, when asked if bonding was a barrier to their firm obtaining work with the City, 8% selected performance bond requirements and approximately 10% selected bid bond requirements as barriers.2 However, out of 33 African American owned firms, 21.2% selected bid bond requirements. When asked about insurance requirements, 7.1% of survey respondents identified it as a barrier to their firm obtaining work with the City.3 FINDING 4: PROMPT PAYMENT In Massachusetts, for progress payments directed to the prime contractor on a public project, the payment is due within 15 days following the submission of an appropriate payment request. Final payments to prime contractors are due within 65 days after the project has reached substantial completion. In the G&S Survey of Business Owners, 22,2% of African American, 50% of Asian American, 52% of Caucasian American, and 39.3% of Women respondents reported receiving payments from the City between 61 – 90 days after submitting their invoices.4 Final payments to subcontractors are due within 65 days following the substantial completion of the work performed by that specific subcontractor. Massachusetts state law does allow for the direct payment of subcontractors by local agencies. 2 Somerville Survey, Survey Table #42 3 Somerville Survey, Survey Table #46 4 Somerville Survey, Survey Table #63

12 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA, 2025 DISPARITY STUDY In the event of delayed or unjustly withheld payments in public construction projects in Massachusetts, the outstanding amounts are subject to interest penalties. FINDING 5: VENDOR REGISTRATION Procurement managers routinely build a list of prospective bidders for any given procurement process and notify that list of vendors about the contracting opportunity and share the bid package with everyone on the list. The City procurement website presents current bids and opportunities, a registration form, and recently posted a buying plan for upcoming bid opportunities. The City posts solicitations on the State COMMBUYS system, as required by statute for formal procurement. COMMBUYS is the Commonwealth’s electronic procurement system. FINDING 6: CERTIFICATION The City of Somerville has a policy of recognizing and seeking suppliers that are certified as MBE, WBE, VBE, etc. by other widely recognized agencies, including the SDO and City of Boston. The City does not have its own distinct certification program. Table 1 shows the number of certified firms located in the City. Table 1: Certified Firms Located in the City of Somerville, 2025 Somerville Disparity Study Business Classification Number in Directory Minority Business Enterprise 20 Woman Business Enterprise 24 Veteran Business Enterprise 4 Services Disabled Veterans Business Enterprise 1 LGBTQ Business Enterprise 1 Disabled Business Enterprise 0 Disadvantaged Business Enterprise 7 Source: Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Directory of Certified Businesses The City’s Economic Development Department created a Somerville Diversity Catalog to serve as “a marketing tool for businesses that wish to offer their services and/or products to individuals, other businesses, and institutions within the Greater Boston Area.”

13 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA, 2025 DISPARITY STUDY FINDING 7: MWBE PROGRAM The City has no program with MWBE or Small Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (SDB) goals, set asides, or bid preferences program. Commonwealth law requires a disparity study to implement such a program. However, the City has set new policies and objectives for supplier diversity. The City supplier diversity goals for FY 2024 are: • Increase diversity of suppliers that do business with the City. • Increase quantity and quality of offers City receives from suppliers of goods and services. • Increase spending with suppliers that are owned by minorities and women. • Coordinate and lead multi-jurisdictional effort as needed in Massachusetts. FINDINGS 8: SHELTERED MARKETS State law allows local governments to have sheltered markets for disadvantaged vendors. The City does not currently have a sheltered market program FINDING 9: BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT EFFORTS During the last few years, the City of Somerville’s Economic Development Division has been focused on COVID-19 recovery. Recently, the Senior Planner for Women- and Minority owned businesses has been leading an effort to build a database of Women- and Minority owned businesses. FINDING 10: REPORTING SDB UTILIZATION The City does not track or report SDB utilization and vendor demographic status is not indicated in the City financial system. The City is in preliminary stages of tracking SDB utilization outside of Massachusetts School Building Authority (MSBA) projects. The new City supplier diversity policy requires that diversity information on vendors be recorded in MUNIS and that the City report the “breakdown of vendor diversity” by fiscal year. FINDING 11: STAFFING AND BUDGET The City has an Office of Racial and Social Justice (part of the City Executive Office), but SDB is not one of its focus areas. There is no internal or external City SDB advisory committee. 2. Quantitative Findings This section presents the findings from the statistical disparity analysis, which identified the Relevant Geographic Market that informed the Availability Study, Utilization Analysis, and Disparity Ratios. There will be tables below to provide a visual representation of all the Quantitative Findings.

14 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA, 2025 DISPARITY STUDY FINDING 12: RELEVANT GEOGRAPHIC MARKET AREA The Study compares the Availability and Utilization of firms in a common area, the Relevant Geographic Market, which is where the Study determines at least 75% of the agency’s spending with vendors. The Relevant Geographic Market Area was Boston-Cambridge-Newton Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA)5, based on the following percentages of spending. • In Construction, 98.01% • In A&E, 97.84% • In Professional Services, 86.14% • In Other Services, 90.88% • In Goods, 65.16%6 • In Total, 92.86% Given that 92.86% of all the City of Somerville spending was with firms located in this Relevant Geographic Market Area, G&S determined that one consistent Relevant Geographic Market across all Industry Categories was appropriate. FINDING 13: AVAILABILITY The measures of Availability utilized in this Study incorporate all the criteria of Availability required by City of Richmond v. J.A. Croson Co., 488 U.S. 469 (1989). • The firm does business within an industry group from which the City of Somerville Government makes certain purchases. • The firm's owner has taken steps to demonstrate interest in doing business with the government (by registering, certifying, prequalifying, bidding, etc.). • The firm is located within a relevant geographical area such that it can do business with the City of Somerville Government. 5 The Boston-Cambridge-Newton Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) is composed of the following counties: Essex County (MA), Middlesex County (MA), Norfolk County (MA), Plymouth County (MA), Suffolk County (MA), Rockingham County (NH), and Strafford County (NH). 6 It is not unusual for the Industry Category of Goods to fall below the 75% threshold as an individual category.

15 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA, 2025 DISPARITY STUDY The firms used to calculate Availability came from the Master Vendor File in the Relevant Geographic Market Area. G&S found that firms were available to provide goods and services to the City as reflected in the following percentages by each race, ethnicity, and gender group (Table 2). Table 2: Availability Estimates by Industry Category In the Relevant Geographic Market Area (Based upon the Master Vendor File) City of Somerville Disparity Study Business Ownership Classification Construction Architecture and Engineering Professional Services Other Services Goods TOTAL (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) African American 7.34% 2.95% 10.49% 7.86% 2.35% 6.44% Asian American 1.59% 7.44% 6.48% 2.21% 1.97% 3.36% Hispanic American 6.86% 3.23% 4.38% 3.43% 1.05% 3.60% American Indian 0.42% 0.00% 0.12% 0.05% 0.05% 0.12% Portuguese American 1.11% 0.00% 0.56% 0.63% 0.10% 0.51% Unknown MBE 0.14% 0.14% 0.19% 0.14% 0.14% 0.15% TOTAL MINORITY 17.45% 13.76% 22.22% 14.32% 5.66% 14.18% Non-Minority Woman 10.39% 18.96% 22.72% 10.39% 6.52% 12.62% TOTAL MWBE 27.84% 32.72% 44.94% 24.72% 12.18% 26.80% Non-MWBE 72.16% 67.28% 55.06% 75.28% 87.82% 73.20% TOTAL FIRMS 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% Griffin & Strong, 2025 The Availability of “Other Certified” firms (LGBTQ+, Small, Veteran, Disabled Veteran, and Disabled) in the Relevant Geographic Market Area across all Industry Categories is presented in Table 3. These “Other” categories overlap with the race/ethnic categories and can overlap amongst themselves (e.g., a Small Business can be owned by a Veteran). A total of 737 vendors were available in the “Other Certified” category, constituting 9.13% of available businesses. Table 3: Summary of Availability Estimates for LGBTQ+, Small, Veteran, Disable Veteran, and Disabled (Using Master Vendor File) City of Somerville Disparity Study Business Ownership Classification Construction A&E Professional Services Other Services Goods TOTAL (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) LGBTQ+ 0.14% 0.28% 1.05% 0.36% 0.19% 0.41% Small 8.86% 7.87% 12.65% 8.45% 3.98% 8.16% Veteran 3.32% 1.12% 2.16% 1.13% 1.05% 1.71% Disabled Veteran 1.66% 0.14% 0.93% 0.50% 0.62% 0.79% Disabled 2.01% 0.42% 1.30% 0.59% 0.72% 1.00% TOTAL UNIQUE OTHER CERTIFIED 10.04% 8.71% 14.14% 9.22% 4.65% 9.13% Non-Other Certified 89.96% 91.29% 85.86% 90.78% 95.35% 90.87% TOTAL FIRMS 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% Griffin & Strong, 2025

16 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA, 2025 DISPARITY STUDY FINDING 14: MWBE PRIME UTILIZATION As Table 4 below shows, the City of Somerville paid a total of $379.36 million in prime construction spending in the Relevant Market during the Study Period and $3.60 million of this amount, or 0.95% was paid to MWBE firms as prime contractors. MWBEs were paid 4.57% of A&E, 38.87% of Professional Services, 1.11% of Other Services, and 6.38% of Goods. MWBEs won 3.62% of prime payments across all purchasing categories ($21.39 million). Table 4: Summary of MWBE Prime Utilization by Industry Category In the Relevant Geographic Market Area (Based upon Vendor Payments FY 2018-2022) City of Somerville Disparity Study Business Ownership Classification Construction A&E Professional Services Other Services Goods TOTAL ($) ($) ($) ($) ($) ($) African American $ 216,247 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 10,121 $ 226,368 Asian American $ 0.00 $ 172,933 $ 2,307,667 $ 16,000 $ 607,017 $ 3,103,616 Hispanic American $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 8,847,902 $ 380,459 $ 0.00 $ 9,228,362 American Indian $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 Portuguese American $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 9,087 $ 9,087 TOTAL MINORITY $ 216,247 $ 172,933 $ 11,155,570 $ 396,459 $ 626,225 $ 12,567,433 Non-Minority Woman $ 3,385,206 $ 2,570,035 $ 177,816 $ 470,839 $ 2,223,318 $ 8,827,214 TOTAL MWBE $ 3,601,453 $ 2,742,968 $ 11,333,386 $ 867,298 $ 2,849,542 $ 21,394,648 Non-MWBE $ 375,758,743 $ 57,247,089 $ 17,825,702 $ 77,458,181 $ 41,796,419 $ 570,086,134 TOTAL FIRMS $ 379,360,196 $ 59,990,057 $ 29,159,088 $ 78,325,480 $ 44,645,962 $ 591,480,782 Business Ownership Classification Construction A&E Professional Services Other Services Goods TOTAL (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) African American 0.06% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.02% 0.04% Asian American 0.00% 0.29% 7.91% 0.02% 1.36% 0.52% Hispanic American 0.00% 0.00% 30.34% 0.49% 0.00% 1.56% American Indian 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Portuguese American 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.02% 0.00% TOTAL MINORITY 0.06% 0.29% 38.26% 0.51% 1.40% 2.12% Non-Minority Woman 0.89% 4.28% 0.61% 0.60% 4.98% 1.49% TOTAL MWBE 0.95% 4.57% 38.87% 1.11% 6.38% 3.62% Non-MWBE 99.05% 95.43% 61.13% 98.89% 93.62% 96.38% TOTAL FIRMS 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% Griffin & Strong, 2025

17 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA, 2025 DISPARITY STUDY FINDING 15: “OTHER CERTIFIED” PRIME UTILIZATION Small Business Enterprises (SBEs) were paid the most prime dollars during the Study Period amongst the Other Certified firm category, with $4,165,961 (Table 4). Veteran owned firms, which included Disabled Veteran owned firms and other firms owned by Disabled Persons, were paid $471,233. No prime dollars were spent with LGBTQ+ owned firms in any Industry Category; none with Veteran owned firms in A&E, Professional Services, or Goods; and none with Disabled owned or Disabled Veteran owned firms in Construction, A&E, Professional Services, or Goods over the Study Period. Table 5: Prime Utilization of LGBTQ+, Small, Veteran, Disable Veteran, and Disabled In the Relevant Geographic Market Area (Based Upon Vendor Payments FY 2018-2022) City of Somerville Disparity Study Business Ownership Classification Construction A&E Professional Services Other Services Goods TOTAL ($) ($) ($) ($) ($) ($) LGBTQ+ $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 Small $ 2,801,910 $ 80,190 $ 180,254 $ 524,916 $ 578,691 $ 4,165,961 Veteran $ 471,233 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 12,566 $ 0.00 $ 483,799 Disabled Veteran $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 8,500 $ 0.00 $ 8,500 Disabled $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 8,500 $ 0.00 $ 8,500 TOTAL FIRMS $ 379,360,196 $ 59,990,057 $ 29,159,088 $ 78,325,480 $ 44,645,962 $ 591,480,782 Business Ownership Classification Construction A&E Professional Services Other Services Goods TOTAL (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) LGBTQ+ 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Small 0.74% 0.13% 0.62% 0.67% 1.30% 0.70% Veteran 0.12% 0.00% 0.00% 0.02% 0.00% 0.08% Disabled Veteran 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.01% 0.00% 0.00% Disabled 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.01% 0.00% 0.00% Griffin & Strong, 2025 FINDING 16: MWBE SUBCONTRACTOR UTILIZATION The City did have reports of subcontractor spending with MWBEs on the Somerville High School Project. There was a 10.40% MWBE goal on the project. Table 6 shows the amount of MWBE Subcontractor dollars for the five (5) Industry Categories. • MBEs were paid $521,420 in Subcontractor Utilization, or 0.38%, while Non-Minority Woman owned firms were paid $2,967,656, or 2.15% in Construction.

18 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA, 2025 DISPARITY STUDY • MBEs were paid $1,161,063 in Subcontractor Utilization, or 18.88%, while Non-Minority Woman owned firms were paid $33,643, or 0.55% in Goods. • MWBEs were paid no Subcontract dollars in A&E, Professional Services, or Other Services. MBEs were 1.09% and Non-Minority Woman owned firms were 1.94% of Subcontractor dollars spent in the five Industry Categories during the Study Period. Table 6: Subcontractor Utilization Somerville High School Project In the Relevant Geographic Market Area Distribution of Dollars by Business Ownership and Fiscal Year (Using Vendor Payments, FY 2018-2022) City of Somerville Disparity Study Business Ownership Classification Construction A&E Professional Services Other Services Goods TOTAL ($) ($) ($) ($) ($) ($) African American $ 349,420 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 395,606 $ 745,026 Asian American $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 765,457 $ 765,457 Hispanic American $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 American Indian $ 172,000 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 172,000 Portuguese American $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 TOTAL MINORITY $ 521,420 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 1,161,063 $ 1,682,483 Non-Minority Woman $ 2,967,656 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 33,643 $ 3,001,299 TOTAL MWBE $ 3,489,076 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 1,194,706 $ 4,683,782 Non-MWBE $ 134,397,481 $ 4,624,355 $ 0.00 $ 6,311,636 $ 4,955,677 $ 150,289,149 TOTAL FIRMS $ 137,886,557 $ 4,624,355 $ 0.00 $ 6,311,636 $ 6,150,383 $ 154,972,931 Business Ownership Classification Construction A&E Professional Services Other Services Goods TOTAL (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) African American 0.25% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 6.43% 0.48% Asian American 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 12.45% 0.49% Hispanic American 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% American Indian 0.12% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.11% Portuguese American 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% TOTAL MINORITY 0.38% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 18.88% 1.09% Non-Minority Woman 2.15% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.55% 1.94% TOTAL MWBE 2.53% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 19.42% 3.02% Non-MWBE 97.47% 100.00% 0.00% 100.00% 80.58% 96.98% TOTAL FIRMS 100.00% 100.00% 0.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% Griffin & Strong, 2025 G&S also conducted a Prime Vendor Telephone Survey to request subcontractor payment data from prime payees during the Study Period. The survey was sent to 1,389 prime vendors in all Industry Categories, except for Goods, where there is little subcontracting. G&S followed up with a telephone campaign to 217 Construction and A&E prime vendors, making total of 73 and 37 calls to Construction and A&E prime vendors, respectively. There was only about $4 million in subcontractor dollars found through this survey. Of these subcontractor dollars, MBEs won $448,370 (11.21%) and firms owned by Non-Minority Women won $345,015 (8.63%).

19 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA, 2025 DISPARITY STUDY FINDING 17: SUMMARY OF DISPARITY ANALYSIS FOR FY2018-FY2022 Table 7 below indicates those MWBE groups where a statistically significant Underutilization (X) was found between Prime Utilization for Construction, A&E, Professional Service, Other Services, or Goods and Availability. There was Underutilization in prime contracting for all available MWBE groups, except Asian American and Hispanic American owned firms in Professional Services. To control for capacity, G&S also conducted a disparity analysis for contracts under $500,000 and under $1 million. There was Underutilization in prime contracting for all available MWBE groups, except Asian American owned firms in Professional Services for both contracts under $500,000 and under $1 million. Table 7: Summary of Statistically Significant Underutilization of MWBEs in Prime Contracting City of Somerville Disparity Study Business Owner Classification Construction A&E Professional Services Other Services Goods African American X X X X X Asian American X X X X Hispanic American X X X X Portuguese American X X X X X American Indian X X X X X Non-Minority Woman X X X X X Griffin & Strong, 2025

20 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA, 2025 DISPARITY STUDY Table 8 below indicates those MWBE groups where a statistically significant underutilization (X) was found between subcontractor Utilization for Construction, Engineering, Professional Services, Other Services, or Goods and Availability. There was Underutilization in subcontracting for all available MWBE groups, except firms owned by African Americans and Asian Americans in Goods. Table 8: Summary of Statistically Significant Underutilization of MWBEs in Total Utilization City of Somerville Disparity Study Business Owner Classification Construction A&E Professional Services Other Services Goods African American X X X X Asian American X X X X Hispanic American X X X X X American Indian X X X X X Portuguese American X X X X X Non-Minority Woman X X X X X Griffin & Strong, 2025 3. Marketplace Contracting Disparities Findings The section presents the findings from the analysis of the private sector that was conducted to determine whether the City of Somerville has been a passive participant in discrimination carried out by the private sector. FINDING 18: SMALLER REVENUE SHARES RELATIVE TO MARKET SHARE In the Relevant Geographic Market Area, relative to White American owned firms, the estimated revenue shares of each Minority owned firm never exceeded 4.1% (Women). All MWBEs have estimated revenue shares far smaller than their firm representation shares. Relative to firms owned by White Americans in the Relevant Geographic Market Area, exclusive of Women owned firms—some of whom are White Americans— the sum of individual MWBE revenue shares is of a large order of magnitude below their implied 10% (approximately) firm representation shares. This is consistent with and suggestive of, but not necessarily

21 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA, 2025 DISPARITY STUDY causal evidence for, MWBEs facing discriminatory barriers in the private sector of the Relevant Geographic Market Area. FINDING 19: MWBEs ARE LESS LIKELY TO BE SELF-EMPLOYED Relative to White Americans, Women, African Americans, and Hispanic Americans are less likely to be self- employed in the Relevant Geographic Market Area. This is suggestive of these types of firms facing barriers to self-employment in the Relevant Geographic Market Area. The lower self-employment likelihood of these type of MWBEs could reflect disparities in public contracting as there is research evidence that the self- employment rate of African Americans is increasing with respect to the provisioning and establishment of MWBE public procurement programs. FINDING 20: MWBEs ARE LESS LIKELY TO BE SELF-EMPLOYED IN THE CONSTRUCTION SECTOR Relative to firms owned by White Americans, Women, African Americans, and Hispanic Americans are less likely to be self-employed in the Relevant Geographic Market Area construction sector. This is suggestive of these firms facing barriers to self-employment in the construction sector. The lower likelihood of these types of MWBEs being self-employed in the construction sector could reflect disparities in public contracting, as there is research evidence that the self-employment rate of African Americans in construction is increasing with respect to the provisioning and establishment of MWBE public construction procurement programs. FINDING 21: COMPLETE DOMINANCE OF NON-MWBEs IN BUILDING PERMITS The estimated low commercial building permit shares for MWBEs in the City of Somerville are suggestive of private sector barriers that constrain the ability of these types of firms to participate in the economy. Our estimates suggest that Non-MWBEs accounted for approximately 98% of building permits in the City of Somerville. To the extent that experience acquired by participating in the private sector translates into an enhanced capacity to compete in the market for public sector contracts and subcontracts, the almost complete dominance of Non-MWBEs in securing building permits suggests the presence of private sector barriers faced by MWBEs. In this context, if there are any public contracting/subcontracting disparities between MWBEs and Non-MWBEs in the City of Somerville, it could constitute passive discrimination against MWBEs, as the disparities could reflect barriers, possibly discriminatory, that MWBEs face in the private sector that serve to undermine their capacity to compete for contracts and subcontracts with the City of Somerville. FINDING 22: CERTAIN FIRMS ARE MORE LIKELY TO HAVE BEEN DENIED A COMMERICAL BANK LOAN Relative to Non-MWBEs, firms owned by African Americans, Asian Americans, Bi/Multi-racial Americans, and Women are more likely to have been denied commercial bank loans in the City of Somerville. This suggests that in the Relevant Geographic Market Area, any public procurement disparities between MWBEs and firms owned by African Americans and Women in the Relevant Geographic Market Area can be explained, at least

22 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA, 2025 DISPARITY STUDY in part, by differential access to private credit (e.g. race-based credit market discrimination) that enables financing a capacity for success in public procurement. FINDING 23: MINORITY owned FIRMS AND WOMEN owned FIRMS ARE MORE LIKELY TO BE NEW FIRMS Relative to Non-MWBE firms, firms classified/certified as Minority owned and Women owned, are more likely to be new firms in the Relevant Geographic Market Area. When disaggregated by race/gender/ethnicity status, firms owned by African Americans, Asian Americans, Bi/Multi-racial Americans, and Women are relatively more likely to be new firms. This suggests that any public contracting disparities between Non-MWBEs and firms owned by these types of MWBEs can possibly be explained by differential rates of market experience. FINDING 24: ASIAN AMERICAN owned FIRMS ARE LESS LIKELY TO SUBMIT PRIME BIDS TO THE CITY OF SOMERVILLE Relative to Non-MWBEs firms owned by Asian Americans, are less likely to submit prime bids relative to Non- MWBEs to the City of Somerville. This suggests that any disparities in public procurement outcomes between firms owned by Asian Americans and Non-MWBEs in the Relevant Geographic Market Area can possibly be explained by their relatively lower prime bid submission rates. FINDING 25: CERTAIN MWBE FIRMS ARE LESS LIKELY TO WIN PRIME CONTRACT AWARDS FROM THE CITY OF SOMERVILLE Relative to Non-MWBEs, firms owned by African Americans, Hispanic Americans, Asian Americans, Bi/Multi-racial Americans, Portuguese Americans, and Women are less likely to win prime contract awards from the City of Somerville. This suggests that, at least for these type of MWBEs, there are prime contracting award disparities between them and Non-MWBEs in the City of Somerville. FINDING 26: CERTAIN MWBE FIRMS ARE LESS LIKELY TO WIN A SUBCONTRACT AWARD FROM THE CITY OF SOMERVILLE Firms owned by Hispanic Americans, Asian Americans, Bi/Multi-racial Americans, and Women are less likely to win a subcontract award from the City of Somerville. This suggests that at least for these types of MWBEs, any disparities between them and Non-MWBEs in public contracting awards can be explained, at least in part, by differential experiences acquired through subcontracting. FINDING 27: CERTAIN MWBE FIRMS ARE MORE LIKELY TO HAVE NEVER BEEN A PRIME CONTRACTOR OR SUBCONTRACTOR WITH THE CITY OF SOMERVILLE Relative to Non-MWBEs firms owned by Hispanic Americans, Asian Americans, and Bi/Multi-racial Americans, are more likely to have never been a prime contractor or subcontractor with the City of Somerville. To the extent that success in public contracting is proportional to having prior prime contracts or subcontracts, this suggests that for these types of MWBEs any contracting disparities between and Non-MWBEs can possibly be explained by their relative disadvantage in having secured prior prime contracts or subcontracts from the City of Somerville.

23 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA, 2025 DISPARITY STUDY FINDING 28: NO DIFFERENCES BETWEEN MWBES AND NON-MWBES WITH RESPECT TO PERCEIVED PRIVATE SECTOR DISCRIMINATION There are no differences between MWBEs and Non-MWBEs with respect to perceived experiences of private sector discrimination in the Relevant Geographic Market Area. This suggests that, at least in the Relevant Geographic Market Area, private sector discrimination that undermines the capacity to compete for public procurement awards, cannot explain public contracting disparities between MWBEs and Non-MWBEs. FINDING 29: CERTAIN MWBE FIRMS ARE MORE LIKELY TO PERCEIVE EXPERIENCES OF DISCRIMINATION BY THE CITY Relative to Non-MWBEs, firms owned by African Americans and American Indians, Bi/Multi-racial Americans, and Portuguese Americans are more likely to have perceived discriminatory experiences by the City of Somerville. To the extent that discrimination in the City of Somerville can undermine the capacity of MWBEs to compete for public sector procurement, this suggests that discrimination at the City of Somerville can explain, at least in part, public contracting disparities between Non-MWBEs and these types of MWBEs. FINDING 30: CERTAIN MWBE FIRMS EXPRESS INFORMAL NETWORKS AS PUBLIC CONTRACTING BARRIER Relative to Non-MWBEs, firms owned by African Americans, Bi/Multi-racials, Other Race, and Women are more likely to agree that informal networks are important for public contracting success with the City of Somerville. This suggests that, at least for these types of MWBEs, contracting disparities between them and Non-MWBEs can explained, at least in part, by their exclusion from City of Somerville public contracting networks that reduce their ability to secure prime contracts and subcontracts. FINDING 31: AFRICAN AMERICAN AND WOMEN owned FIRMS MORE LIKELY TO AGREE THAT NON-MWBE FIRMS SOLICIT BUT DO NOT USE MWBE FIRMS Relative to Non-MWBEs, firms owned by African Americans and Women are more likely to agree that Non- MWBEs often solicits, but do not use MWBEs in the City of Somerville in subcontracts. This suggests that, at least for these types of MWBEs, contracting disparities between them and Non-MWBEs can explained, at least in part, by the lack of enforcing MWBE participation requirements on City of Somerville public contracting awards to Non-MWBEs. 4. Anecdotal Findings FINDING 32: CLARITY IN THE BIDDING PROCESS One MWBE said that she believes the biggest obstacle faced by a Minority owned business is the lack of education on how things work. She described how she had to speak with three different individuals to get clarity on the difference between COMMBUYS and the supplier diversity portal. She never received any information on how to apply to an RFP and it was unclear how to go about submitting a successful proposal. Participants in one focus group also complained that the user experience with COMMBUYS is discouraging because it can be “[d]ifficult to filter to find jobs.” Of those survey respondents who provided feedback at the completion of the survey, 20% of African Americans and 16.7% of both Asian Americans and White females

24 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA, 2025 DISPARITY STUDY provided feedback that indicated problems with “[c]ontract management and clarity,” while another 7.5% of all respondents provided feedback that suggested problems with “[p]rocess clarity and accessibility.”7 FINDING 33: PERCEPTIONS OF BIAS IN FINANCIAL LENDING AND OTHER ASPECTS OF PUBLIC CONTRACTING When given the statement “Double standards in qualifications and work performance make it more difficult for Minority and/or Woman owned business to win bids or contracts.”, 75% of Brazilian Americans, 66.7% of Bi/Multi-racial Americans, 48.5% of African Americans, 33.4% of Hispanic Americans and 23.5% of Asian Americans either “Agreed” or “Strongly Agreed;” 16.6% of White females and 13.1% of Non-Minority males held the same sentiment.8 In response to the question “[h]ow many times have you been denied a commercial (business) bank loan from 2017 - Present?”, 65% of Non-Minority Woman respondents and 57.4% of Non- Minority males marked “None” but only 50% of Portuguese Americans, 45% of African Americans and 33.3% of Bi/Multi-racial Americans agreed. In sharp contrast, 33.3% of Bi/Multi-racial Americans, 27.3% of African Americans and 17.6% of Asian Americans marked “1-10,” as compared to 1.6% of Non-Minority males and 1.5% of White females.9 FINDING 34: COMPLICATED BIDDING PROCESS One Non-Minority male business owner said that he “finds the COMMBUYS portal hard to navigate and [it] does not really apply to businesses like his.” 50% of Brazilian Americans, 30.3% of African Americans, 25% of American Indians and 11.8% of Asian Americans noted “excessive paperwork” as an impediment.10 Members of one focus group hoped that the City would revisit the creation of the RFPs to make sure that they are clearly written, with concise, easy-to-understand titles and delivered to the business community with ample time for adequate responses. These concerns were exacerbated by the absence of a relationship with officials in the City who could help unknot certain conundrums. In this regard, one MWBE indicated that the major barrier he saw as a hindrance to his participation was the fact that he has “no connections with the City.” FINDING 35: INFORMAL NETWORKS An Asian American male made it known that he believes the biggest obstacle [he faces] as a Minority owned business is the “old boys club” [he experiences] when attending networking events where [he] does not feel as comfortable. Similarly, an African American interviewee hinted at the prevalence of informal networks when he said that the biggest obstacle “being a Minority owned business is feeling stifled because they are not given opportunities and are not on a preferred list.” When asked “[d]o you believe there is an informal network of prime and subcontractors doing business with the City of Somerville…that monopolizes the public contracting process?,” 32.5% of all respondents selected “Yes.” It should be noted that 100% of Brazilian Americans, 66.7% of Bi/Multi-racial Americans, 57.6% of African Americans, 35.3% of Asian Americans, and 33.3% of Hispanic Americans held this belief.11 7 Somerville Survey, Survey Table #122 8 Somerville Survey, Survey Table #120 9 Somerville Survey, Survey Table #85 10 Somerville Survey, Survey Table #45 11 Somerville Survey, Survey Table #118

25 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA, 2025 DISPARITY STUDY FINDING 36: BARRIERS TO PARTICIPATION Many of the interviewees articulated barriers to participation such as the following: lack of scale; lack of familiarity with the City and/or its policies; effective communication; costs; and lack of experience. An African American male who acknowledged not knowing how to use the City’s system also admitted “how his time is limited and does not have a lot of time to dedicate to researching municipality work.” A Hispanic American Woman noted that she “does not know what the City is looking for.” 50% of Brazilian American, 21.2% of African American, 17.6% of Asian American, and 14.8% of Non-Minority male survey respondents identified a “[l]imited knowledge of [the City’s] purchasing/contracting policies and procedures” as a barrier to bidding on and winning City projects.”12 A Hispanic American male mentioned reaching out to municipalities but people who work for the municipality do not call back. 25% of American Indian, 18.2% of African American, 17.6% of Asian American, and 13.3% of Hispanic American business owners listed “pre-qualification requirements” as an issue that would prevent a firm from bidding on or obtaining work on a City project.13 Although many survey participants cited their firm’s lack of experience as an issue, this barrier was felt most acutely by MWBEs, with 33% of Bi/Multi-racial Americans, 17.6% of Asian Americans, 12.1% of African Americans and 6.7% of Hispanic Americans selecting “lack of experience” as a problem.14 FINDING 37: RELUCTANCE TO REGISTER WITH THE CITY A slight majority of survey respondents (45.3%) indicated that their business was not registered with the City.15 43.8% of survey respondents indicated that they did not know how to register with the City16 and 52.1% claimed to not know that there was a registry.17 Additionally, 34.6% of White female, 20% of Hispanic American, 5.9% of African American, 9.5% of Non-Minority male, and 10% of Asian American survey participants noted that they “do not see any benefit in registering.”18 15.6% of all survey participants stated that they did not register because they did not believe their firm would be awarded a contract with the City. This sentiment was most pronounced among MWBEs: 23.5% of African Americans, 50% of Brazilian Americans, and 20% of Hispanic Americans maintained this belief, compared to 11.5% of White females and 14.3% of Non-Minority males.19 By contrast, four out of five survey respondents registered their firms with other governmental agencies such as the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. 12 Somerville Survey, Survey Table #52 13 Somerville Survey, Survey Table #41 14 Somerville Survey, Survey Table #54 15 Somerville Survey, Survey Table #17 16 Somerville Survey, Survey Table #18 17 Somerville Survey, Survey Table #19 18 Somerville Survey, Survey Table #20 19 Somerville Survey, Survey Table #24

26 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA, 2025 DISPARITY STUDY 5. Legal Finding FINDING 38: OVERALL LEGAL FINDING During the Study Period, the City of Somerville implemented race- and gender-neutral measures to try to increase utilization of MWBE firms in City procurement, but this Disparity Study demonstrated that those efforts were not effective in avoiding or resolving the disparities identified.20 The City therefore has an evidentiary basis to introduce more robust race- and gender-neutral remedies, and also a legal basis, under current applicable law, to introduce narrowly tailored race- and gender-conscious remedies toward the goal of eliminating the identified disparities. The regression analysis and the evaluation of the contracting environment in the private sector as part of this Study demonstrate that factors other than MWBE status cannot fully account for the statistical disparities found. Stated otherwise, The City can show that MWBE status continues to have an adverse impact on a firm’s ability to secure contracting opportunities with it, further supporting more aggressive remedial efforts. Lastly, having obtained statistical and anecdotal evidence of disparities that are race, ethnicity, and gender specific for each of the studied industry categories, the City can ensure that the more robust remedies recommended can be limited to minority groups for which statistically significant underutilization has been identified in a particular Industry Category – that is, they are narrowly tailored to address the specific disparities measured. B. COMMENDATIONS COMMENDATION 1: THE CITY HAS SUPPLIER DIVERSITY GOALS G&S commends the City of Somerville for its FY24 Supplier Diversity Goals, which emphasize expanding the number of diverse businesses, improving the quantity and quality of offers, and increasing overall spending with Minority- and Women owned businesses. COMMENDATION 2: THE CITY POSTS CURRENT BIDS AND OPPORTUNITITES ON THEIR WEBSITE G&S commends the City of Somerville for posting current bids and opportunities on their website, thereby ensuring businesses have access to this information. COMMENDATION 3: THE CITY HAS AN OFFICE OF RACIAL AND SOCIAL JUSTICE G&S commends the City of Somerville for creating the Office of Racial and Social Justice (ORSJ) to spearhead equity initiatives and collaborate with city departments, constituents, and stakeholders in addressing racial inequalities and social injustices. 20 As noted in the Policy Chapter, on state funded construction and design projects, the City applied the race and gender-conscious goal provisions required by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts for such projects.

27 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA, 2025 DISPARITY STUDY COMMENDATION 4: THE CITY RECEIVED MINIMAL OR NO COMPLAINTS REGARDING BONDING AND INSURANCE G&S commends the City of Somerville for receiving few, if any, complaints regarding bonding and insurance requirements in the bidding process. When overly burdensome, these requirements can serve as a barrier, hindering small and disadvantaged businesses from competing for contracts. C. RECOMMENDATIONS The findings of this Study conclude that under current law there is a factual predicate for the City to utilize some race- and gender-conscious remedies in addition to race- and gender-neutral efforts. A regression analysis found that disparities by race, ethnicity, or gender status of the firm owners remained in some cases after controlling capacity and other race and gender-neutral factors. However, the City may not be authorized under Massachusetts state law to institute certain race- and gender- conscious remedial actions. RECOMMENDATION 1: DATA REFORM G&S collected, cleaned, and analyzed five (5) years of data from the City. As a result, it was able to observe those areas where data could more effectively be maintained. This is critical to the implementation of any remedial activities to track their effectiveness properly and accurately. G&S suggests the following data reform. 1. Subcontractors: The City should begin tracking all subcontractors across all industry categories internally. 2. Bid Tabulations: In helping to build a large volume of local vendors for outreach, it should be mandatory for vendors to register with the City before being able to place a bid. 3. Lack of Vendor Information: The City should conduct a thorough data inventory and create a centralized data repository that contains necessary vendor information (Vendor Name, Address, Industry Codes, etc.) 4. Commodity Codes: The City should have firms identify the commodity codes (NIGP or NAICS) under which they provide goods or services. This should be used to notify firms of applicable bid opportunities rather than only notify firms on a limited list. RECOMMENDATION 2: IMPLEMENT AN SDB CONTRACT-BY-CONTRACT SUBCONTRACTING GOALS PROGRAM WITH AUTHORITY FROM THE COMMONWEALTH There is a factual predicate for a race- and gender-conscious subcontractor goals program if the City receives authorization from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. G&S would suggest that the City set specific contract-by-contract goals for SDBs.

28 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA, 2025 DISPARITY STUDY RECOMMENDATION 3: IMPLEMENT A RACE- AND GENDER-NEUTRAL SHELTERED MARKET PROGRAM WITH AUTHORITY FROM THE COMMONWEALTH Massachusetts G.L. c. 30B, § 18 may permit a race and gender conscious sheltered market, however, G&S recommends the creation, with approval from the Commonwealth, of a race-and gender-neutral sheltered market program to further expand competition for the City of Somerville procurement and help all small businesses to work as prime contractors and increase their capacity. Through the Survey of Business Owners, G&S gathered empirical anecdotal evidence indicating that many small firms, including DBEs and SDBs, perceive that informal networks dominate the public contracting process in the City of Somerville. In addition, Many small and MWBE firms complained about unfair competition against large firms in prime contracting. Since many MWBE firms are also small businesses, one method to assist in increasing MWBE participation as well as increasing the capacity of small businesses is to establish a threshold under which only small businesses can bid. This would encourage small businesses to certify as such and to bid on small contracts which will help them to grow their capacity and increase competition on City contracts. RECOMMENDATION 4: CONSIDER INDIVIDUAL EXPERIENCE OF FIRMS WHEN EVALUATING BIDS G&S recommends the City consider the individual experiences of business owners, not just the length of experience of the firm, especially that of small business owners, who may not have many years of experience within the Relevant Geographic Market Area. Otherwise, it could hinder businesses that are new to the City and inhibit their ability to compete for bids. RECOMMENDATION 5: PROVIDE SMALL BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE G&S recommends the following: • Consider providing financial supportive services to vendors. The City of Cambridge offers financial and technical assistance, including a variety of programs, workshops, grants, and resources. In addition, the City should encourage and support local businesses in obtaining third- party resources, like SBA grants and loans. • Partner with small business development organizations. The City of Memphis, TN has been providing funding to several local business incubators but has not had a system for accountability. After its last study, it implemented an accountability process where it required the incubators that it was assisting with funding to provide reports on which firms were being assisted and the outcomes of that assistance. Eventually, it brought some of those business incubators in-house as part of its physical City of Memphis Business Development Center. • Partner with local banks to provide factoring of city contracts. Government contract factoring involves businesses selling unpaid government invoices to a third-party factoring company to receive immediate funding. The City of Boston partners with several factoring companies to provide this option for businesses working on government contracts.

29 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA, 2025 DISPARITY STUDY RECOMMENDATION 6: ENHANCE COMMUNICATIONS AND MARKETING RESOURCES Based on Anecdotal Findings, in which firms discussed a lack of outreach and familiarity with the bidding process. Firms also indicated the belief that there is an informal network that is excluding firms from obtaining projects, G&S recommends that the City enhance its communications with firms, particularly through early forecasting to dispel the perception that certain firms have access to information ahead of others due to their relationships within the City. G&S also recommends that the City collaborate with the Town of Brookline on joint outreach efforts to ensure firms receive sufficient information and to prevent any disconnect between the firms and the City of Somerville. G&S specifically suggests the City does the following: Forecasting: Alerting businesses to upcoming needs even before a formal bid is issued. This will allow the City to provide supportive services well in advance of bid issuance, if needed. G&S recommends that the City endeavors to reach out to more firms than just those that they are already familiar with to get quotes. So, where there is no formal bid, lists of the City’s upcoming needs and types of services and goods anticipated should also be made available to firms with opportunities posted at least a year in advance. Knowing ahead of time what work will be presented in the coming year will give room for contract compliance to schedule networking events and encourage firms to team. It also gives more time for mandatory pre-bid conferences where potential prime contractors can meet potential subcontractors. Targeted Outreach: Along with developing a forecasting plan, identifying firms within the Relevant Geographic Market that would be eligible for projects as they emerge would aid in providing more awareness to bid opportunities for firms to do business with the City. This will show the City’s interest in expanding its reach and will demonstrate the City’s willingness towards inclusivity. Establishing a Marketing Campaign to Increase Registration/Certification resources: G&S recommends that the City establish a more robust vendor registration system for vendor management and outreach. The City should join with the Town of Brookline to conduct a joint registration campaign. Vendor Training: Anecdotal evidence revealed that firms lack an understanding of the City’s purchasing policies and processes. The City should hold seminars and training sessions to provide potential vendors with information to assist them in responding to solicitations. RECOMMENDATION 7: ENHANCE CONTRACT COMPLIANCE To continue to effectively administer an effective and increasingly robust procurement process, the City should enhance its contract compliance efforts, including robust tracking and monitoring of contracts, to ensure that prime contractors utilize firms as committed to in their bid package. The five (5) steps of Contract Compliance are:

30 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA, 2025 DISPARITY STUDY 1. Assessment: An initial assessment of individual firm availability and capacity for specific scopes of work. 2. Outreach: An on-going campaign to let the SDB business community know that the City wants to do business with them and that the City is willing to work with firms to create opportunities and assist, particularly local firms, in building capacity. 3. Certification/Verification: The City should continue to encourage and assist firms in getting certified both as SDBs with the City and through the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. 4. Procurement: All applicable solicitation packages and awarded contracts should include the SDB commitments as contract terms, as well as City participation requirements, such as all firms performing commercially useful functions. 5. Tracking and Monitoring: It is essential that SDB participation be closely tracked and monitored. Likewise, projects should be efficiently closed out to verify that SDB firms are actually performing the work that they were contracted to perform. Finally, firms should be compensated in a timely manner and in the amounts committed. Monitoring vendor performance should also ensure equal and fair treatment in terms of contracts. RECOMMENDATION 8: TRACK MWBE PARTICIPATION AND REVIEW CLAIMS G&S recommends the City to track MWBE participation in City and Prime contracts. Likewise, the City should continue to review any claims of racial discrimination from MWBEs and ensure that businesses are aware of the City’s capacity to do so. RECOMMENDATION 9: STREAMLINE BIDDING PROCESS AND LIMITING PAPERWORK The City of Somerville should review and streamline its bidding process to ensure required submissions are not overly burdensome, especially for small firms handling smaller projects. Implementing an online bidding tool and adopting more efficient procedures could simplify participation in procurement, making it more accessible and inviting, particularly for smaller businesses with limited resources to dedicate to bid preparation. Additionally, better coordination of the release of bid opportunities, either by expanding the time available to respond, or a more consistent release time (weekly, monthly, or quarterly, for example) will give companies ample time to respond. The City should also review the paperwork required to submit bids and consider reducing paperwork requirements for smaller bids. In the G&S Survey of Business Owners, many small firms, including DBEs and SBDs, identified excessive paperwork as an issue that complicates the bidding process by imposing additional burdens on small firms, who might not have the capacity to complete them. G&S recommends that the City review the necessary paperwork that is required to submit bids, especially for smaller dollars, and reduce the paperwork requirements to prevent complicating the bidding process.

31 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA, 2025 DISPARITY STUDY RECOMMENDATION 10: ENFORCE PROMPT PAY PROVISIONS AND IMPLEMENT INTERNAL REVIEW OF INVOICES The G&S Survey of Business Owners indicated that both prime contractors and subcontractors identified prompt payment as a barrier to participation. 36.5% of survey respondents reported that it took between 61 and 90 days to receive payment from the City, while 19% of subcontractor respondents indicated the same payment timeframe. Strengthening enforcement of payment provisions and assessing internal payment processes to prime contractors could significantly improve this issue. G&S recommends that the City of Somerville review and enforce its prompt pay provisions on both the prime and subcontractor levels. This process would include implementing an internal review of invoices and monitoring how long it takes for a prime contractor to be paid by the City from the time it submits its first invoice to find out if the problem is in the City’s processing or in prime contractors having to resubmit invoices because of errors. If it is the latter, the City should provide vendor education on how to submit proper invoices. RECOMMENDATION 11: EVALUATE OPPORTUNITY FOR ADDITIONAL STAFFING AND RESOURCES G&S’s recommendations represent a possible need for increased resources and staffing. Prior to undertaking these recommendations, the City should consider whether there is a need to allocate additional resources and potentially additional staffing. G&S is aware that additional funding would be dependent on the budgeting process. The City can utilize the time period before additional resources are approved and applied to: • Accept the Study and its Recommendations; • Plan for Implementation (Steps, Phases and Tasks); • Determine Budget and Staffing Needs for New Policy Elements; and • Develop a Training Protocol and Train any additional staff

32 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA, 2025 DISPARITY STUDY III. LEGAL REVIEW A. Introduction The City of Somerville and the Town of Brookline (hereafter jointly “Somerville/Brookline”) have engaged Griffin & Strong, (“G&S”) to conduct Disparity Studies assessing their respective procurement policies, practices, and overall purchasing environments. One important question that will be addressed based on the results of the Studies is whether Somerville/Brookline have proper authority to develop and implement a sheltered market program consistent with Massachusetts procurement law.21 The present Studies will therefore address that question for each jurisdiction, among other relevant matters. The analysis provided throughout this Legal Chapter underscores the several purposes for which a Disparity Study may be done, the importance of methodological soundness, and the usefulness of the data and other information contained therein. Disparity studies can provide context regarding prior government procurement practices, a contemporary snapshot of current procurement practices, and a predictive preview of future challenges/needs. There is also an important historical legal basis for the advent of disparity studies in the first instance. Key judicial decisions from the United States Supreme Court anticipating and inviting increased use of disparity studies are therefore discussed first in the following legal analysis, before digging deeper into the legal considerations and related evidentiary requirements for sustaining an MBE/WBE program even in the face of a challenge on constitutional grounds. Special consideration is made to decisions by the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, as these decisions govern Somerville/Brookline and highlight some of the legal considerations under which an evaluation of (or a challenge to) their policies or programs would be analyzed B. Historical Overview – Development of the Law The outgrowth of disparity studies was in large measure a response to constitutionally based legal challenges made against federal, state, and local Minority business enterprise programs enacted to remedy past or present discrimination (whether real or perceived). Such studies effectively were invited by the United States Supreme Court in its seminal decision in City of Richmond v. J. A. Croson Co.,22 and subsequent judicial decisions have drawn a direct line between Croson and the utilization of disparity studies.23 Disparity studies have become an important tool for governmental entities in deciding whether to enact Minority business programs or legislation, and in justifying existing programs or legislation in the face of constitutional challenge. To better understand the proper parameters of such programs, one must understand their judicial origin. 21 Specifically, pursuant to Massachusetts General Law, Part I, Title III, Chapter 30B, the “Uniform Procurement Act”, § 18. 22 488 U.S. 469; 109 S. Ct. 706; 102 L. Ed. 2d 854 (1989). 23 See, for example, Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Slater (Adarand VII), 228 F.3d 1147, 1172-73 (10th Cir. 2000) (“Following the Supreme Court's decision in Croson, numerous state and local governments have undertaken statistical studies to assess the disparity, if any, between availability and utilization of Minority owned businesses in government contracting.”).

33 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA, 2025 DISPARITY STUDY C. The Supreme Court’s Decision in City of Richmond v. J.A. Croson State and local laws that, on their face, favor one class of citizens over another, may run afoul of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteen Amendment to the United States Constitution. MBE/WBE programs and legislation are among the laws that invoke such concerns. The nature of the differentiation (e.g., race, ethnicity, gender) upon which the program is based determines the level of judicial scrutiny applied by courts evaluating the constitutionality of such programs. As explained at greater length below, race-based programs are evaluated under a “strict scrutiny” standard, and gender-based programs may be subject either to strict scrutiny or to a less-rigorous “intermediate scrutiny” standard, depending on the federal circuit within which the public entity is located. In its Croson decision, the Supreme Court, applying a strict scrutiny standard, ruled that the City of Richmond failed to demonstrate a compelling state interest for its Minority Business Enterprise program, which required prime contractors to subcontract 30% of the city’s construction contracts to Minority owned firms.24 “Strict scrutiny” review involves two co-equal considerations: the need to demonstrate a compelling governmental interest in taking remedial action; and implementation of a program or method narrowly-tailored to achieve/remedy the compelling interest.25 In Croson, the Supreme Court concluded that the City of Richmond failed to show identifiable discrimination in its construction industry, and thus, could not show that its Minority set-aside program was necessary to remedy the effects of any purported discrimination.26 The Court reasoned that a statistical disparity between the overall Minority population in Richmond (50% African American) and awards of prime contracts to Minority owned firms (0.67% to African American firms) was an irrelevant statistical comparison and insufficient to raise an inference of discrimination.27 Addressing the disparity evidence that Richmond proffered to justify its MBE program, the Court emphasized the need to distinguish between “societal discrimination,” which it found to be an inappropriate and inadequate basis for social classification, and the type of identified discrimination that can support and define the scope of race-based relief. Specifically, the Court opined that a generalized assertion of past discrimination in an entire industry provided no guidance in determining the present scope of the injury a race-conscious program seeks to remedy. It emphasized “there was no direct evidence of race discrimination on the part of the City in letting contracts or any evidence that the City’s prime contractors had discriminated against Minority owned subcontractors.”28 The Court concluded there was no prima facie case of a constitutional or statutory violation by anyone in the construction industry that might justify the City of Richmond’s MBE program.29 Justice O'Connor nonetheless provided some guidance on the type of evidence that might indicate a proper statistical comparison: [W]here there is a significant statistical disparity between the number of qualified Minority contractors willing and able to perform a particular service and the number of such 24 Croson, 488 U.S. at 505. 25 Id. at 485-86. The strict scrutiny standard is discussed in greater length in the Expanded Legal Analysis hereafter. 26 Id. at 505-06. 27 Id. at 479-80, 501-02. 28 Id. at 480. 29 Id. at 500, 505-06.

34 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA, 2025 DISPARITY STUDY contractors actually engaged by the locality or the locality's prime contractors, an inference of discriminatory exclusion could arise.30 Stated otherwise, the statistical comparison should be between the percentage of MBEs in the marketplace qualified to do contracting work (including prime contractors and subcontractors) and the percentage of total government contract awards (and/or contractual dollars paid) to Minority firms. The relevant question among lower federal courts has been which tools or methods are best for such analysis, a matter addressed in the detailed discussion of statistical comparison provided below. Of note, the Croson court stated that identified anecdotal accounts of past discrimination also could be used as part of the effort to meet the required compelling interest for local governments to enact race-conscious remedies.31 However, conclusory claims of discrimination by City officials would not suffice, nor would an amorphous claim of societal discrimination, simple legislative assurances of good intention, or congressional findings of discrimination in the national economy.32 Regarding the second prong of the strict scrutiny test, the Croson Court opined that Richmond’s MBE program was also not narrowly tailored to redress the effects of discrimination. For example, the Court reasoned that Richmond’s MBE program was not remedial in nature because it provided preferential treatment to minorities such as Eskimos and Aleuts, groups for which there was no evidence of discrimination in Richmond.33 Thus, the scope of the City's program was too broad. Also, the Court reasoned that the 30% goal for MBE participation in the Richmond program was a rigid quota not related to identified discrimination, specifically criticizing the City for its lack of inquiry into whether a particular Minority business, seeking racial preferences, had suffered from the effects of past discrimination.34 The Court further noted the City failed to consider race-neutral alternatives to remedy the under- representation of minorities in contract awards.35 Subsequent to the decision in Croson, the Supreme Court and the federal Circuit Courts of Appeal have provided additional guidance regarding the considerations, measurements, information, and features surrounding an MWBE program that will assist in protecting the program from constitutional challenge under a strict scrutiny analysis. These recommendations have, in many respects, provided a methodological guide for disparity studies, which is discussed in greater detail in Appendix B: Expanded Legal Analysis. 30 Id. at 509. 31 Id. 32 Id. at 500. 33 Id. at 506. 34 Id. at 507. 35 Id. at 498, 507.

35 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA, 2025 DISPARITY STUDY D. The Supreme Court’s Decision in Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Pena and Subsequent Circuit Court Proceedings Six years after its decision in Croson, the Supreme Court was again confronted with an equal protection challenge to a disadvantaged business program in Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Pena.36 This time, however, the program under challenge was enacted by the federal government, thus implicating the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution rather than the Fourteenth Amendment that was at issue with respect to the local program in Croson. Vacating the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit (the “Tenth Circuit”) and remanding for further proceedings, the Supreme Court ruled that federal programs are not reviewed for constitutionality under a more lenient standard than that which is applied to state and local programs (as had been indicated in some prior Supreme Court opinions), but rather, that strict scrutiny is to be applied to an analysis of the constitutionality of federal race-based programs as well.37 Because the United States District Court for the District of Colorado (the “Colorado District Court”) and the Tenth Circuit had applied a lesser standard of review, the Supreme Court remanded the case for review of the federal program under the strict scrutiny standard, consistent with Croson.38 On remand, the Colorado District Court essentially ruled that no program can meet the strict scrutiny standard --- i.e., it is “fatal in fact.”39 The Tenth Circuit disagreed, and it upheld the federal program even under a strict scrutiny standard, finding both a compelling state interest and the required narrow tailoring to achieve such compelling interest.40 Consistent with Croson and subsequent opinions, the Tenth Circuit described its task regarding the compelling state interest as follows: [O]ur inquiry necessarily consists of four parts: First, we must determine whether the government's articulated goal in enacting the race-based measures at issue in this case is appropriately considered a "compelling interest" under the governing case law; if so, we must then set forth the standards under which to evaluate the government's evidence of compelling interest; third, we must decide whether the evidence presented by the government is sufficiently strong to meet its initial burden of demonstrating the compelling interest it has articulated; and finally, we must examine whether the challenging party has met its ultimate burden of rebutting the government's evidence such that the granting of summary judgment to either party is proper. We begin, as we must, with an inquiry into the meaning of “compelling interest.”41 The court first found that the government’s proffered interest – “remedying the effects of racial discrimination and opening up federal contracting opportunities to members of previously excluded Minority groups” – is an 36 515 U.S. 200 (1995) (Adarand III). 37 Id. at 227. 38 Id. at 237-38. 39 Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Pena, 965 F. Supp. 1556, 1580 (D. Co. 1997) (Adarand IV). 40 Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Slater, 228 F.3d 1147 (10th Cir. 2000) (Adarand VII). 41 Adarand VII, 228 F.3d at 1164.

36 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA, 2025 DISPARITY STUDY appropriately compelling interest.42 It then provided that both direct evidence and circumstantial evidence of discrimination could be considered in support of that interest.43 Considering the specific evidence presented by the government to support its argument that remedial action was necessary, the Adarand VII court found the government demonstrated a “strong basis in evidence” for such action. Evidence of classic “old boy” networks of contractors that historically excluded Minority firms, denial of access to capital based on race, and denial of or difficulty in obtaining union membership by Minority firms established Minority contractors faced significant discriminatory barriers to business formation.44 The court also determined from the evidence that existing Minority contractors faced barriers to competition for federal construction contracts due to “discrimination by prime contractors, private sector customers, business networks, suppliers, and bonding companies[.]”45 In support of its position, the government produced statistical and anecdotal evidence taken from local disparity studies which demonstrated under-utilization of Minority subcontractors (described in more detail below), and the effect on utilization rates when affirmative action programs or efforts were discontinued for one reason or another.46 The court went on to discuss at length its reasoning that the government also adequately demonstrated its program was narrowly tailored to achieve the compelling interest discussed previously.47 In sum, the Court found that the government satisfactorily met the following important factors: “the necessity for the relief and the efficacy of alternative remedies; the flexibility and duration of the relief, including the availability of waiver provisions; the relationship of the numerical goals to the relevant labor market; and the impact of the relief on the rights of third parties.”48 The case was therefore returned to the district court for further proceedings “consistent with this opinion.”49 E. The First Circuit’s Adoption and Application of Croson Interestingly, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, which covers Massachusetts, has primarily relied on the Supreme Court’s guidance in Croson in the contexts of school choice litigation and public employment/promotion cases.50 There are no significant decisions of the First Circuit specific to government purchasing or procurement. 42 Id. at 1164-65 (“[W]e readily conclude that the federal government has a compelling interest in not perpetuating the effects of racial discrimination in its own distribution of federal funds and in remedying the effects of past discrimination in the government contracting markets created by its disbursements.”). 43 Id. at 1166-1167. 44 Id. at 1168-70. 45 Id. at 1170-72. 46 Id. at 1172-1175. 47 Id. at 1176-1187. 48 Id. at 1177 (citing United States v. Paradise, 480 U.S. 149, 171, 107 S.Ct. 1053, 94 L.Ed.2d 203 (1987)). 49 Id. at 1188. 50 See e.g., Boston’s Children First v. City of Boston, 395 F.3d 10 (1st Cir. 2005) (school choice/access); Stuart v. Roache, 951 F.2d 446 (1st Cir. 1991) (police promotion).

37 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA, 2025 DISPARITY STUDY Because race-conscious policies or programs are at issue in the above school choice and public employment cases, however, the First Circuit has expressly adopted the Croson court’s application of the strict scrutiny standard to such policies/programs, requiring demonstration of a “compelling state interest” to remedy disparities and “narrowly tailored” remedial efforts.51 F. The Supreme Court’s Recent Decision in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard College The Supreme Court recently released its opinion in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College,52 which dealt with affirmative action in college admissions. The decision in Students for Fair Admissions is limited, for now, to college admissions programs that use race as a determinative factor for admission without basing such use on a real-world factual predicate. Though the opinion does not directly address affirmative action in public procurement, there are some aspects of the Court’s decision that may apply to or influence future cases in that context, so a brief overview is offered here. As an initial matter the Supreme Court cited, with approval, the jurisprudential framework that supports disparity studies and, by extension, appropriately designed and implemented MWBE programs. In essence, the court reaffirmed the legal infrastructure (including methodologies) that grants viability to disparity studies and enforceability to MWBE and SBE programs across the nation, with reference to Croson, Adarand, and their progeny. Further, when the Court provided its reasoning for striking down the admissions programs/processes at Harvard and at the University of North Carolina, it cited constitutional concerns or infirmities that either have no application in the public procurement context or which have already been addressed methodologically as a result of prior federal appellate decisions. On the issue of the “compelling state interest” (and supporting factual predicate), the Court in Students for Fair Admissions concluded that the schools’ stated “diversity” aims: “(1) training future leaders in the public and private sectors”; (2) preparing graduates to ‘adapt to an increasingly pluralistic society’; (3) fostering innovation and problem solving; (4) preparing engaged and productive citizens and leaders; and (5) enhancing appreciation, respect, and empathy, cross-racial understanding, and breaking down stereotypes[,]’” were insufficiently “coherent for purposes of strict scrutiny.”53 The Court focused its criticism on the immeasurability of these goals and the difficulty in assessing when such goals are achieved in ruling that this first prong of the strict scrutiny test was not met. In contrast, and as discussed in more depth in the Expanded Legal Analysis Appendix, the compelling state interests of remedying the present effects of past discrimination and of avoiding current discrimination in the context of governmental procurement are well- accepted in the existing case law.54 51 Stuart v. Roache, 951 F.2d at 449 (citing Croson and the strict scrutiny standard). 52 600 U.S. 181 Students for Fair Admissions v. President and Fellows of Harvard College (2023). 53 Id. at 23. 54See, for example, Croson, 488 U.S. at 492 (“It is beyond dispute that any public entity, state or federal, has a compelling interest in assuring that public dollar, drawn from the tax contributions of all citizens, do not serve to finance the evils of private prejudice.”).

38 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA, 2025 DISPARITY STUDY On the issue of narrow tailoring, the Court in Students for Fair Admissions concluded that the schools’ policies/programs were not sufficiently narrow, in large part because there was no express endpoint or measurable benchmark that would signal that the program is no longer needed.55 This element of narrow tailoring has been an established part of public procurement case law for many years and express “sunset clauses” represent current best practices in this area.56 G. The Massachusetts Statute Governing Sheltered Market Programs Massachusetts General Law, Part I, Title III, Chapter 30B, the “Uniform Procurement Act” (hereafter, Ch. 30B), governs purchasing for the City of Somerville and the Town of Brookline. Included in Ch. 30B is a provision permitting a governmental body to introduce a Sheltered Market Program intended to address disparities affecting “disadvantaged” vendors.57 Such a program is defined as one “under which certain contracts are designated by the chief procurement officer for procurement from one or more classes of disadvantaged vendors.”58 The sheltered market statute (§ 18) sets forth detailed requirements for creating and implementing a program and stipulates that the program may be applied to one or more contracts, and may cover one or more disadvantaged vendor group(s) (e.g., minorities, women, veterans): When authorized by majority vote, a chief procurement officer may establish a sheltered market program in conformity with the requirements of this section. Such authorization may apply to a single contract or to any number or types of contracts, shall specify the class or classes of disadvantaged vendors to be included in the sheltered market program, and shall to the extent constitutionally required be based on findings that such program is a remedy for the present effects of past discrimination.59 As indicated, the predicate necessary for developing a sheltered market program is a demonstrated need to remedy the present effects of past discrimination. There has been no binding legal decision in Massachusetts (state or federal) involving a challenge to a sheltered market program, but based on Croson and its progeny, it would appear that the type of factual predicate that a Disparity Study is intended to identify or provide will be equally applicable to a sheltered market program introduced pursuant to Ch. 30B, § 18. H. Conclusion The Croson decision, handed down thirty years ago, continues to cast a long shadow over MWBE and DBE programs and legislation. Significant refinement by the Supreme Court and the federal Circuit Courts of Appeal transpired in its wake, though, addressing the acceptable and proper methodologies for achieving the legal standards established by Croson. 55 Id. at 30, 32-34. 56 See infra, Expanded Legal Analysis, section D. (“Finally, ‘review’ or ‘sunset’ provisions are strongly suggested components for an M/WBE program to guarantee that remedies do not out-live their intended remedial purpose.”). 57 G.L., Ch. 30B, § 18. 58 Id., at § 18(a). 59 Id., at § 18(b).

39 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA, 2025 DISPARITY STUDY In fact, the Court in Kossman included in its opinion a lengthy legal overview of what it dubbed “Croson’s Continuing Significance.” In this section of its decision, the Court opined about why a statistical analysis like that presented by the City of Houston was necessary and proper under the Equal Protection scheme established by Croson and refined by its (continuing) progeny.60 In many respects, this opinion provides a roadmap for success in implementing and defending a DBE or MWBE program under the current state of the law, with appropriate attribution and reference to Croson. It is in this legal environment that any MWBE program or policy implemented by the City of Somerville or the Town of Brookline will be evaluated, including in the face of any legal/constitutional challenge. 60 Id. at pp. 34-49, and 53-62.

40 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA, 2025 DISPARITY STUDY IV. Purchasing Policies, Practices, and Procedures A. Introduction This chapter is designed to review the written policies and practices of the City of Somerville (hereinafter, “City”) with respect to purchasing and contracting, including related programs or efforts to enhance inclusion of Disadvantaged Business Enterprises (DBEs, as defined in Massachusetts statute). Underlying this policy review is an understanding that written policies and practices may not always be administered consistently, as there is often room for interpretation or discretionary implementation. Accordingly, policy interviews are intended to identify any deviations, differing interpretations, or variant implementation of policies in order to determine whether there may be any effect on participation of small businesses, including those owned by Minorities and Women. The Executive Summary of Findings and Recommendations provides findings about the City’s policies, practices, and procedures, and formal recommendations for improvement of the overall procurement program and greater achievement of its goals based upon those findings. B. Document Review and Personnel Interviews In preparation for the policy interviews G&S reviewed, among other materials: • Massachusetts State statutes relating to contracting and procurement • City procurement policy and procedure documents • City ordinances • City websites, including the Procurement, Racial & Social Justice, Strategic Planning & Community Development, Economic Development webpages • City budget documents • Other publicly available resources relating to City procurement G&S conducted policy interviews in December 2023 through January 2024 with decision makers and officials regularly engaged in purchasing and contracting for the City. Included in these interviews were personnel in City Procurement and Contracting Services, Economic Development, Infrastructure and Asset Management, Capital Projects, Office of Strategic Planning and Community Development.

41 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA, 2025 DISPARITY STUDY C. Overview of City Purchasing The Organizational Chart below shows the overall City government structure, including Purchasing now renamed to Procurement & Contracting Services (PCS), which is part of the City Finance Department. PCS is budgeted for a staff of eight.61 Figure 1: City of Somerville Organizational Chart City of Somerville Disparity Study Source: City of Somerville 61 https://city-somerville-ma-budget-book.cleargov.com/5132/departments/procurement-contracting- services. The Purchasing department changed its name to Procurement & Contracting Services in the summer of 2022.

42 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA, 2025 DISPARITY STUDY D. Uniform Procurement Act The Massachusetts Uniform Procurement Act, M.G.L. c. 30B (Chapter 30B) governs the purchases of Supplies, Services and Real Property by local governments in Massachusetts. “Supplies” are defined in the law as “all property, other than real property, including equipment, materials and printing and further including services incidental to the delivery, conveyance and installation of such property.”62 “Services” are defined as “the furnishing of labor, time or effort by a contractor, not involving the furnishing of a specific end product other than reports.”63 E. Thresholds The basic parameters of City purchasing in terms of thresholds for competition are summarized below: Supplies or Services Estimated to Cost under $10,000. The City is to use “sound business practices,” defined as “ensuring the receipt of a favorable price by periodically soliciting price lists or quotes.”64 State law does not require a formal competitive process. Supplies or Services Estimated to Cost at least $10,000 but not more than $50,000. The City is to seek written price quotes from at least three vendors and award the contract to the responsible vendor with the best price.65 Supplies or Services Estimated to Cost more than $50,000. The City is to conduct a formal, advertised competition through an invitation for bids (IFB) or a request for proposals (RFP).66 F. Other Purchasing Methods State procurement law for local governments also allows for the following purchase methods: Statewide contract purchases. The State Operational Services Division (OSD) awards a variety of statewide contracts that local jurisdictions may use without conducting a separate procurement.67 Additionally, when granted permission, local jurisdictions may use certain supply or service contracts procured by Commonwealth “departments” (which includes any office, department, agency, division, board, commission, or institution within the executive branch). The City uses statewide contracts frequently, primarily for goods and historically less for services. However, the City has increased their use of state contracts for services, including the construction trades. Massachusetts state contracts do indicate the diversity status of the firms holding the state contract. Cooperative purchases. Local jurisdictions may purchase supplies (but not services) from contracts that have already been procured by an in-state or out of state political subdivision, or unit of a political 62 M.G.L. c. 30B, § 2. 63 M.G.L. c. 30B, § 2. 64 M.G.L. c. 30B, § 4(c). 65 M.G.L. c. 30B, § 4(b). 66 M.G.L. c. 30B, § 5 for IFBs and M.G.L. c. 30B, § 6 for RFPs . 67 M.G.L. c. 30, § 39M(d).

43 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA, 2025 DISPARITY STUDY subdivision, or a federal or state agency, as long as the contract is open to local jurisdictions and was procured in a manner that constitutes full and open competition.68 Collective purchases (also known as collaborative purchases). Two or more local jurisdictions may solicit bids for supplies or services as a group.69 GSA purchases. Local jurisdictions may purchase supplies and services that are available through U.S. General Services Administration (GSA) federal supply schedules.70 Not all GSA contracts are available for local jurisdictions to use. Reverse auction. Local jurisdictions can use reverse auctions to acquire supplies and services valued at more than $50,000.71 A reverse auction allows vendors to bid anonymously against each other over the internet until the auction time expires. The winning bidder is the vendor with the lowest bid before the auction expires. Reverse auctions bids must be submitted by registered vendors. Sole-source procurement. For contracts of $50,000 or less local jurisdictions can procure any supply or service when a reasonable investigation shows that there is only one practicable source for the required supply or service.” Sole-source procurement of more than $50,000 is only allowed for: 1. Software maintenance, library books and educational materials. 2. Noncompetitive purchases of water, gas, electricity.72 Emergency Procurement. If the time required to comply fully with state local procurement law would endanger the health or safety of people or their property due to an emergency, local jurisdictions can procure the needed item or service without complying with all of local procurement law statutory requirements.73 The City uses a procurement card program with a $10,000 annual limit per department. The card is primarily used where purchase orders are not feasible, such as travel and online training. G. Construction Sections 44A-44J of Chapter 149 of the Massachusetts General Laws govern contracts for the construction, reconstruction, installation, demolition, maintenance or repair of a building. Chapter 149 requires that building construction contracts estimated to cost more than $150,000 “shall be awarded to the lowest responsible and eligible general bidder on the basis of competitive bids.”74 With some exceptions, contracts of $10,000 or more for construction services or materials are advertised in the Massachusetts Central Register and COMMBUYS, the online procurement record system for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. 68 M.G.L. c 30B, § 22. 69 M.G.L. c 30B and M.G.L. c. 7, §22B. 70 M.G.L. c 30B, § 1(f). 71 M.G.L. c 30B, § 6(a). 72 M.G.L. c. 30B, § 7(a), (c). 73 M.G.L. c. 30B, § 8. 74 M.G.L. c. 149, § 44A(1)(B).

44 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA, 2025 DISPARITY STUDY In Massachusetts, awarding authorities have the option to use construction management at-risk (CMAR) and design-build approaches for certain project types. These methods are applicable when the estimated construction cost is $5 million or more.75 The City has used CMAR but not design build as construction procurement methods during the Study Period. 1. Small Construction Projects When the estimated cost of a contract is under $10,000, State law requires the City to employ “sound business methods” for contractor selection and maintain a record of the procurement process.76 Sound business practices involve regularly requesting price lists or quotes to guarantee favorable pricing. Engaging with a contractor through a statewide contract acquired through the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Operational Services Division (OSD), is considered as using sound business practices as long as the total purchase cost is less than $10,000. For building construction projects with an estimated cost between $10,000 and $50,000, the City is required to prepare a solicitation including a detailed scope-of-work statement.77 The City has two solicitation options: Option 1: Advertise this solicitation in the Central Register and on COMMBUYS at least two weeks before the response deadline. Additionally, posting on the City’s website and near its primary office. The City must solicit at least three written quotes from contractors typically undertaking such work. Option 2: Alternatively, if the City obtains at least three written quotes from contractors, including two from those on a vendor list from a statewide contract through the OSD or a blanket contract (discussed below) by the City, the City is not required to advertise as described in Option 1. Chapter 149, requires building construction contracts estimated to cost at least $50,000 but not more than $150,000 to use sealed bids and award “to the lowest responsible and eligible bidder on the basis of competitive bids publicly opened.”78 2. Blanket Contracts The objective of a blanket contract is to create a roster of pre-approved vendors in specific trade areas. This enables the City to request quotes from at least three vendors on this list for separate construction tasks as they emerge. Blanket contracts are applicable to individual project tasks with construction labor costs up to $50,000.79 The City can draft a scope of work statement for each project. The City should then solicit a minimum of three quotes from the vendors listed in the blanket contract. The contract is awarded to the lowest bidder deemed acceptable by the City.80 For projects ranging between $10,000 and $50,000, the City can bypass the usual advertising requirements if it uses a blanket contract and receives at least two responses from 75 M.G.L. c. 149A. 76 M.G.L. c. 149, § 44A(1)(A). 77 M.G.L. c. 149, § 44A(1)(B). 78 M.G.L. c. 149, § 44A(1)(C). 79 M.G.L. c. 149, § 44A(1)(B). 80 M.G.L. c. 149, § 44A.

45 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA, 2025 DISPARITY STUDY the vendors in the blanket contract pool. The City has used on-call contracts, a type of blanket contract, for a range of construction trades, including but not limited to painting and plumbing. 3. Public Works The objective of a blanket contract is to create a roster of pre-approved vendors in specific trade areas. This enables the City to request quotes from at least three vendors on this list for separate construction tasks as they emerge. Blanket contracts are applicable to individual project tasks with construction labor costs up to $50,000.81 The City can draft a scope of work statement for each project. The City should then solicit a minimum of three quotes from the vendors listed in the blanket contract. The contract is awarded to the lowest bidder deemed acceptable by the City.82 For projects ranging between $10,000 and $50,000, the City can bypass the usual advertising requirements if it uses a blanket contract and receives at least two responses from the vendors in the blanket contract pool. The City has used on-call contracts, a type of blanket contract, for a range of construction trades, including but not limited to painting and plumbing. Section 39M of Chapter 30 in the Massachusetts General Laws sets the regulations for contracts involving construction, reconstruction, alteration, remodeling, or repairs excluding building work.83 These typically include public works or "horizontal construction" projects, such as road, bridge, water main, sewer construction and repairs, as well as enhancements to public spaces like parks, outdoor pools, and parking lots. For contracts estimated under $10,000, sound business practices must be employed in selecting a contractor. Sound business practices involve regular solicitation of price lists or quotes to ensure competitive pricing. If a public works construction contract or a contract for construction materials is valued between $10,000 and $50,000, a solicitation with a detailed scope-of-work statement must be prepared. The local jurisdiction has the option of conducting a sealed bid process or of soliciting “written responses from no fewer than three persons who customarily perform such work.”84 In neither case within this procurement threshold are bid deposits required. However, a 50% payment bond is required if the contract is more than $25,000.85 4. Filed Sub-Bidding Massachusetts employs a "filed sub-bid" system for selecting subcontractors on certain public projects.86 This system applies when: • The project cost exceeds $150,000. 81 M.G.L. c. 149, § 44A(1)(B). 82 M.G.L. c. 149, § 44A. 83 M.G.L. c. 30, § 39M. 84 M.G.L. c. 30, § 39M. 85 M.G.L. c. 149 § 29. 86 M.G.L. c. 149 § 44F.

46 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA, 2025 DISPARITY STUDY • The subcontractor's work is within a specified category.87 • The subcontract cost is over $25,000. Subcontractors submit sealed bids to the awarding authority (also referenced as “public owner” in this document) in advance of the general bid opening date. Every sub-bid for a building contract subject to the filed sub-bid law must include a copy of a Certificate of Eligibility issued by the Massachusetts Division of Capital Asset Management and Maintenance (DCAMM). After reviewing sub-bids, the public owner provides a list of the responsible and eligible filed sub-bidders and their prices to contractors. General contractors must then select subcontractors from that list for each category, noting names and bid amounts in their general bid, but are not bound to choose the lowest sub-bid. A general contractor can also submit a filed sub-bid if the DCAMM certifies them in that category and they customarily perform the work with their employees. They can either list themselves for the sub-trade work on their general bid or choose the lowest responsible and eligible sub-bidder. The City has used the filed sub-bid process when required. H. Professional Services Contracts with architects, engineers or related professionals are exempt from Chapter 30B (1)(b) (32A). However, a separate law known as the “Designer Selection Law,” governs procurement of designer services for public building projects. Under the Designer Selection Law, there is a mandated advertised, competitive, qualifications-based selection process for choosing designers for building projects.88 The law applies to contracts for various services related to building projects provided by designers, interior designers, programmers, or construction managers. These services include creating master plans, conducting feasibility studies, surveys, soil tests, cost estimates, and programs; preparing drawings, plans, and specifications; supervising or administering a construction contract; and managing and scheduling construction projects.89 Local entities, such as cities and towns, are required to abide by the Designer Selection Law for any design service contract for a building construction, reconstruction, alteration, remodeling, or repair project, where the design fee is at least $30,000 and the projected construction cost is $300,000 or more.90 The law does not apply to horizontal construction. There is no required procedure for designer selection below these thresholds, although soliciting qualifications and prices from at least three designers is recommended. Staff interviews indicated that unless a compelling reason is furnished in writing to the Procurement department to make the case for using the exemption from MGL chapter 30B to enter into a contract with a design professional, the City of Somerville’s operating policy is to competitively source all design professionals even when the designer selection law does not apply. 87 Acoustical tile, metal windows, electrical work, miscellaneous and ornamental iron, elevators, painting, fire protection sprinkler systems, plumbing, glass and glazing, resilient floors, heating, ventilating and air conditioning, roofing and flashing, lathing and plastering, terrazzo, marble tile, masonry work, waterproofing, damp-proofing and caulking. M.G.L. c. 149 § 44F(1)(a). 88 M.G.L. c. 7C, §§ 44-58. 89 M.G.L. c. 7C, § 44(b). 90 M.G.L. c. 7C, § 54.

47 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA, 2025 DISPARITY STUDY The basic steps of the local designer selection process are as follows: 1. Adopt written procedures. 2. Develop the request for qualifications (RFQ) and contract for design services. 3. Advertise the contract. 4. Evaluate applicants and select at least three finalists. 5. Rank the finalists. 6. Finalize the contract. 7. Award the contract and publicize the contract award. The City has developed and adopted its own written procedures, which apply ongoingly to procurement of A&E services. A fee is solicited after the City has chosen the highest-ranking firm. The City also procures some A&E services through statewide blanket contracts, and its own on-call A&E service contracts, which are competitively sourced through a process pursuant to MGL c. 7C. 1. Exemptions from Competitive Bidding The Massachusetts uniform procurement act (Massachusetts General Laws chapter 30B, applicable to local jurisdictions) sets forth a number of exemptions to the requirements of 30B.91 Several of these exemptions have their own competition requirements. These include: 1. Public construction contracts. 2. Public building design contracts subject to the provisions of M.G.L. c. 7C, §§ 44-57, inclusive. 3. Intergovernmental service agreements. 4. Agreements with the Commonwealth. 5. Contracts for the purchase of materials, under specifications of the Massachusetts Department of Transportation Highway Division. 6. Contracts for the advertising of required notices. 7. An agreement between agencies, boards, commissions, authorities, departments or public instrumentalities of one city or town. 8. An agreement for the provision of special education. 9. A contract to purchase supplies or services from, or to dispose of supplies to, any agency or instrumentality of the federal government, the Commonwealth or any of its political subdivisions, or to another state or its political subdivision. 10. The issuance of bonds, notes or securities in accordance with procedures established by law. 11. Contracts and investments made in connection with deferred compensation programs for employees. 12. A contract for the procurement of insurance or surety bonds. 13. Contracts for the services of expert witnesses. 14. Contracts or agreements entered into by a municipal gas or electric department governed by a municipal light board. 15. Contracts with labor relations representatives, lawyers or certified public accountants. 16. Contracts with physicians, dentists and other health care individuals or persons (including nurses, nurses’ assistants, medical and laboratory technicians); health care providers (including diagnosticians); social workers; psychiatric workers; and veterinarians. 17. A contract for snow plowing services. 18. A contract or lease by a governmental body of its boat slips, berths or moorings. 91 M.G.L. c. 30, § 1(b).

48 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA, 2025 DISPARITY STUDY 19. A contract for retirement board services. 20. A contract that is funded by proceeds derived from a gift to a governmental body or a trust established for the benefit of a governmental body. 21. A contract for the towing and storage for motor vehicles. 22. A contract to provide job-related training, educational or career development services to the employees of a governmental body. 23. [This exemption was repealed in 2016.] 24. A contract for ambulance service by a governmental body. 25. A contract to sell, lease or acquire residential, institutional, industrial or commercial real property by a public or quasi-public economic development agency or urban renewal agency engaged in the development and disposition of said real property in accordance with a plan approved by the appropriate authorizing authority. 26. A contract for the collection of delinquent taxes or for the services of a deputy tax collector. 27. Contracts or agreements entered into by a municipal hospital or a municipal department of health. 28. Contracts entered into by a governmental body on behalf of a hospital owned by such governmental body where such contract is funded by expenditures from an operations account, so-called, or a special account, established pursuant to a special act that is maintained for the benefit of and designated with the name of such hospital. 29. Contracts, agreements or leases entered into by a municipal airport commission. 30. A contract for the collection, transportation, receipt, processing or disposal of solid waste, recyclable materials or compostable materials. Hazardous waste contracts and sludge disposal contracts are not exempt. 31. An agreement for the purchase of photography services entered into by a public school. 32. Energy aggregation contracts entered into by a political subdivision of the commonwealth for energy or energy related services arranged or negotiated by such subdivision on behalf of its residents. 33. Contracts with architects, engineers and related professionals. 34. Energy contracts entered into by a city or town or group of cities or towns or political subdivisions of the commonwealth, for energy or energy related services. 35. A contract made in accordance with section 5 of chapter 111C (covering sanitary investigations). I. Bonding, Insurance and Prompt Payment 1. Bonding Under state law, a 100% performance and payment bond is required for building projects over $150,000.92 City procurement staff did not report significant vendor concerns about bonding requirements. City staff did report an instance where a bond was required at a certain level, but the firm was not guaranteed that level of work. Vendor experience with Commonwealth bonding requirements on City procurement is discussed in the Anecdotal chapter below. 92 M.G.L. c. 149.

49 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA, 2025 DISPARITY STUDY 2. Insurance Regarding insurance one recent City solicitation93 provides the following requirements: A. General Liability – Comprehensive Form • Bodily Injury Liability…..……...$ One Million • Property Damage Liability........$ One Million B. Coverage For Payment Of Worker's Compensation Benefit Pursuant To Chapter 152 Of The Massachusetts General Laws In The Amount As Listed Below: • Worker's Compensation.…............$ Statutory • Employers' Liability...….......……. $ Statutory C. Automobile Liability Insurance As Listed Below: • Bodily Injury Liability..........$ Statutory.94 City procurement staff did not report significant vendor concerns about insurance requirements. Most complaints have been from small vendors, and less so recently. Vendor experience with City insurance requirements is discussed in the Anecdotal chapter below. 3. Prompt Payment on Public Construction Projects In Massachusetts, the timelines for prompt payment on public construction projects vary based on the nature of the payment – whether it is a progress or final payment – and the recipient of the payment. For progress payments directed to the prime contractor on a public construction project, the payment is due within 15 days following the submission of an appropriate payment request.95 Regarding final payments to the prime contractor, these are required to be completed within 65 days after the project has reached substantial completion. After receiving a progress payment, the prime contractor is obligated to promptly pay their subcontractors and suppliers. In terms of final payments to subcontractors, these should be made within 65 days following the substantial completion of the work performed by that specific subcontractor. In the event of delayed or unjustly withheld payments in public construction projects in Massachusetts, the outstanding amounts are subject to interest penalties. The interest on such unpaid balances starts accumulating from the first day the payment becomes overdue. The rate applied for this interest is equivalent to the discount rate set by the Federal Reserve, with an additional 3% per annum. 93 Insurance requirements are found in Article 8 of the construction contract, Article 10 of the designer services / engineering services contract, and referenced in Article 9 of the goods & services contract. 94 City of Somerville, IFB # 24-44 Solicitation For: Henry Hansen Memorial Park Construction Services, 2/14/24. 95 M.G.L. 30 §§39F to 39K.

50 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA, 2025 DISPARITY STUDY City staff interviews did report occasional problems with prompt payment of prime contractors. Interviewed Staff members were not aware of payment issues with subcontractors. Massachusetts state law does allow for the direct payment of subcontractors by local agencies.96 Vendor experiences with prompt payment by the City and prime contractors are discussed in the Anecdotal chapter. J. Vendor Outreach and Prequalification Procurement managers routinely build a list of prospective bidders for any given procurement process and notify that list of vendors about the contracting opportunity and share the bid package (IFB, RFP or solicitation for quotes) with everyone on the list. Vendors also contact the Procurement & Contracting Services about specific bids and opportunities when they are advertised, and the procurement manager for the given project adds such vendors to the “list of prospective bidders” if the bidder is not already on the list. Such lists are kept as public records in the procurement files and are routinely used for related procurement projects through the years. Procurement staff build such vendor lists by using a variety of resources, including but not limited to: prior lists for related procurement projects, online searches, the Supplier Diversity Office list of certified suppliers, the City of Boston’s list of certified suppliers, contacting other communities, asking the owner department to furnish a list of any prospective vendors that they would like to ensure have access to the opportunity. The City procurement website presents current bids and opportunities and recently added a “Buying Plan” including forecasts of upcoming bid opportunities.97 The City posts solicitations on the State COMMBUYS system, as required by statute for formal procurement. COMMBUYS is the Commonwealth’s electronic procurement system. Any public agency in Massachusetts can post solicitations on the COMMBUYS system free of charge. A local government in Massachusetts may choose to prequalify bidders on any project over $100,000.98 The City does not maintain an ongoing prequalification list. However, under state law prequalification is required for building projects when the estimated cost of construction is $10 million or more.99 The Massachusetts Department of Transportation (DOT) requires prequalification for certain state-funded transportation contracts over $50,000.100 General contractors and subcontractors bidding on public building construction contracts estimated to cost more than $150,000 have to be certified by DCAMM.101 Smaller construction firms may apply to DCAMM for Small Prime Contractor Certification in order to bid on smaller scale public projects between $150,000 and $500,000. 96 M.G.L. 30 §39F(d). 97 https://www.somervillema.gov/departments/finance/procurement-and-contracting-services 98 M.G.L. c. 149, § 44D1/2(a). 99 Ibid. 100 M.G.L. c. 90, § 34. 101 M.G.L. c. 149.

51 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA, 2025 DISPARITY STUDY K. MWBE State Certification The City does not certify MWBEs or SBEs. The State Supplier Diversity Office (SDO) and City of Boston certify disadvantaged firms. The City of Boston has reciprocal certification with the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. For the Commonwealth, Minority means a person who meets one or more of the following definitions: (a) American Indian or American Indian means: all persons having origins in any of the original peoples of North America and who are recognized as an Indian by a tribe or tribal organization. (b) Asian means: All persons having origins in any of the original peoples of the Far East, Southeast Asia, the Indian sub-continent, or the Pacific Islands, including, but not limited to China, Japan, Korea, Samoa, India, and the Philippine Islands. (c) Black means: All persons having origins in any of the Black racial groups of Africa, including, but not limited to African Americans, and all persons having origins in any of the original peoples of the Cape Verdean Islands. (d) Eskimo or Aleut means: All persons having origins in any of the peoples of Northern Canada, Greenland, Alaska, and Eastern Siberia. (e) Hispanic means: All persons having their origins in any of the Spanish-speaking peoples of Mexico, Puerto Rico, Cuba, Central or South America, or the Caribbean Islands. (f) Portuguese means: All persons having Portuguese origin. Portuguese persons shall only be included in the definition of Minority if specifically set forth in programs funded by state transportation bond statutes which include such persons as eligible participants.102 One distinctive element of this definition that differ from the Minority definitions in other parts of the country is the inclusion of Portuguese. Massachusetts also allows for the certification of nonprofit organizations that meet the following criteria: (a) The applicant must be tax-exempt under either § 501(c)(3) or § 501(c)(4) of the United States Internal Revenue Code, (b) The applicant must be in compliance with, and in good standing legally under, the laws of its governing jurisdiction and any filing requirements of the Public Charities Division of the Office of the Attorney General of Massachusetts, (c) One or more eligible persons must constitute 51% or more of the applicant’s voting membership, if any, and 51% or more of its board of directors, (d) The applicant must be independent, and controlled by one or more, minorities, Women or Minority/Women and, 102 425 Code of Massachusetts Regulations 2.00: Certification § 202(1) Definitions.

52 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA, 2025 DISPARITY STUDY (e) The applicant must be ongoing.103 Eligible person is defined here as an “adult permanent resident of the United States who is a Minority or woman. This person must also be represented by the applicant to be a Minority person or woman who controls, or is among the persons, who control the non-profit organization.”104 Note that the SDO definition of DBE is not the same as the federal definition of DBE for US Department of Transportation programs. Every firm must have its certification renewed every two years and undergo a substantive recertification review at least every six years. The Commonwealth’s disadvantaged firm definition does not set geographic or size limitations on certification. An out-of-state applicant or certified entity must be certified in its home-state and provide a copy of a home-state site visit report to become and remain eligible for SDO certification. A search of the state certification directory found the following quantity of certified firms located in Somerville in February 2024.105 It is worth noting that six of the DBEs were MWBEs, and five of the WBEs were MBEs. The City of Boston certification directory listed 841 firms in January 2024.106 Table 9: Certified Firms Located in the City of Somerville, 2025 Somerville Disparity Study Business Classification Number in Directory Minority Business Enterprise 18 Woman Business Enterprise 24 Veterans Business Enterprise 4 Services Disabled Veterans Business Enterprise 0 LGBTQ+ Business Enterprise 1 Disabled Business Enterprise 0 Disadvantaged Business Enterprise 6 Source: Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Directory of Certified Businesses. 103 425 Code of Massachusetts Regulations 2.00: Certification § 202(4) Criteria for the Certification of a Non-profit Organization. 104 425 Code of Massachusetts Regulations 2.00: Certification § 202(1) Definitions. 105 Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Directory of Certified Businesses. https://www.diversitycertification.mass.gov/BusinessDirectory/BusinessdirectorySearchResult.aspx. 106 City of Boston, Certified Business Directory, Supplier Diversity. https://dashboard.boston.gov/t/Guest_Access_Enabled/views/CertifiedBusinessDirectory/CBD?%3Aembe d=y&%3Aiid=1&%3AisGuestRedirectFromVizportal=y.

53 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA, 2025 DISPARITY STUDY L. Diversity Catalog The City’s Economic Development Department created at Somerville's Diversity Catalog to serve as “a marketing tool for businesses that wish to offer their services and/or products to individuals, other businesses, and institutions within the Greater Boston Area.”107 The Diversity Catalog includes firms owned 51% by individuals in the following categories: • Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer, Intersex, Asexual (LGBTQIA), • Service-Disabled Veteran, • Veteran, • Disability, • Women, • Immigrant, • Black, Indigenous, and people of color, or • Minority owned. The focus is on marketing local businesses and not on firms seeking procurement opportunities with Somerville. There have been four editions of the Diversity Catalog to date. A planner in the Economic Development Department leads the production of the Diversity Catalog, and outreach to MWBE firms. There are 89 firms listed in the 2023 Diversity Catalog. M. MWBE Goals The City has no MWBE or Small Business Enterprise (SBE) goals, set asides or bid preferences programs. However, the City has set new policies and objectives for supplier diversity. The City supplier diversity goals for FY 2024 are: • Increase diversity of suppliers that do business with the City. • Increase quantity and quality of offers City receives from suppliers of goods and services. • Increase spending with suppliers that are owned by minorities and women. • Coordinate with similar efforts in MA and lead multi-jurisdictional effort as needed.108 The City identifies the following tasks for supplier diversity: • Identify and recruit diverse suppliers • Market City contract and purchasing opportunities to diverse businesses • Use online directories and SDO directory • Identify diverse statewide contract vendors that sell goods and services City already buys • Provide technical assistance (TA) to suppliers in how to do business with the City • Improve contract management (department level) and administration • Coordinate with similar efforts in greater Boston and the region109 107 https://www.somervillema.gov/diversitycatalog 108 City of Somerville, FY24 – Updated Policies & Procedures for Procurement and Contracting. Page 1. 109 Ibid.

54 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA, 2025 DISPARITY STUDY The proposed City technical assistance for diverse vendors is: • How to respond to IFBs, RFPs, quotes, small purchasing opportunities • Brief diverse suppliers on statutory requirements (certified payrolls, living wage, wage theft, other ordinances; insurance and bonds) • Is there a referral service for such vendors to providers of such TA? 110 1. State Funded Projects The State’s Municipal Construction Affirmative Marketing Program (MCAMP) mandates that municipalities, acting as Awarding Authorities, integrate goals for MWBEs, and Veteran Business Enterprise (VBE)/Service- Disabled Veteran Business Enterprise (SDVOBE) in both design and construction phases of municipal contracts when such projects ‘include funding provided in whole or in part from the Commonwealth [of Massachusetts]. This applies to contracts involving the construction, reconstruction, alteration, remodeling, repair, or demolition of public buildings by cities or towns, particularly when such projects receive partial or full funding from the Commonwealth.111 In Massachusetts, it is mandatory for awarding authorities to integrate specific participation objectives for MWBEs. These goals must be included in the procurement processes for both the design and construction phases of capital facility projects for state-assisted building projects that receive any form of funding, such as grants or reimbursements, from the Commonwealth.112 City staff reported MWBE goals on City school projects funded by the Massachusetts School Building Authority (MSBA). The goals were set by MSBA. City staff did not recall these MSBA MWBE project goals resulting in bids being rejected for failure to satisfy the goals. Table 10 below shows MWBE spending through March 2024 on the Somerville High School project. The Somerville High School project has a 10.40% MWBE goal. The largest subcontracts thus far (where subcontract work type was identified) MBEs were in electrical and structural steel. The largest subcontracts thus far (where subcontract work type was identified) for WBEs was in demolition & abatement, HVAC, dampproof caulking and kitchen equipment. Table 10: MWBE Spending on Somerville High Schools Project Through March 2024 Somerville Disparity Study Dollars Percent MBE $983,667 0.47% WBE $13,457,422 6.43% MWBE $14,441,089 6.90% Source: City of Somerville, Somerville High School Project, Suffolk Project No. 217068 110 Ibid. 111 DCAMM’s Affirmative Marketing Program for state building projects at MGL c. 7c, §6 and for SDO’s Municipal Construction Affirmative Marketing Program for state assisted building projects at MGL c. 7, §61. See also Supplier Diversity Office, State Funded Municipal Construction Affirmative Marketing Program (MCAMP) General Guidelines. 112 M.G.L. c. 7C, § 6.

55 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA, 2025 DISPARITY STUDY 2. Tax Incentives The City did not use tax incentives for economic development during the Study Period (most tax incentives come from the state level). Consequently, there is no use of MWBE goals in conjunction with City tax incentives. 3. Minority And Women Workforce Participation Goals All contracts by a state agency or state-assisted contracts for design, construction, reconstruction, installation, demolition, maintenance or repair must contain workforce participation goals for minorities and women.113 These workforce participation goals are currently 6.9% for Women and 15.3% for Minorities.114 N. Sheltered Market Programs State law allows for local governments to have sheltered markets for disadvantaged vendors.115 The Commonwealth defines “disadvantaged vendors” for this program as including firms owned by Minorities, Women, and Veterans.116 State law defines a sheltered market program as, “a program under which certain contracts are designated by the chief procurement officer for procurement from one or more classes of disadvantaged vendors.”117 State law further requires that a sheltered market program “shall to the extent constitutionally required be based on findings that such program is a remedy for the present effects of past discrimination.”118 The City does not currently have a sheltered market program for disadvantaged firms. Staff interviews indicated that sheltered markets are not widely used in Massachusetts at present. The City of Boston recently implemented a pilot sheltered market program for two contracts for about $775,000 in 2022.119 O. Reporting MWBE Utilization The City does not track or report MWBE utilization. Vendor demographic status is not indicated in the City financial system. The City is in preliminary stages of tracking MWBE utilization outside of MSBA projects. The new City supplier diversity policy requires that MUNIS record diversity information on vendors and the City reports the “breakdown of vendor diversity” by fiscal year.120 The City has not conducted a previous disparity study. 113 Massachusetts Attorney General’s Office - Public Construction Bidding FAQs 25 Rev. July 2023. See M.G.L. c. 149, § 44A(g). 114 Administration & Finance Administrative Order 2009-14. City ordinances also contain living wage provisions. City of Somerville Ordinances, § 2-399. – Living wage. 115 M.G.L. c 30B, § 18(a). 116 Ibid. 117 Ibid. 118 M.G.L. c 30B, § 18(b). 119 City of Boston, Sheltered Market Pilot Report, page 2. The two contracts were for Comprehensive Cleaning Services and Downtown Events and Coordination. 120 City of Somerville, FY24 – Updated Policies & Procedures for Procurement and Contracting. Page 3.

56 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA, 2025 DISPARITY STUDY P. Business Development Efforts The last few years in the City of Somerville’s Economic Development Division have been focused on COVID- 19 recovery, with a range of financial support programs to directly support the continuity of the community’s beloved small businesses. For the local restaurant community, outdoor dining was a particularly large focus, with two rounds of financial assistance given out to make the transition to outdoor dining possible during the pandemic and to adjust to the revised post-COVID standards for outdoor dining operations. The American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) has afforded the Economic Development Division the opportunity to deepen the impact of COVID recovery. Programs funded through ARPA are being used to give new storefront businesses a boost by providing rental assistance, attracting customers to Somerville’s small business districts with a regional marketing campaign highlighting the diversity of small business offerings and the importance of shopping small, and providing technical assistance to strengthen our small businesses by giving them access to consulting and coaching support. Looking toward the post-COVID economy, the Economic Development Division is turning to issues of small business displacement. A commercial tenants’ guidebook is currently in development to help small businesses critically analyze their leases and lease renewals. Somerville has two Main Streets organizations that the City works closely with and funds to organize businesses and promote the business districts serving low-income residents, and nascent business organizations in two other districts. Across the City, staff work to make connections to available real estate and between business owners to support the growth of local companies. The City has also given funds to the local chamber of commerce. The small business team also grew during the COVID-19 years, adding two full-time positions and a part-time position. There are currently four staff positions with a focus on small businesses, along with the support and collaboration of three planners dedicated to issues of real estate development, and five staff members focused on workforce preparation. The Senior Planner for Women and Minority owned businesses has been leading an effort to build a database of Women and Minority owned businesses, along with the team’s part-time project assistant. The ultimate goal of this work is to build on the printed diversity catalog published in 2020 and 2021 (discussed above) and to create a platform in which these historically disadvantaged businesses are celebrated and highlighted. Somerville also has a Small Business Permitting Liaison that started in 2023 and is engaged in supporting businesses as they navigate the vast array of permits necessary to do their work. The Small Business Permitting Liaison offers weekly virtual office hours or by appointment with other City staff members from divisions such as Inspectional Services and the City Clerk’s office. From zoning approval of a new sign to renewing an annual entertainment license, the Small Business Permitting Liaison assists with navigating through the City’s permitting systems. The City does not provide regular small business loans to firms. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the City issued federally funded forgivable small business loans for about $5 million in total over five rounds. These distributions have primarily focused on businesses identified as SBEs, with the second priority given to MWBEs and businesses owned by disabled individuals. Additional bonus points were awarded to businesses

57 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA, 2025 DISPARITY STUDY that were both SBEs and located in qualified (low income) census tracts. The same criteria have been applied to the allocation of American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funding for 2024. Q. Office of Racial and Social Justice Staffing & Budget The City has an Office of Racial and Social Justice (part of the City Executive Office), but MWBE is not one of its focus areas. The Department focus areas are: • Public Safety for All • Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) • Commissions (SCPD, SCW, HRC) • Hate-Bias Incidents Complaint Process • Creating Structures for Equity The FY23 Goals & Measures of Progress for the Office of Racial and Social Justice does not include MWBE issues.121 The Office has a budgeted staff of ten for FY 2023.122 The FY 2023 Office Budget is $1,294,749.123 There is no internal or external City MWBE advisory committee. R. Conclusion No procurement barriers were reported by City staff, except some issues with prompt payment. Barriers identified by vendors are reported in the Anecdotal chapter below. The City has no MWBE or SBE program. The City has set MWBE goals on state-funded school projects. The City has not used the sheltered market program for disadvantaged firms as authorized by state law. The City does not certify MWBEs. The City has a Diversity Catalog, but it is not used for procurement outreach. The City does not track or report MWBE utilization. The City has an Office of Racial and Social Justice, but MWBE issues are not part of the scope of the Office. 121 Id. 122 https://city-somerville-ma-budget-book.cleargov.com/5132/departments/racial-social-justice 123 Id.

58 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA, 2025 DISPARITY STUDY V. QUANTITATIVE Analysis A. Introduction The quantitative analysis measures and compares the availability of firms in each race/ethnicity/gender group within the City of Somerville’s (hereinafter, “City” or “Somerville”) Relevant Geographic Market Area to the utilization of each race/ethnicity/gender group, measured by the payments made to these groups by the City from July 1st, 2017 to June 30, 2022 ( “Study Period”). The outcome of the comparison shows whether there is a disparity between Availability and Utilization and whether that disparity represents an Overutilization, an Underutilization, or is at Parity (the amount to be expected). The disparity is further evaluated to see if it is statistically significant. Finally, the regression analysis contained in Chapter VI: Analysis of Marketplace Contracting Disparities tests for other explanations of the disparity to determine if it is likely that the disparity is caused by race/ethnicity/gender status, or other race- and gender-neutral factors. If there is statistically significant underutilization of MWBEs that is likely caused by race/ethnicity/gender, then G&S will determine, as part of the findings, whether there is a factual predicate for race- and/or gender-conscious remedies. B. Data Assessment and Requests The data assessment process was initiated with a meeting on December 7th, 2023 with representatives from the City’s various departments that are involved in purchasing. The purpose of this meeting was to determine what data the City maintains, in what format, and how G&S can obtain the data. Further, the objective was for G&S to get a better understanding of the City’s purchasing process. It was also important for G&S’s team to get to know procurement personnel and understand how to operate the Study in a manner least intrusive to the City. Following approval of the Data Assessment Report, which is attached hereto as Appendix C, G&S developed and executed a Data Collection Plan and submitted data requests to the City. The Data Collection Plan sets out the process for collecting manual and electronic data for statistical analyses. In addition, it included a plan for collecting data needed for the anecdotal portions of the study which included surveys, public hearings, focus groups, and interviews. Electronic data (MS Excel or other computer spreadsheets) supplied by the City and other data collected by G&S were catalogued and stored in G&S’s SharePoint subsequent to the data collection effort. The data entered were used to develop databases containing contracting history for each business type, for both prime contracting and, to the extent available, subcontracting on behalf of the City. G&S related all of the databases collected in order to cross-reference information among the files, including matching addresses, industry categories, and MWBE identification. Statistical Analysis Research Question: Is there a disparity that is statistically significant between the percentage of available, qualified, and willing MWBEs in the Relevant Geographic Market Area, and the percentage of dollars spent with MWBEs in that same Relevant Geographic Market Area during the Study Period?

59 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA, 2025 DISPARITY STUDY C. Data Assignment, Cleanup and Verification After the completion of data collection, the data was electronically and manually “cleaned” to find duplicates and fill in unpopulated fields. The cleanup phase also included the following six (6) tasks: 1. Finding firms and purchases to be excluded from the analysis (e.g. governmental agencies, not- for-profits, utilities, colleges & universities, et. al) 2. Assigning and verifying ethnicity, race & gender of each firm; 3. Assigning each firm to one or more of the five (5) industry categories based upon the type of firm; 4. Utilizing zip codes to determine each firm’s location; 5. Matching files electronically to pick up addresses, ethnicity/race/gender, and/or industry category; and 6. Filling in any additional missing data on firms. 1. Assignment of Race/Gender/Ethnicity and LGBTQ+/Disabled/Veteran/Small/Disabled Veteran Certifications To identify MWBE groups , G&S utilized the assignments given to firms in the governmental lists from the: • Commonwealth of Massachusetts SDO Certified Directory • SBA Certified Businesses within Massachusetts and New Hampshire • Rhode Island Certified MBE/DBE Directory • City of Boston Certified Directory • New Hampshire DBE Directory • SAM.gov List of Certified Businesses within Massachusetts and New Hampshire In assignment of race/gender/ethnicity, priority is given to race/ethnicity, so that all Minority owned firms were categorized according to their race/ethnicity and not by gender. Non-Minority Women are categorized by race and gender and firms with no race/ethnicity/gender indicated, Non-Minority male owned firms, and publicly owned corporations, and other non-certified firms are categorized as Non- MWBE firms. From all the governmental certification sources, G&S assembled a Master MWBE list. Where there were any inconsistencies in the race/ethnicity/gender, G&S researched the firm and manually resolved any inconsistencies. 2. Assignment of Industry Categories The purpose of the Master Vendor File is to collect, in one database, a listing of all firms that are ready, willing, and able to do business with the City. It includes internal lists from Somerville as well as outside governmental lists. The Master Vendor file is a compilation of all lists of vendors used to determine availability estimates. It was also used to match and verify data in other data files, particularly to make sure that information assigned to firms for utilization calculations matched the information assigned to firms for availability calculations. This is important to make sure that G&S is comparing like-data to like-data.

60 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA, 2025 DISPARITY STUDY The Master Vendor File contains the lists of firms from the following government data sources: City of Somerville Data Files: • Payments (Study Period) • Vendor List (Current) • Bidders (Study Period) • Awards (Study Period) • Subcontractors from Private Vendor Questionnaire (Study Period) City of Somerville Outside Files: • Town of Brookline Payments (Study Period) • Town of Brookline Vendor List (Current) • Town of Brookline Bidders (Study Period) • Town of Brookline Awards (Study Period) • Town of Brookline Subcontractors from Prime Vendor Questionnaire (Study Period) • Division of Capital Asset Management & Maintenance Certified Contractors • Commonwealth of Massachusetts Department of Transportation Prequalified Contractors • Commonwealth of Massachusetts Supplier Diversity Office Directory of Certified Businesses Availability is determined by using all the unique firms in the Master Vendor File within the Relevant Geographic Market.

61 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA, 2025 DISPARITY STUDY D. Relevant Geographic Market Area Analysis The commonly held idea that the Relevant Geographic Market Area should encompass about 75% to 85% of the "qualified" vendors that serve a particular sector has its origins in antitrust lawsuits.124 In line with antitrust precepts, United States Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor in Croson, specifically criticized the City of Richmond, Virginia, for making MBEs all over the country eligible to participate in its set-aside programs.125 The Court reasoned that a mere statistical disparity between the overall Minority population in Richmond, Virginia, which was 50% African American, and the award of prime contracts to Minority owned firms, 0.67% of which were African American owned firms, was an insufficient statistical comparison to raise an inference of discrimination. Justice O'Connor also wrote that the relevant statistical comparison is one between the percentage of MBEs in the marketplace (or Relevant Geographic Market Area) who were qualified to perform contracting work (including Prime and Subcontractors) and the percentage of total contracting dollars awarded to Minority firms. City of Somerville’s Relevant Geographic Market Area has been determined for each of the Industry Categories: • Construction; • A&E; • Professional Services; • Other Services; and • Goods. For each Industry Category, G&S measured the "Relevant Geographic Market Area” as the area where at least 75% of the City of Somerville dollars were paid during the Study Period. In doing that, G&S converted vendors’ Postal Zip Codes into County/State and then drew the Relevant Geographic Market Area. G&S determined that the Relevant Geographic Market Area is the Boston Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA).126 The results of the Relevant Geographic Market Area for each Industry Category are presented in Table 11. Table 11 on the next page shows that 98.01% of all Construction related payments were made to prime vendors in the Relevant Geographic Market Area during the Study Period, along with 97.84% of A&E, 86.14% of Professional Service, 90.88% of Other Services, and 65.16% of Goods. Given that 92.86% of all City of Somerville spending across all five business categories combined was with firms located in this Relevant Geographic Market Area, G&S determined that one consistent Relevant Geographic Market Area 124 D. Burman. "Predicate Studies: The Seattle Model," Tab E of 11-12 Minority and Women Business Programs Revisited (ABA Section of Public Contract law, Oct. 1990). 125 Croson, 488 U.S. 509, 709 S. Ct. 706 (1989). 126 The Boston MSA is composed of Middlesex County, Massachusetts; Essex County, Massachusetts; Suffolk County, Massachusetts; Norfolk County, Massachusetts; Plymouth County, Massachusetts; Rockingham County, New Hampshire; and Strafford County, New Hampshire. Relevant Geographic Market Area The geographic location where City of Somerville spend at least 75% of its dollars. The Utilization and Availability analyses are conducted only using firms located within the Relevant Geographic Market.

62 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA, 2025 DISPARITY STUDY across all Industry Categories was appropriate. A more detailed breakdown of the Relevant Geographic Market Area analysis by county and by Industry Category is included in Appendix D. Table 11: Relevant Geographic Market127 Area (Using Payment Dollars, FY 2018-22) City of Somerville Disparity Study Work Category Area Amount Percent Cumulative % Construction Somerville, MA $ 19,926,817.71 5.15% 5.15% Rest of MSA* $ 359,433,378.16 92.86% 98.01% CSA** $ 2,096,330.49 0.54% 98.55% Rest of Counties in Massachusetts $ 3,516,065.67 0.91% 99.46% Rest of USA $ 2,095,087.57 0.54% 100.00% Total $ 387,067,679.60 100.00% A&E Somerville, MA $ 620,502.31 1.01% 1.01% Rest of MSA $ 59,369,554.48 96.83% 97.84% CSA $ 181,465.08 0.30% 98.14% Rest of Counties in Massachusetts $ - 0.00% 98.14% Rest of USA $ 1,143,094.78 1.86% 100.00% Total $ 61,314,616.65 100.00% Professional Services Somerville, MA $ 1,097,466.74 3.24% 3.24% Rest of MSA $ 28,061,620.89 82.89% 86.14% CSA $ 1,063,380.29 3.14% 89.28% Rest of Counties in Massachusetts $ 22,306.66 0.07% 89.34% Rest of USA $ 3,607,294.10 10.66% 100.00% Total $ 33,852,068.68 100.00% Other Services Somerville, MA $ 14,270,866.61 16.56% 16.56% Rest of MSA $ 64,054,612.91 74.32% 90.88% CSA $ 1,907,366.52 2.21% 93.10% Rest of Counties in Massachusetts $ 142,711.93 0.17% 93.26% Rest of USA $ 5,806,513.36 6.74% 100.00% Total $ 86,182,071.33 100.00% Goods Somerville, MA $ 1,832,029.66 2.67% 2.67% Rest of MSA $ 42,813,932.15 62.49% 65.16% CSA $ 3,995,916.50 5.83% 71.00% Rest of Counties in Massachusetts $ 1,630,543.43 2.38% 73.38% Rest of USA $ 18,240,542.49 26.62% 100.00% Total $ 68,512,964.23 100.00% Griffin & Strong, 2025 Note: G&S uses full decimal numbers, so automatic rounding may cause differences within the tables. 127 0.01 differences within the tables in the Statistical Chapter are due to automatic rounding.

63 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA, 2025 DISPARITY STUDY E. Availability Analysis 1. Methodology The methodology utilized to determine the Availability of businesses for public contracting is crucial to understanding whether a disparity exists within the Relevant Geographic Market Area. Availability is a benchmark to examine whether there are any disparities between the Utilization of MWBEs and their Availability in the marketplace. Croson and subsequent decisions give only general guidance as to how to measure Availability. One common theme from the Court decisions is that being qualified to perform work for a local jurisdiction is one of the key indices of an available firm. In addition, the firm must have demonstrated that it is both willing and able to perform the work. 2. Measurement Basis for Availability The measures of Availability utilized in this Study incorporate all the criteria of Availability required by Croson: • The firm does business within an Industry Category from which City of Somerville makes certain purchases; • The firm's owner has taken steps (such as registering, bidding, certification, prequalification, etc.) to demonstrate interest in doing business with government; and • The firm is located within a Relevant Geographic Market Area such that it can do business with City of Somerville. An MWBE Availability Estimate is expressed as a percentage of total Availability, computed by dividing the number of firms in each MWBE group within each Industry Category by the total number of businesses in the pool of firms for that Industry Category. Once these Availability estimates were calculated, G&S compared them to the percentage of firms utilized in the respective Industry Categories to generate the Disparity Indices, which will be discussed later in this Analysis. 3. Capacity The ability or capacity to perform the work is tested in the Regression Analysis of the Study in Chapter VI: Analysis of Marketplace Contracting Disparities. The Regression Analysis shows whether race, ethnicity, and gender factors are likely impediments overall to the success of MWBEs in obtaining awards in the marketplace and whether, but for those factors, firms would have the capacity to provide goods and services on a level higher than what is presently being utilized. Further, G&S controlled for capacity by performing a Disparity Analysis on smaller contracts (under $1M and under $500,000) where capacity is not an issue. Availability Estimate The determination of the percentage of MWBEs that are “ready, willing, and able” to provide Goods or services to City of Somerville

64 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA, 2025 DISPARITY STUDY 4. Availability The Availability estimates for the Study are separated into five (5) Industry Categories. Figures 2 through 6 below show the number of available firms by race/gender/ethnicity as compared with the total number of available firms. See Tables E-1 through E-5 in Appendix E for detailed Availability information including the breakdown by Industry Category and the race, ethnicity, or gender of the firm owners. The Availability analyzed from the Master Vendor File includes all unique vendors in each Industry Category from the sources previously listed. The City of Somerville Relevant Geographic Market Area Availability for Construction is shown in Figure 2. As shown in Figure 2, Non-MWBE owned firms were 72.16% of all Construction firms followed by 10.39% of the firms owned by Non-Minority Woman. African American owned firms represented 7.34%, Hispanic American owned firms were 6.86%, while Asian American, Portuguese American, and American Indian owned firms reflected 1.59%, 1.11% and 0.42% of total Construction availability, respectively. About 0.14% of MBEs could not be identified by ethnicity. A total of 1,042 vendors were available in the Construction area. Figure 2: MWBE Availability Estimates – Construction in the City of Somerville Relevant Geographic Market Area (From Master Vendor File) City of Somerville Disparity Study Griffin & Strong, 2025 Note: G&S uses full decimal numbers, so automatic rounding may cause differences within the tables. African American 7.34% Asian American 1.59% Hispanic American 6.86% American Indian … Portuguese American 1.11% Unknown MBE 0.14% Non-Minority Woman 10.39% Non-MWBE 72.16% Construction Firms African American Asian American Hispanic American Native American Portuguese American Unknown MBE Non-Minority Woman Non-MWBE

65 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA, 2025 DISPARITY STUDY The Availability of A&E firms by ownership in the Relevant Geographic Market Area is presented in Figure 3. G&S recorded 479 vendors in that category. As Figure 3 below reflects, 67.28% of the vendors were Non- MWBEs, while 7.44% of businesses were owned by Asian Americans. Likewise, as depicted below, Non- Minority Woman owned firms represented 18.96% of total firms in that category, while firms owned by Hispanic Americans and African Americans owned firms reflected 3.23% and 2.95% of total A&E availability, respectively. There were no firms owned by Portuguese Americans and American Indians in this category. About 0.14% of MBEs could not be identified by ethnicity. Figure 3: MWBE Availability Estimates – A&E in the Relevant Geographic Market Area (From Master Vendor File) City of Somerville Disparity Study Griffin & Strong, 2025 Note: G&S uses full decimal numbers, so automatic rounding may cause differences within the tables. African American 2.95% Asian American 7.44% Hispanic American 3.23% American Indian 0.00% Portuguese American 0.00% Unknown MBE 0.14% Non-Minority Woman 18.96% Non-MWBE 67.28% Architecture & Engineering Firms African American Asian American Hispanic American Native American Portuguese American Unknown MBE Non-Minority Woman Non-MWBE

66 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA, 2025 DISPARITY STUDY The Availability of Professional Service firms by ownership in the Relevant Geographic Market Area is presented in Figure 4. G&S recorded 892 vendors in that category. As Figure 4 below reflects, 55.06% of the vendors were Non-MWBEs, while 10.49% of business were owned by African Americans. Likewise, as depicted below, Non-Minority Women owned firms represented 22.72% of total firms in that category, while firms owned by Asian Americans, Hispanic Americans, Portuguese Americans and American Indians reflected 6.48%, 4.38%, 0.56% and 0.12% of total Professional Services availability, respectively. About 0.19% of MBEs could not be identified by ethnicity. Figure 4: MWBE Availability Estimates – Professional Service in the Relevant Geographic Market Area (From Master Vendor File) City of Somerville Disparity Study Griffin & Strong, 2025 Note: G&S uses full decimal numbers, so automatic rounding may cause differences within the tables. African American 10.49% Asian American 6.48% Hispanic American 4.38% American Indian 0.12% Portuguese American 0.56% Unknown MBE 0.19% Non-Minority Woman 22.72% Non-MWBE 55.06% Professional Services Firms African American Asian American Hispanic American Native American Portuguese American Unknown MBE Non-Minority Woman Non-MWBE

67 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA, 2025 DISPARITY STUDY The Availability of Other Services firms in the Relevant Geographic Market Area is presented in Figure 5. A total of 1,666 vendors were available in the Other Services category. As depicted in Figure 5, 75.28% of the firms were owned by Non-MWBEs, and 10.39% of firms were owned by Non-Minority Women. The African American owned firms consisted of 7.86%, while firms owned by Hispanic Americans, Asian Americans, Portuguese Americans, and American Indians were 3.43%, 2.21%, 0.63%, and 0.05%, respectively. About 0.14% of MBEs could not be identified by ethnicity. Figure 5: MWBE Availability Estimates – Other Services in the Relevant Geographic Market Area (From Master Vendor File) City of Somerville Disparity Study Griffin & Strong, 2025 Note: G&S uses full decimal numbers, so automatic rounding may cause differences within the tables. African American 7.86% Asian American 2.21% Hispanic American 3.43% Native American 0.05% Portuguese American 0.63% Unknown MBE 0.14% Non-Minority Woman 10.39% Non-MWBE 75.28% Other Services Firms African American Asian American Hispanic American Native American Portuguese American Unknown MBE Non-Minority Woman Non-MWBE

68 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA, 2025 DISPARITY STUDY The Availability of Goods firms in the Relevant Geographic Market Area is presented in Figure 6. A total of 2,086 vendors were available in the Goods category. As depicted in Figure 6, 87.82% of the firms were owned by Non-MWBEs, and 6.52% were owned by Non-Minority Women. The African American owned firms consisted of 2.35%, while firms owned by Asian Americans, Hispanic Americans, Portuguese Americans, and American Indians were 1.97%, 1.95%, 0.51% and 0.12%, respectively. About 0.14% of MBEs could not be identified by ethnicity. Figure 6: MWBE Availability Estimates – Goods in the Relevant Geographic Market Area (From Master Vendor File) City of Somerville Disparity Study Griffin & Strong, 2025 Note: G&S uses full decimal numbers, so automatic rounding may cause differences within the tables. African American 2.35% Asian American 1.97% Hispanic American 1.05% Native American 0.05% Portuguese American 0.10% Unknown MBE 0.14% Non-Minority Woman 6.52% Non-MWBE 87.82% Goods Firms African American Asian American Hispanic American Native American Portuguese American Unknown MBE Non-Minority Woman Non-MWBE

69 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA, 2025 DISPARITY STUDY The Availability of “Other Certified” firms (LGBTQ+, Small, Veteran, Disabled Veteran and Disabled) in the Relevant Geographic Market Area across all procurement categories is presented in Table 12. These “Other Certified” categories overlap with the race/ethnic categories and can overlap amongst themselves (e.g., a Small Business can be owned by a Veteran). A total of 737 vendors were available in the “Other Certified” category, constituting 9.13% of available businesses. The strongest certification category in percentage terms across all procurement types was certified Small Business, 8.16% of the total “Other Certified category. Certified Small firms were 12.65% Professional Service firms, the highest percentage of any group across the five procurement categories. Certified LGBTQ+ firms had the lowest percentage representation (0.41%) of all “Other Certified” categories across all procurement categories. The strongest procurement category in percentage terms across all procurement types amongst “Other Certified” firms was Professional Services, 14.14%. Table 12: Availability Estimates for LGBTQ+, Small, Veteran, Disable Veteran, and Disabled -Construction (Using Master Vendor File) City of Somerville Disparity Study Business Ownership Classification Construction Architecture & Engineering Professional Services Other Services Goods TOTAL (#) (#) (#) (#) (#) (#) LGBTQ+ 2 2 17 8 4 33 Small 128 56 205 187 83 659 Veteran 48 8 35 25 22 138 Disabled Veteran 24 1 15 11 13 64 Disabled 29 3 21 13 15 81 TOTAL OTHER CERTIFIED 145 62 229 204 97 737 Non-Other Certified 1299 650 1391 2009 1989 7338 TOTAL FIRMS 1444 712 1620 2213 2086 8075 Business Ownership Classification Construction Architecture & Engineering Professional Services Other Services Goods TOTAL (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) LGBTQ+ 0.14% 0.28% 1.05% 0.36% 0.19% 0.41% Small 8.86% 7.87% 12.65% 8.45% 3.98% 8.16% Veteran 3.32% 1.12% 2.16% 1.13% 1.05% 1.71% Disabled Veteran 1.66% 0.14% 0.93% 0.50% 0.62% 0.79% Disabled 2.01% 0.42% 1.30% 0.59% 0.72% 1.00% TOTAL OTHER CERTIFIED 10.04% 8.71% 14.14% 9.22% 4.65% 9.13% Non-Other Certified 89.96% 91.29% 85.86% 90.78% 95.35% 90.87% TOTAL FIRMS 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% Griffin & Strong, 2025

70 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA, 2025 DISPARITY STUDY F. Utilization Analysis 1. Prime Contractor Utilization The relevant prime Utilization history for the City of Somerville has been recorded based upon the paid amounts captured in the City of Somerville’s financial system and provided by the City of Somerville. In the Prime Contractor Utilization tables below, the dollars and percentage of dollars paid in each of the five (5) Industry Categories have been broken out by race, ethnicity, and gender for each year of the Study Period. The total of each race, ethnicity, and gender group represented in the MWBE category, when added to the Non-MWBE category, equals the Total Column. The totals for each year represent the unique number of firms in that year. The Total Unique Number of Businesses represents the unique pool of firms used over the entire Study Period. Table 13 shows the number of MWBE vendors that were utilized in the Construction category as compared to Non-MWBEs, which were 9 and 109, respectively. Only two MBEs, both African American owned firms, were utilized in Prime Construction during the Study Period. Table 13: Number of Businesses by Fiscal Year-Prime Construction (Using Vendor Payments, FY 2018-2022) City of Somerville Disparity Study Business Ownership Classification 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Total Number of Unique Businesses (#) (#) (#) (#) (#) (#) African American 1 1 0 1 1 2 Asian American 0 0 0 0 0 0 Hispanic American 0 0 0 0 0 0 American Indian 0 0 0 0 0 0 Portuguese American 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL MINORITY 1 1 0 1 1 2 Non-Minority Woman 3 3 4 7 6 7 TOTAL MWBE 4 4 4 8 7 9 Non-MWBE 57 58 52 50 50 109 TOTAL FIRMS 61 62 56 58 57 118 Business Ownership Classification 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Total Number of Unique Businesses (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) African American 1.64% 1.61% 0.00% 1.72% 1.75% 1.69% Asian American 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Hispanic American 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% American Indian 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Portuguese American 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% TOTAL MINORITY 1.64% 1.61% 0.00% 1.72% 1.75% 1.69% Non-Minority Woman 4.92% 4.84% 7.14% 12.07% 10.53% 5.93% TOTAL MWBE 6.56% 6.45% 7.14% 13.79% 12.28% 7.63% Non-MWBE 93.44% 93.55% 92.86% 86.21% 87.72% 92.37% TOTAL FIRMS 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% Griffin & Strong, 2025 Prime Utilization The percentage of actual payments during the Study Period made directly by City of Somerville to MWBEs in comparison to all vendors.

71 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA, 2025 DISPARITY STUDY Table 14 shows the amount of dollars and percentages utilized towards each classification of firms. As shown in the Table 6, 0.95% of prime procurement dollars in Construction was spent with MWBEs. The average spend for MBEs was $108,123 as compared to $483,601 for Non-Minority Woman owned firms and $3,447,328 for Non-MWBE vendors over the Study Period. Table 14: Utilization of Businesses by Fiscal Year-Prime Construction (Using Vendor Payments, FY 2018-2022) City of Somerville Disparity Study Business Ownership Classification 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 TOTAL ($) ($) ($) ($) ($) ($) African American $ 112,964 $ 10,883 $ 0.00 $ 37,400 $ 55,000 $ 216,247 Asian American $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 Hispanic American $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 American Indian $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 Portuguese American $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 TOTAL MINORITY $ 112,964 $ 10,883 $ 0.00 $ 37,400 $ 55,000 $ 216,247 Non-Minority Woman $ 861,191 $ 366,169 $ 451,985 $ 920,341 $ 785,520 $ 3,385,206 TOTAL MWBE $ 974,155 $ 377,052 $ 451,985 $ 957,741 $ 840,520 $ 3,601,453 Non-MWBE $ 23,196,313 $ 59,495,537 $ 27,870,414 $ 97,083,409 $ 68,113,071 $ 375,758,743 TOTAL FIRMS $ 24,170,467 $ 59,872,590 $ 128,322,399 $ 98,041,150 $ 68,953,591 $ 379,360,196 Business Ownership Classification 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 TOTAL (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) African American 0.47% 0.02% 0.00% 0.04% 0.08% 0.06% Asian American 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Hispanic American 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% American Indian 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Portuguese American 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% TOTAL MINORITY 0.47% 0.02% 0.00% 0.04% 0.08% 0.06% Non-Minority Woman 3.56% 0.61% 0.35% 0.94% 1.14% 0.89% TOTAL MWBE 4.03% 0.63% 0.35% 0.98% 1.22% 0.95% Non-MWBE 95.97% 99.37% 99.65% 99.02% 98.78% 99.05% TOTAL FIRMS 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% Griffin & Strong, 2025

72 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA, 2025 DISPARITY STUDY Table 15 shows 9 Non-Minority Woman owned firms (11.69%) were utilized in the A&E category as compared to 67 Non-MWBE vendors (87.01%). One Asian American owned firm was utilized as a prime in the A&E category. Table 15: Number of Businesses by Fiscal Year-Prime A&E (Using Vendor Payments, FY 2018-2022) City of Somerville Disparity Study Business Ownership Classification 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Total Number of Unique Businesses (#) (#) (#) (#) (#) (#) African American 0 0 0 0 0 0 Asian American 0 0 0 0 1 1 Hispanic American 0 0 0 0 0 0 American Indian 0 0 0 0 0 0 Portuguese American 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL MINORITY 0 0 0 0 1 1 Non-Minority Woman 6 6 5 6 4 9 TOTAL MWBE 6 6 5 6 5 10 Non-MWBE 33 36 35 38 38 67 TOTAL FIRMS 39 42 40 44 43 77 Business Ownership Classification 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Total Number of Unique Businesses (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) African American 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Asian American 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 2.33% 1.30% Hispanic American 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% American Indian 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Portuguese American 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% TOTAL MINORITY 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 2.33% 1.30% Non-Minority Woman 15.38% 14.29% 12.50% 13.64% 9.30% 11.69% TOTAL MWBE 15.38% 14.29% 12.50% 13.64% 11.63% 12.99% Non-MWBE 84.62% 85.71% 87.50% 86.36% 88.37% 87.01% TOTAL FIRMS 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% Griffin & Strong, 2025

73 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA, 2025 DISPARITY STUDY As shown in Table 16, 4.28% of prime procurement dollars in A&E was spent with Non-Minority Woman owned firms and 0.29% with the one MBE Asian American firm). The total spend for Non-MWBE firms in the A&E category was $57,247,089 as compared to $2,570,035 for firms owned by Non-Minority Women. The average spend overall for Non-MWBE firms in the A&E category was $854,434 as compared to $285,559 for firms owned by Non-Minority Women. Table 16: Utilization of Businesses by Fiscal Year-Prime A&E (Using Vendor Payments, FY 2018-2022) City of Somerville Disparity Study Business Ownership Classification 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 TOTAL ($) ($) ($) ($) ($) ($) African American $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 Asian American $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 172,933 $ 172,933 Hispanic American $ 0.00. $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 American Indian $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 Portuguese American $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 TOTAL MINORITY $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 172,933 $ 172,933 Non-Minority Woman $ 245,382 $ 435,076 $ 260,205 $ 581,150 $ 1,048,222 $ 2,570,035 TOTAL MWBE $ 245,382 $ 435,076 $ 260,205 $ 581,150 $ 1,221,155 $ 2,742,968 Non-MWBE $ 15,538,048 $ 9,463,228 $ 9,108,686 $ 11,717,611 $ 11,419,517 $ 57,247,089 TOTAL FIRMS $ 15,783,431 $ 9,898,304 $ 9,368,890 $ 12,298,761 $ 12,640,671 $ 59,990,057 Business Ownership Classification 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 TOTAL (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) African American 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Asian American 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1.37% 0.29% Hispanic American 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% American Indian 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Portuguese American 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% TOTAL MINORITY 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1.37% 0.29% Non-Minority Woman 1.55% 4.40% 2.78% 4.73% 8.29% 4.28% TOTAL MWBE 1.55% 4.40% 2.78% 4.73% 9.66% 4.57% Non-MWBE 98.45% 95.60% 97.22% 95.27% 90.34% 95.43% TOTAL FIRMS 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% Griffin & Strong, 2025

74 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA, 2025 DISPARITY STUDY Table 17 shows 12 MWBE vendors (4.40% of total unique firms) were utilized in the Professional Service category which includes 7 WBEs and 5 MBEs area as compared to 261 Non-MWBE vendors. Table 17: Number of Businesses by Fiscal Year-Prime Professional Services (Using Vendor Payments, FY 2018-2022) City of Somerville Disparity Study Business Ownership Classification 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Total Number of Unique Businesses (#) (#) (#) (#) (#) (#) African American 0 0 0 0 0 0 Asian American 3 3 3 3 2 4 Hispanic American 1 1 1 1 1 1 American Indian 0 0 0 0 0 0 Portuguese American 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL MINORITY 4 4 4 4 3 5 Non-Minority Woman 3 3 4 3 3 7 TOTAL MWBE 7 7 8 7 6 12 Non-MWBE 113 138 113 97 117 261 TOTAL FIRMS 120 145 121 104 123 273 Business Ownership Classification 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Total Number of Unique Businesses (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) African American 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Asian American 2.50% 2.07% 2.48% 2.88% 1.63% 1.47% Hispanic American 0.83% 0.69% 0.83% 0.96% 0.81% 0.37% American Indian 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Portuguese American 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% TOTAL MINORITY 3.33% 2.76% 3.31% 3.85% 2.44% 1.83% Non-Minority Woman 2.50% 2.07% 3.31% 2.88% 2.44% 2.56% TOTAL MWBE 5.83% 4.83% 6.61% 6.73% 4.88% 4.40% Non-MWBE 94.17% 95.17% 93.39% 93.27% 95.12% 95.60% TOTAL FIRMS 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% Griffin & Strong, 2025

75 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA, 2025 DISPARITY STUDY As shown in Table 18, 38.87% of prime procurement dollars in Professional Services was spent with MWBEs, of which the overwhelming amount was with five MBEs (38.26% of total prime dollars in Professional Services). The total spend with Non-MWBEs in the Professional Service category was $17,825,702 as compared to $11,333,386 for MBEs and $177,816 for Non-Minority Woman owned firms. The average spend with MBEs in the Professional Service category was $2,231,114 as compared to $68,298 for Non-MWBEs and $25,402 for firms owned by Non-Minority Women. Thus, although MBEs were paid less overall than Non-MWBEs in Professional Services, they were paid multiple times more in average dollars per firm. Table 18: Utilization of Businesses by Fiscal Year-Prime Professional Services (Using Vendor Payments, FY 2018-2022) City of Somerville Disparity Study Business Ownership Classification 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 TOTAL ($) ($) ($) ($) ($) ($) African American $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 Asian American $ 347,036 $ 128,349 $ 670,217 $ 1,085,998 $ 76,067 $ 2,307,667 Hispanic American $ 1,027,277 $ 1,841,943 $ 2,422,113 $ 2,190,164 $ 1,366,406 $ 8,847,902 American Indian $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 Portuguese American $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 TOTAL MINORITY $ 1,374,313 $ 1,970,292 $ 3,092,330 $ 3,276,162 $ 1,442,473 $ 11,155,570 Non-Minority Woman $ 56,118 $ 23,324 $ 54,034 $ 21,025 $ 23,315 $ 177,816 TOTAL MWBE $ 1,430,431 $ 1,993,616 $ 3,146,364 $ 3,297,187 $ 1,465,788 $ 11,333,386 Non-MWBE $ 3,950,515 $ 3,628,560 $ 3,107,060 $ 3,262,994 $ 3,876,573 $ 17,825,702 TOTAL FIRMS $ 5,380,946 $ 5,622,177 $ 6,253,423 $ 6,560,181 $ 5,342,361 $ 29,159,088 Business Ownership Classification 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 TOTAL (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) African American 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Asian American 6.45% 2.28% 10.72% 16.55% 1.42% 7.91% Hispanic American 19.09% 32.76% 38.73% 33.39% 25.58% 30.34% American Indian 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Portuguese American 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% TOTAL MINORITY 25.54% 35.05% 49.45% 49.94% 27.00% 38.26% Non-Minority Woman 1.04% 0.41% 0.86% 0.32% 0.44% 0.61% TOTAL MWBE 26.58% 35.46% 50.31% 50.26% 27.44% 38.87% Non-MWBE 73.42% 64.54% 49.69% 49.74% 72.56% 61.13% TOTAL FIRMS 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% Griffin & Strong, 2025

76 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA, 2025 DISPARITY STUDY The number of firms utilized, and the associated amounts spent on Other Services are presented in Tables 19 and 20. The number of unique MWBEs utilized in this Industry Category is 8; 4 MBEs and 4 WBEs which was 1.85% of the total number of 433 unique businesses utilized for Other Services. Table 19: Number of Businesses by Fiscal Year-Prime Other Services (Using Vendor Payments, FY 2018-2022) City of Somerville Disparity Study Business Ownership Classification 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Total Number of Unique Businesses (#) (#) (#) (#) (#) (#) African American 0 0 0 0 0 0 Asian American 0 0 0 1 0 1 Hispanic American 0 3 2 0 1 3 American Indian 0 0 0 0 0 0 Portuguese American 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL MINORITY 0 3 2 1 1 4 Non-Minority Woman 1 2 3 2 3 4 TOTAL MWBE 1 5 5 3 4 8 Non-MWBE 219 221 169 170 172 425 TOTAL FIRMS 220 226 174 173 176 433 Business Ownership Classification 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Total Number of Unique Businesses (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) African American 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Asian American 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.58% 0.00% 0.23% Hispanic American 0.00% 1.33% 1.15% 0.00% 0.57% 0.69% American Indian 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Portuguese American 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% TOTAL MINORITY 0.00% 1.33% 1.15% 0.58% 0.57% 0.92% Non-Minority Woman 0.45% 0.88% 1.72% 1.16% 1.70% 0.92% TOTAL MWBE 0.45% 2.21% 2.87% 1.73% 2.27% 1.85% Non-MWBE 99.55% 97.79% 97.13% 98.27% 97.73% 98.15% TOTAL FIRMS ####### 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% Griffin & Strong, 2025

77 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA, 2025 DISPARITY STUDY With respect to the City of Somerville prime expenditures in Other Services, and as reflected in Table 20, 1.11% ($867,298) of the total procurement was spent with MWBEs during the Study Period, the majority of which went to firms owned by Non-Minority Women. The average spend with MBEs in the Other Services category was $99,115 as compared to $117,710 for Non-Minority Woman owned firms, and $182,255 for Non-MWBE vendors over the Study Period. Table 20: Utilization of Business by Fiscal Year-Prime Other Services (Using Vendor Payments, FY 2018-2022) City of Somerville Disparity Study Business Ownership Classification 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 TOTAL ($) ($) ($) ($) ($) ($) African American $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 Asian American $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 16,000 $ 0.00 $ 61,000 Hispanic American $ 0.00 $ 104,936 $ 269,534 $ 0.00 $ 5,990 $ 380,459 American Indian $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 Portuguese American $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 TOTAL MINORITY $ 0.00 $ 104,936 $ 269,534 $ 16,000 $ 5,990 $ 396,459 Non-Minority Woman $ 81,528 $ 102,898 $ 112,742 $ 82,323 $ 91,347 $ 470,839 TOTAL MWBE $ 81,528 $ 207,834 $ 382,276 $ 98,323 $ 97,337 $ 867,298 Non-MWBE $ 15,160,751 $ 15,730,198 $ 14,903,943 $ 14,263,317 $ 17,399,972 $ 77,458,181 TOTAL FIRMS $ 15,242,279 $ 15,938,032 $ 15,286,219 $ 14,361,641 $ 17,497,309 $ 78,325,480 Business Ownership Classification 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 TOTAL (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) African American 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Asian American 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.11% 0.00% 0.02% Hispanic American 0.00% 0.66% 1.76% 0.00% 0.03% 0.49% American Indian 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Portuguese American 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% TOTAL MINORITY 0.00% 0.66% 1.76% 0.11% 0.03% 0.51% Non-Minority Woman 0.53% 0.65% 0.74% 0.57% 0.52% 0.60% TOTAL MWBE 0.53% 1.30% 2.50% 0.68% 0.56% 1.11% Non-MWBE 99.47% 98.70% 97.50% 99.32% 99.44% 98.89% TOTAL FIRMS 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% Griffin & Strong, 2025

78 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA, 2025 DISPARITY STUDY The number of firms utilized, and the associated amounts spent on Goods, are presented in Tables 21 and 22. The number of unique MWBEs utilized in this Industry Category is 21, which was 3.76% of the total number of 559 unique businesses utilized for Goods. Table 21: Number of Businesses by Fiscal Year-Prime Goods (Using Vendor Payments, FY 2018-2022) City of Somerville Disparity Study Business Ownership Classification 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Total Number of Unique Businesses (#) (#) (#) (#) (#) (#) African American 0 1 0 0 0 1 Asian American 1 1 1 1 2 2 Hispanic American 0 0 0 0 0 0 American Indian 0 0 0 0 0 0 Portuguese American 1 1 1 1 1 1 TOTAL MINORITY 2 3 2 2 3 4 Non-Minority Woman 10 13 10 10 8 17 TOTAL MWBE 12 16 12 12 11 21 Non-MWBE 312 316 289 263 265 538 TOTAL FIRMS 324 332 301 275 276 559 Business Ownership Classification 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Total Number of Unique Businesses (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) African American 0.00% 0.30% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.18% Asian American 0.31% 0.30% 0.33% 0.36% 0.72% 0.36% Hispanic American 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% American Indian 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Portuguese American 0.31% 0.30% 0.33% 0.36% 0.36% 0.18% TOTAL MINORITY 0.62% 0.90% 0.66% 0.73% 1.09% 0.72% Non-Minority Woman 3.09% 3.92% 3.32% 3.64% 2.90% 3.04% TOTAL MWBE 3.70% 4.82% 3.99% 4.36% 3.99% 3.76% Non-MWBE 96.30% 95.18% 96.01% 95.64% 96.01% 96.24% TOTAL FIRMS 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% Griffin & Strong, 2025

79 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA, 2025 DISPARITY STUDY With respect to the City of Somerville’s prime expenditures, and as reflected in Table 22, 6.38% of the total procurement was conducted with MWBEs. The total spend for MBEs was $626,225, for Non-Minority Women owned firms it was $2,223,318, and $41,796,419 for Non-MWBEs. The average spend overall for Non-MWBE firms was $77,689 in the Goods category as compared to $156,556 for MBEs and $130,783 for Non-Minority Woman owned firms. Thus, MWBEs received fewer dollars than Non-MWBEs, but more dollars per firm over the Study Period in Goods. Table 22: Utilization of Businesses by Fiscal Year-Prime Goods (Using Vendor Payments, FY 2018-2022) City of Somerville Disparity Study Business Ownership Classification 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 TOTAL ($) ($) ($) ($) ($) ($) African American $ 0.00 $ 10,121 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 10,121 Asian American $ 108,408 $ 95,601 $ 106,323 $ 108,408 $ 188,276 $ 607,017 Hispanic American $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 American Indian $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 Portuguese American $ 3,394 $ 4,274 $ 683 $ 435 $ 301 $ 9,087 TOTAL MINORITY $ 111,802 $ 109,996 $ 107,006 $ 108,843 $ 188,577 $ 626,225 Non-Minority Woman $ 139,212 $ 185,129 $ 146,335 $ 1,041,688 $ 710,953 $ 2,223,318 TOTAL MWBE $ 251,015 $ 295,126 $ 253,341 $ 1,150,531 $ 899,530 $ 2,849,542 Non-MWBE $ 8,520,224 $ 7,939,208 $ 8,110,596 $ 9,364,046 $ 7,862,345 $ 41,796,419 TOTAL FIRMS $ 8,771,239 $ 8,234,333 $ 8,363,937 $ 10,514,577 $ 8,761,876 $ 44,645,962 Business Ownership Classification 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 TOTAL (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) African American 0.00% 0.12% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.02% Asian American 1.24% 1.16% 1.27% 1.03% 2.15% 1.36% Hispanic American 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% American Indian 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Portuguese American 0.04% 0.05% 0.01% 0.00% 0.00% 0.02% TOTALMINORITY 1.27% 1.34% 1.28% 1.04% 2.15% 1.40% Non-Minority Woman 1.59% 2.25% 1.75% 9.91% 8.11% 4.98% TOTAL MWBE 2.86% 3.58% 3.03% 10.94% 10.27% 6.38% Non-MWBE 97.14% 96.42% 96.97% 89.06% 89.73% 93.62% TOTAL FIRMS 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% Griffin & Strong, 2025

80 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA, 2025 DISPARITY STUDY Certified Small Business Enterprises (SBEs) were paid the most prime dollars ($4,165,961) during the Study Period amongst the Other Certified firms category (Table 23): • Five certified SBEs were paid $2,801,910 in prime Construction spending over the Study Period. Two Veteran owned firms received $471,233 in prime Construction dollars. • Three certified SBEs were paid $80,190 in prime A&E spending over the Study Period. • Four certified SBEs were paid $180,254 in prime Professional Services spending over the Study Period. • Seven certified SBEs were paid $524,916 in prime Other Services spending over the Study Period. Two Veteran owned firms received $12,566 (one of which was Disabled Veteran) in prime Other Services dollars. • Eight certified SBEs were paid $578,691 in prime Goods spending over the Study Period. No prime dollars were spent with LGBTQ+ owned, Veteran owned, Disabled owned or Disabled Veteran owned firms in A&E, Professional Services, or Goods over the Study Period. Table 23: Prime Utilization Analysis in Relevant Geographic Market Area, Other Certified Business Categories (Using Vendor Payments, FY 2018-2022) City of Somerville Disparity Study Business Ownership Classification Construction A&E Professional Services Other Services Goods TOTAL ($) ($) ($) ($) ($) ($) LGBTQ+ $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 Small $ 2,801,910 $ 80,190 $ 180,254 $ 524,916 $ 578,691 $ 4,165,961 Veteran $ 471,233 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 12,566 $ 0.00 $ 483,799 Disabled Veteran $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 8,500 $ 0.00 $ 8,500 Disabled $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 8,500 $ 0.00 $ 8,500 TOTAL FIRMS $ 379,360,196 $ 59,990,057 $ 29,159,088 $78,325,480 $ 44,645,962 $ 591,480,782 Business Ownership Classification Construction A&E Professional Services Other Services Goods TOTAL (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) LGBTQ+ 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Small 0.74% 0.13% 0.62% 0.67% 1.30% 0.70% Veteran 0.12% 0.00% 0.00% 0.02% 0.00% 0.08% Disabled Veteran 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.01% 0.00% 0.00% Disabled 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.01% 0.00% 0.00% Griffin & Strong, 2025

81 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA, 2025 DISPARITY STUDY 1. Subcontractor Utilization The City of Somerville did not track subcontracting payments during the Study Period. Therefore, G&S conducted a Prime Vendor Questionnaire to request the subcontractor information from prime payees. The Prime Vendor Questionnaire was sent out by mailing to the 1,389 firms that were prime payees during the Study Period in every Industry Category, except Goods where there is little no subcontracting. After receiving few responses, G&S followed up by email and conducted a telephone campaign to the 217 Construction and A&E prime vendors (which are the Industry Categories that typically have the most subcontracting opportunities). Calls were made to 73 Construction and 37 A&E prime vendors which resulting in responses from resulted 49 firm responses, 14 of which reported approximately $4 Million in subcontractor payments. As shown in Table 24, Of this amount,MBEs were paid $448,370 (11.21%) and firms owned by Non-Minority Women were paid $345,015 (8.63%). Table 24: Subcontractor Utilization Analysis in Relevant Geographic Market Area, (Using Vendor Payments, FY 2018-2022) City of Somerville Disparity Study Business Ownership Classification Construction A&E Professional Services Other Services Goods TOTAL ($) ($) ($) ($) ($) ($) African American $ 0.00 $ 208,607 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 208,607 Asian American $ 0.00 $ 239,763 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 239,763 Hispanic American $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 American Indian $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 Portuguese American $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 TOTAL MINORITY $ 0.00 $ 448,370 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 448,370 Non-Minority Woman $ 0.00 $ 345,017 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 345,017 TOTAL MWBE $ 0.00 $ 793,387 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 793,387 Non-MWBE $ 264,391 $ 2,834,497 $ 102,568 $ 0.00 $ 5,250 $3,206,706 TOTAL FIRMS $ 264,391 $ 3,627,884 $ 102,568 $ 0.00 $ 5,250 $4,000,092 Business Ownership Classification Construction A&E Professional Services Other Services Goods TOTAL (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) African American 0.00% 5.75% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 5.22% Asian American 0.00% 6.61% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 5.99% Hispanic American 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% American Indian 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Portuguese American 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% TOTAL MINORITY 0.00% 12.36% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 11.21% Non-Minority Woman 0.00% 9.51% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 8.63% TOTAL MWBE 0.00% 21.87% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 19.83% Non-MWBE 100.00% 78.13% 100.00% 0.00% 100.00% 80.17% TOTAL FIRMS 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 0.00% 100.00% 100.00% Griffin & Strong, 2025 Subcontractor Utilization The percentage of dollars awarded to Subcontractors (in the Relevant Geographic Market Area), by ethnic/gender category.

82 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA, 2025 DISPARITY STUDY The City did have reports of subcontractor spending with MWBEs on the Somerville High School Project.128 There was a 10.40% MWBE goal on the project, in keeping with Commonwealth law requirements for school projects receiving Commonwealth funding. Table 17 shows the amount of MWBE Subcontractor dollars for the five (5) Industry Categories for the Somerville High School Project. • MBEs were paid $521,420 in Subcontractor Utilization, or 0.38%, while Non-Minority Woman owned firms were paid $2,967,656, or 2.15% in Construction. • MBEs were paid $1,161,063 in Subcontractor Utilization, or 18.88%, while Non-Minority Woman owned firms were paid $33,643, or 0.55% in Goods. • MWBEs were paid no Subcontract dollars in A&E, Professional Services, or Other Services. MBEs were 1.09% and Non-Minority Woman owned firms were 1.94% of Subcontractor dollars spent in the five Industry Categories during the Study Period. Table 25: Subcontractor Utilization Analysis in Relevant Geographic Market Area, Somerville High School Project (Using Vendor Payments, FY 2018-2022) City of Somerville Disparity Study Business Ownership Classification Construction A&E Professional Services Other Services Goods TOTAL ($) ($) ($) ($) ($) ($) African American $ 349,420 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 395,606 $ 745,026 Asian American $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 765,457 $ 765,457 Hispanic American $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 American Indian $ 172,000 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 172,000 Portuguese American $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 TOTAL MINORITY $ 521,420 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 1,161,063 $ 1,682,483 Non-Minority Woman $ 2,967,656 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 33,643 $ 3,001,299 TOTAL MWBE $ 3,489,076 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 1,194,706 $ 4,683,782 Non-MWBE $ 134,397,481 $ 4,624,355 $ 0.00 $ 6,311,636 $ 4,955,677 $ 150,289,149 TOTAL FIRMS $ 137,886,557 $ 4,624,355 $ 0.00 $ 6,311,636 $ 6,150,383 $ 154,972,931 Business Ownership Classification Construction A&E Professional Services Other Services Goods TOTAL (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) African American 0.25% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 6.43% 0.48% Asian American 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 12.45% 0.49% Hispanic American 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% American Indian 0.12% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.11% Portuguese American 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% TOTAL MINORITY 0.38% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 18.88% 1.09% Non-Minority Woman 2.15% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.55% 1.94% TOTAL MWBE 2.53% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 19.42% 3.02% Non-MWBE 97.47% 100.00% 0.00% 100.00% 80.58% 96.98% TOTAL FIRMS 100.00% 100.00% 0.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% Griffin & Strong, 2025 128 City of Somerville, Somerville High School Project, Suffolk Project No.217068.

83 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA, 2025 DISPARITY STUDY G. Determination of Disparity This section of the report addresses the crucial question of whether, and to what extent, there is disparity between the Utilization of MWBEs as measured against their Availability in the Relevant Geographic Market Area. 1. Methodology The statistical approach to answer this question is to assess the existence and extent of disparity by comparing the MWBE utilization percentages (by dollars) to the percentage of the total pool of MWBE firms in the Relevant Geographic Market Area. The actual disparity derived as a result of employing this approach is measured by the use of a Disparity Index (DI). The Disparity Index is defined as the ratio of the percentage of MWBE firms utilized, (U), divided by the percentage of such firms available in the marketplace, (A): Let: U =Utilization percentage for the MWBE group A =Availability percentage for the MWBE group DI =Disparity Index for the MWBE group DI =U/A The results obtained by a Disparity Analysis will result in one of three conclusions: Overutilization, Underutilization, or Parity. Underutilization is when the Disparity Index is below one hundred. Overutilization is when the Disparity Index is over one hundred. Parity or the absence of disparity is when the Disparity Index is one hundred (100), which indicates that the Utilization percentage equals the Availability percentage. In situations where there is Availability, but no Utilization, the corresponding Disparity Index will be zero. Finally, in cases where there is neither Utilization nor Availability, the corresponding Disparity Index is undefined and designated by a dash (-) or (Small Number) symbol. Disparity analyses are presented separately for each Industry Category and for each race/gender/ethnicity group. 2. Determining the Significance of Disparity Indices The determination that a particular ethnic or gender group has been overutilized or underutilized is not, standing alone, proof of discrimination. Typically, the determination of whether a disparity is “statistically significant” can be based on the depth of the disparity in that any Disparity Index that is less than 80 is considered to be statistically significant Underutilization, and any Disparity Index over 100 is considered to be an Overutilization. Disparity Indices Calculate the difference between the percentage of City of Somerville’s Utilization of MWBEs during the Study Period and the Availability percentage of MWBEs.

84 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA, 2025 DISPARITY STUDY G&S uses a statistical test that considers whether the typical Disparity Index across all vendor categories is equal to unity. This constitutes a null hypothesis of “Parity,” and the test estimates the probability that the typical Disparity Index departs from unity, and the magnitude of the calculated test statistic indicates whether there is typically Underutilization or Overutilization. Statistical significance tests were performed for each Disparity Index derived for each MWBE group, and in each Industry Category. This approach to statistical significance is consistent with the case law. The existence of a statistically significant disparity between the Availability and Utilization of Minority or Non-Minority Woman owned businesses, which are determined to likely be the result of the owners’ race, gender, or ethnicity, will establish an inference that ongoing effects of discrimination are adversely affecting market outcomes for underutilized groups. Accordingly, such findings will impact the recommendations provided in this Study. G&S will, in such a case, make recommendations for consideration of appropriate and narrowly tailored race, ethnicity, and gender-neutral remedies for this discrimination to give all firms equal access to public contracting with the City of Somerville. G&S will also, if appropriate, recommend narrowly tailored race-, ethnicity-, and gender-conscious remedies to ameliorate identified barriers and forms of discrimination likely affected by such discrimination. If no statistically significant disparity is found to exist, or if such a disparity is not determined to be a likely result of firm owners’ race, ethnicity, or gender upon their success in the marketplace, G&S may still make recommendations to support the continuation of engagement, outreach, small business development, and non-discrimination policies in the purchasing processes of the City of Somerville. 3. Prime Disparity Indices The results of the Study team’s statistical analysis of Utilization data for the five Industry Categories are presented in Table 26 on the next page. The outcomes of the statistical tests are colorized for easy understanding. As reflected in the Table below, there was Underutilization in prime contracts for all available MWBE groups, except Asian American and Hispanic American owned firms in Professional Services. G&S also conducted a disparity analysis for contracts under $500,000 and under $1 million in Appendix F. There was Underutilization in prime contracts for all available MWBE groups, except Asian American owned firms in Professional Services for both contracts under $500,000 and under $1 million. Please see tables showing detailed analysis of this section in Appendix F, Tables F-1 through F-15.

85 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA, 2025 DISPARITY STUDY Table 26: Prime Contractor Disparity Analysis Summary City of Somerville Disparity Study Firm Ownership Construction A&E Professional Services Other Services Goods Asian American 0.78 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.97 Asian American 0.00 3.87 122.10 0.92 69.17 Hispanic American 0.00 0.00 692.35 14.14 0.00 American Indian 0.00 NA 0.00 0.00 0.00 Portuguese American 0.00 NA 0.00 0.00 21.23 TOTAL MINORITY 0.33 2.09 172.16 3.53 24.80 Non-Minority Woman 8.59 22.59 2.68 5.78 76.38 TOTAL MWBE 3.41 13.97 86.49 4.48 52.42 TOTAL Non-MWBE 137.26 141.85 111.03 131.36 106.60 Griffin & Strong, 2025 Legend: Statistically Significant Underutilization (Disparity percentage below 80%). Underutilization (Disparity percentage 80% to 99.9%). Overutilization Disparity percentage over 100%). No color = Parity.

86 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA, 2025 DISPARITY STUDY 4. Subcontractor Utilization Disparity Indices Table 27 shows the disparity results for Subcontractor Utilization for the Somerville High School Project, which had the most complete subcontractor data. There was Underutilization in Subcontracts for all available MWBE groups, except firms owned by African Americans and Asian Americans in Goods. Table 27: Subcontractor Disparity Analysis Summary Somerville High School Project City of Somerville Disparity Study Firm Ownership Construction A&E Professional Services Other Services Goods African American 3.45 0.00 0.00 0.00 273.83 Asian American 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 633.21 Hispanic American 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 American Indian 30.02 NA 0.00 0.00 0.00 Portuguese American 0.00 NA 0.00 0.00 0.00 TOTAL MINORITY 2.17 0.00 0.00 0.00 333.72 Non-Minority Woman 20.72 0.00 0.00 0.00 8.39 TOTAL MWBE 9.09 0.00 0.00 0.00 159.53 TOTAL Non-MWBE 135.07 148.64 181.62 132.83 91.75 Griffin & Strong, 2025 Legend: Statistically Significant Underutilization (Disparity percentage below 80%). Underutilization (Disparity percentage 80% to 99.9%). Overutilization Disparity percentage over 100%). No color = Parity

87 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA, 2025 DISPARITY STUDY H. Conclusion There was Underutilization in prime contracts for all available MWBE groups, except Asian American and Hispanic American owned firms in Professional Services. G&S also conducted a disparity analysis for contracts under $500,000 and under $1 million. In these cases, there was Underutilization in prime contracts for all available MWBE groups, except Asian American owned firms in Professional Services for both contracts under $500,000 and under $1 million. There was Underutilization in Subcontracts for all available MWBE groups on the Somerville High School Project, except firms owned by African Americans and Asian Americans in Goods.

88 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA, 2025 DISPARITY STUDY VI. Analysis of Marketplace Contracting Disparities in THE CITY OF Somerville Relevant Market Area A. Introduction In this section, G&S considers the market entry, public contracting/subcontracting outcomes, and relevant private and public sector outcomes of Minority Business Enterprises (MBEs), Women Business Enterprises (WBEs), Small Disadvantaged Business Enterprises (SDBEs), and Disadvantaged Business Enterprises (DBEs) (collectively referred to as “MWBE”) relative to Non-MWBE firms in the Relevant Market Area129. This analysis utilizes data from businesses that are willing, able, or have actually contracted/subcontracted with the City of Somerville, MA, to determine if the likelihood of successful contracting/subcontracting opportunities—actual and perceived—in the Relevant Market Area is conditioned, in a statistically significant manner, on the race, ethnicity, or gender status of firm owners. Such an analysis is a useful and important complement to estimating simple disparity indices, which assume all things important for success and failure are equal among businesses competing for public contracts. This analysis is based on unconditional moments, that is, statistics that do not necessarily inform causality or the source of differences across such statistics. As simple disparity indices do not condition on possible confounders130 of new firm entry, and success and failure in public sector contracting/subcontracting by businesses, they are only suggestive of disparate treatment, and their implied likelihood of success/failure could be biased. Further details on this statistical analysis are provided in Appendix G. This analysis suggests that there are possible confounders of success and failure in the market and public sector contracting/subcontracting that are sources of heterogeneity, or diverse characteristics among businesses that lead to differences in success and failure. Failure to condition on these diverse characteristics in statistically analyzing success/failure in new firm formation and public sector contracting/subcontracting outcomes can leave simple disparity indices devoid of substantive policy implications as they ignore the extent to which firm owner race/ethnicity characteristics are causal factors. Disparate outcomes could possibly reflect in whole or in part, outcomes driven by disparate business firm characteristics that matter fundamentally for success/failure in the formation of new firms and public sector contracting/subcontracting outcomes. If the race, ethnicity, or gender status of a firm owner conditions lower likelihoods of success/failure, this would be suggestive of these salient and mostly immutable characteristics causing the observed disparities. A broad context for considering disparities by firm ownership status can be informed by considering private sector outcomes in the relevant Relevant Market Area. In general, the success and failure of MWBEs in public contracting could be conditioned by their outcomes in the private sector regarding their revenue generating capacity. The value of a descriptive private sector analysis is that it situates disparity analyses in the ”but-for” justification. Ayres and Vars (1998), in their consideration of the constitutionality of public affirmative programs posit a scenario in which private suppliers of financing systematically exclude or charge higher prices to Minority businesses, which potentially increases the cost for which Minority owned businesses can provide services required under public contracts relative to Non-Minority owned 129 In particular, the relevant market is the Boston-Cambridge-Newton, MA-NH Metropolitan Statistical Area (“MSA”) from the US Census Bureau. 130 A confounder can be defined as a variable that, when added to the regression model, changes the estimate of the association between the main independent variable of interest (exposure) and the dependent variable (outcome) by 10% or more.

89 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA, 2025 DISPARITY STUDY businesses.131 This type of private discrimination scenario would mean that Minority businesses may only have recourse to higher cost financing due to facing discrimination in private sector capital markets, which compromises the competitiveness of their bids. Such a perspective on discrimination suggests that barriers faced by MWBEs in the private sector can rationalize targeted contracting programs by political jurisdictions, as the counterfactual is that in the absence of such private sector discrimination, they would be able to compete with other firms in bidding for public contracts. B. Firm Revenue Table 20 below reports on firm ownership type and “proxied” sales revenue for the Boston-Cambridge- Newton Metropolitan Statistical Area the —Relevant Market Area— from the US Census Bureau’s Annual Business Survey (ABS).132 G&S’s descriptive private sector analysis considers the percentage of representation in the population of firms and revenue across the available and relevant firm ownership type classifications.133 Measuring at the firm level, business ownership is defined as having more than 50% of the stock or equity in the business and is categorized by sex, ethnicity, and race and other firms not classifiable by sex, ethnicity, and racial status. For the Relevant Market Area, Table 28 reveals that relative to Non-Minority owned firms, the estimated revenue shares of each Minority owned firm never exceed 4.1% (Women).134 All MWBEs have estimated revenue shares far smaller than their firm representation shares. Relative to Non-Minority owned firms in the Relevant Market Area, exclusive of Women owned firms—some of whom are Non-Minority owners— the sum of individual MWBE revenue shares are of a large order of magnitude below their implied 10% (approximately) firm representation shares.135 This is consistent with and suggestive of, but not necessarily causal evidence for, MWBEs facing discriminatory barriers in the private sector of the Relevant Market 131 See: Ayres, Ian, and Fredrick E. Vars. 1998, "When does private discrimination justify public affirmative action?" Columbia Law Review, 98: 1577-1641. 132 ABS data are publicly available at https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/abs/data.htm.l The ABS provides information on selected economic and demographic characteristics for businesses and business owners by sex, ethnicity, race, and veteran status. Further, the survey measures research and development (for microbusinesses), new business topics such as innovation and technology, as well as other business characteristics. The ABS is conducted jointly by the U.S. Census Bureau and the National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics within the National Science Foundation. It replaces the five-year Survey of Business Owners for employer businesses, the Annual Survey of Entrepreneurs, the Business R&D and Innovation for Microbusinesses survey, and the innovation section of the Business R&D and Innovation Survey. The most recent data for the Boston-Cambridge-Newton Metropolitan Statistical Area MSA for which firm revenue data are available is for the year 2017. As sales revenue data are not sufficiently and uniformly reported, G&S proxies sales with a firm’s payroll, which is proportional to payroll. 133 The data are only reportable for firms with data that can be captured without any sacrifice of confidentiality. In some instances, there are firms in revenue/sales categories for which this condition is not met, and their operating data is not reported in the publicly available version of the ABS. In this context, while this may impart a bias to Table 1, data for firms that cannot satisfy the confidentiality requirements are likely very small, and account for a small percentage of overall market revenue. 134 The percentages do not ``add-up” to one, as the Women ownership category is not ``mutually exclusive” of the other race/ethnicity/gender categories. 135 This implied MWBE share is simply 1 minus the firm share of firms owned by Non-Minority Americans.

90 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA, 2025 DISPARITY STUDY Area.136 The ABS data does not provide disaggregated information for Portuguese Americans and LGBTQ+ ownership structure, so these categories are not specified in Table 28. Table 28: Firm Ownership Type and Revenue Characteristics Relevant Market Area: 2021 Census Bureau Annual Business Survey Ownership Structure Number of Firms Percentage of all Firms (approximate) Market Area Total Revenue (proxied by payroll) ($1,000) Percentage of Market Area Total Revenue (approximate) Ratio of Firm Share to Proxied Revenue Share (approximate) All 100,142 100% $215,468,744 100% 1.0 Women 19,895 19.9% $8,784,460 4.1% 4.85 White American 81,183 81.1% $72,931,939 33.8% 2.39 African American 1,547 1.5% $581,390 .3% 5.00 American Indian & Alaskan Native 0a 0a 0a 0a 0a Asian American 9,661 9.6% $4,280,458 1.9% 5.05 Native Hawaiian & Other Pacific Islanders 0a 0a 0a 0a 0a Hispanic American 2,458 2.4% $993,996 .5% 4.80 Unclassifiable by sector, race, gender, ethnicity 6,893 6.9% $137,194,279 64% .108 Source: US Census Bureau 2021 Annual Business Survey. aValue suppressed to preserve confidentiality as a result of very few firms or there are one or two large firms that dominate the statistic. In general, across the payroll and counts for each type of firm in the ABS, there were in many instances data suppressions due to confidentiality, unreliable estimates, or lack of availability. As such, the descriptive statistics reported in Table 28 are what was estimable in the ABS. Given that publicly held firms are not usually classifiable by race/ethnicity/gender status, and account for a disproportionate share of revenues, which is approximately 64%, a simple comparison of an MWBE firm and revenue share may not inform the existence of any private sector disparities with precision. In this 136 This can be ascertained by simply computing the ratio of each MWBE firm share to total revenue share. For example, in the case of firms owned by Asian Americans, this ratio is approximately 3.78, in contrast to approximately 2.29 for firms owned by White Americans. In this context, relative to firms owned by White Americans, firms owned by Asian Americans are more” revenue underrepresented” with respect to their firm share.

91 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA, 2025 DISPARITY STUDY context, the ratio of an MWBE firm share to revenue share may be more informative of disparities.137 For example, in the case of firms owned by African Americans, this ratio is (.015)/(.003) or approximately 5.0. This suggests that the revenue share of firms owned by African Americans would have to increase by a factor of approximately 5 to achieve firm share parity in the Relevant Market Area. For Non-Minority owned firms, this ratio is approximately 2.39. Thus, relative to Non-Minority owned firms, those owned by African Americans are revenue underrepresented in the Relevant Market Area by a factor of approximately 5.0/2.39 = 2.09 or approximately 209%. In general, the estimates suggest that the majority of firms owned by MWBEs in the Relevant Market Area are revenue underrepresented relative to Non-Minority owned firms. Overall, the descriptive summary in Table 28 suggests that in the Relevant Market Area private sector, MWBEs face barriers that translate into lower firm revenues. In general, if being an MWBE in the Relevant Market Area private sector is associated with lower firm revenue, absolutely and relative to their firm share in the market, this lends some support to the “but-for” justification for affirmative action in public procurement. Lower revenues for MWBEs in the Relevant Market Area is suggestive, but does not necessarily prove, the existence of private discrimination that undermines their capacity to compete with Non-MWBEs for public contracting opportunities. This could motivate a private discrimination justification for Affirmative Action in City procurement policies, otherwise, this is potentially a passive participant in private discrimination against MWBEs with respect to its procurement practices. C. Self-Employment The Concrete Works decision upholding an MWBE program was based in part on evidence that “African Americans, Hispanic Americans, and American Indians working in Construction have lower rates of self- employment than similarly situated White Americans.”138 To explicitly examine potential disparities in the rates of business ownership in the Relevant Market Area, G&S estimated the parameters of a Logit regression model using 2022 American Community Survey (ACS) data from the Integrated Public Use Microdata Series (IPUMS) housed at the University of Minnesota.139 The ACS is a project of the U.S. Census Bureau that has replaced the decennial census as the key source of information about American population and housing characteristics. The 2022 ACS is an approximately 1- in-100 weighted public use sample consisting of U.S households with the smallest identifiable unit being the Public Use Microdata Unit (PUMA), which is a geography containing at least 100,000 individuals. The specification of each model controls for those variables customary in the literature that are utilized to explain self-employment, so as to estimate the effects of MWBE status on self-employment while 137 This ratio can be viewed as an index of underrepresentation, as it measures the distance between a firm’s representation in the market relative to its share of market revenue. A value greater than unity indicates underrepresentation, a value equal to unity indicates parity, and a value less then unity indicates overrepresentation. 72 Concrete Works v. City and County of Denver, 321 F.3 950 (10th Cir 2003). 139 ACS data are publicly available at https://usa.ipums.org/usa/. See: Steven Ruggles, Sarah Flood, Ronald Goeken, Josiah Grover, Erin Meyer, Jose Pacas and Matthew Sobek. IPUMS USA: Version 10.0 [dataset]. Minneapolis, MN: IPUMS, 2020. https://doi.org/10.18128/D010.V10.0

92 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA, 2025 DISPARITY STUDY minimizing and/or eliminating confounding factors.140 G&S determines statistical significance on the basis of the estimated coefficient’s probability value—or P-value. The P-value is the probability of obtaining an estimate of the coefficient by chance alone, assuming that the null hypothesis of the variable having a zero effect is true. As a convention, G&S rejects the null hypothesis of no effect, and concludes the estimated coefficient is statistically significant as long as P-value ≤ .05, which G&S highlights in bold in the tables for all parameter estimates The ACS data define the Relevant Market Area as the Boston-Cambridge-Newton Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA). In particular, G&S selected the ACS sample on the basis of the MET2013 variable, which identifies MSAs using the 2013 definitions for MSA from the U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB). An MSA is a region consisting of a large urban core together with surrounding communities that have a high degree of economic and social integration with the urban core. In the G&S Logit regression model of self-employment, the estimated parameters are odds ratios, and when greater (or less) than unity indicates that having a particular characteristics increases (or decreases) the likelihood of being self-employed. In the case of the MWBE status indicators (e.g. African American, Woman), the excluded category is Non-Minority Males, and a positive (or negative) odds ratio indicates that relative to Non-Minority Males, having that MWBE characteristic increases (or decreases) the likelihood of being self-employed in the Relevant Market Area. The MWBE and race/ethnicity/gender status indicators are of primary interest, as they inform the extent to which MWBE status is a driver of disparities in outcomes. The other covariates serve as controls for firm capacity. The capacity to do business is conceptually defined as how much, and how effectively/efficiently, a firm can produce and sell within a market, independent of MWBE status. In particular, G&S measures a firm’s capacity for public contracting as a function of owner’s education, firm revenue, its financing capacity, and its bonding capacity. Each of these control covariated capture fundamental capabilities associated with a firm’s capacity to produce and sell a good/service effectively and efficiently. Table 29 on the next page reports Logit odds ratio parameter estimates across all business sectors in the Relevant Market Area. Relative to Non-Minority individuals, Women, African Americans, and Hispanic Americans are less likely to be self-employed, as the estimated odds ratio is less than unity and statistically significant in these instances. This is suggestive of these types of firms facing barriers to self-employment in the Relevant Market Area. The lower self-employment likelihood of these types of MWBEs could reflect disparities in public contracting as Chatterji, Chay, and Fairlie (2014) find that the self-employment rate of African Americans is increasing with respect to the provisioning and establishment of MWBE public procurement programs.141 The ACS data does not provide disaggregated information for Portuguese American or LGBTQ+ respondents, so these categories are not included in Table 29. 140 See: Grilo, Isabel, and Roy Thurik. 2008. "Determinants of Entrepreneurial Engagement Levels in Europe and the US." Industrial and Corporate Change 17: pp. 1113-1145, and Van der Sluis, Justin, Mirjam Van Praag, and Wim Vijverberg. 2008. "Education and Entrepreneurship Selection and Performance: A Review of the Empirical Literature." Journal of economic surveys 22: pp. 795-841. 141 Chatterji, Aaron K., Kenneth Y. Chay, and Robert W. Fairlie. 2014. "The Impact of City Contracting Set- asides on Black Self-employment and Employment." Journal of Labor Economics 32: pp. 507-561.

93 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA, 2025 DISPARITY STUDY Table 29: Self-Employment/Business Ownership in the Relevant Market Area: Logit Parameter Odds Ratio Estimates from the 2022 American Community Survey Coefficient P-value Regressand: Self-Employed: Binary Age 1.0632 0.0000 Age Squared 0.9998 0.0476 Respondent is Married: Binary 1.1114 0.0574 Respondent is Female: Binary 0.7454 0.0000 Respondent is Non-Hispanic Black: Binary 0.5470 0.0002 Respondent is Non-White Hispanic: Binary 0.6747 0.0179 Respondent is American Indian: Binary 1.2405 0.2893 Respondent is a Pacific Islander: Binary 3.5791 0.1154 Respondent is Asian American: Binary 0.8318 0.0814 Respondent is Other Race: Binary 1.4953 0.0072 Respondent is Veteran: Binary 0.6676 0.0000 Respondent has a 4-year degree: Binary 0.8849 0.0300 Respondent speaks only English: Binary 0.8452 0.0517 Respondent is Disabled: Binary 0.9086 0.7318 Value of Home 1.0031 0.0000 Interest, Dividend, and Rental Income 1.0012 0.0025 Mortgage Payment 1.0011 0.1905 Number of Observations 22,138 Pseudo R2 0.0584 Source of Data: American Community Survey 2022, IPUMs USA Table 30 on the next page reports Logit odd ratio parameter estimates for Construction in the Relevant Market Area─an important sector in the market for public procurement. The estimated odds ratios less than unity with statistical significance suggest that relative to firms owned by White Americans, Women, African Americans, and Hispanic Americans are less likely to be self-employed, as in the City of Relevant Market Area construction sector. This is suggestive of these firms facing barriers to self-employment in the Relevant Market Area construction sector. The lower likelihood of these types of MWBEs being self- employed in the construction sector could reflect disparities in public contracting, as Marion (2009) finds that the self-employment rate of African Americans in construction is increasing with respect to the provisioning and establishment of MWBE public construction procurement programs.142 The ACS data does not disaggregate by Portuguese American or LGBTQ+ characteristics, and for that purpose, it was not included in the Table below. 142 Marion, Justin. 2009. "Firm Racial Segregation and Affirmative Action in the Highway Construction Industry." Small Business Economics 33: Article 441.

94 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA, 2025 DISPARITY STUDY Table 30: Construction Sector Self-Employment/Business Ownership in the Relevant Market Area: Logit Parameter Odds Ratio Estimates from the 2022 American Community Survey Coefficient P-value Regressand: Self-Employed In Construction Industry: Binary Age 1.1879 0.0000 Age Squared 0.9986 0.0000 Respondent is Married: Binary 0.8307 0.2174 Respondent is Female: Binary 0.0839 0.0000 Respondent is Non-Hispanic Black: Binary 0.5134 0.0335 Respondent is Non-White Hispanic: Binary 0.2229 0.0003 Respondent is American Indian: Binary 2.6406 0.0347 Respondent is a Pacific Islander: Binary 25.7794 0.0546 Respondent is Asian American: Binary 0.3327 0.0018 Respondent is Other Race: Binary 3.3018 0.0000 Respondent is Veteran: Binary 0.5082 0.0206 Respondent has a 4-year degree: Binary 0.6456 0.0017 Respondent speaks only English: Binary 0.9124 0.7093 Respondent is Disabled: Binary 1.2018 0.7589 Value of Home 1.0031 0.9532 Interest, Dividend, and Rental Income 1.0043 0.9256 Mortgage Payment 0.9999 0.1859 Number of Observations 22,113 Pseudo R2 0.1257 Source of Data: American Community Survey 2022, IPUMs USA D. Building Permit Analysis To enable a closer look at the extent of MWBEs participation in the overall Relevant Market Area, Table 31 reports on the distribution of building permits by identifiable firm type in City of Somerville for the Study Period. While building permits are directly related to the construction industry, construction activities are a vital component of the economy and engender spending on other economic activities. As such, an analysis of the distribution of building permits by firm type can inform the extent to which MWBEs are participating in the market economy of a given political jurisdiction such as the City of Somerville. This analysis of commercial building permits in the Relevant Market Area linked rosters of identified MWBE firms to submitted building permits for the Study Period. G&S utilized a Fuzzy Matching (FM) procedure to link the text strings of firm names in the certified vendor matching list, along with any race, ethnicity, and gender identifiers to the firm names in the building permit applications. FM enables linking two data sets together that do not have a unique identifier common to both data sets to produce one that is common across a particular alphabetic string such as the name of a business/firm. A FM method was utilized to identify MWBE and Non-MWBE business enterprises firms from the City of Somerville building permit data for the Study Period, which ultimately consisted of entries with text strings indicating the names of businesses/firms that submitted and were approved for commercial building permit applications. As the

95 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA, 2025 DISPARITY STUDY interest is in the share of distinct permittees—to capture the participation of distinct and unique firm types in the overall Relevant Market Area—G&S only counts a firm once if it was awarded more than one building permit. This resulted in 1593 distinct permittees. Given G&S’s FM-enabled identification of MWBE firms, Table 31 on the next page reports the distribution of building permits by firm type for the Study Period in the City of Somerville. The matching algorithm enabled the consistent identification of firms broadly classified as MBE, WBE—for Non-Minority Women, and Non-MWBE.143 The distribution of commercial building permits reported in Table 31 reveal that for the Study Period, the total number of building permits going to any of the firm types that could be classified as MWBE was 34, which constituted approximately .021 or 2.1 % of all commercial building permits issued. For Non-Minority Women owned business enterprises (WBEs), the number of building permits issued was 19, which constituted approximately .012 or 1.2% of all commercial building permits issued. Firms classified as African American owned were issued approximately 2% of building permits. The lowest number of building permits―one―were issued to firms owned by Portuguese Americans, and American Indians, constituting approximately six-tenths of one percent of all building permits. The estimated low commercial building permit shares for MWBEs in the City of Somerville are suggestive of private sector barriers that constrain the ability of these types of firms to participate in the economy. The estimates suggest that firms not classified as MWBEs and DBEs⸺⸺or Non-MWBEs⸺⸺accounted for approximately 98% of building permits in the City of Somerville during the Study Period. To the extent that experience acquired by participating in the private sector translates into an enhanced capacity to compete in the market for public sector contracts and subcontracts, the almost complete dominance of Non-MWBEs in securing building permits suggest the presence of private sector barriers faced by MWBEs. In this context, if there are any public contracting/subcontracting disparities between MWBEs and Non-MWBEs in the Relevant Market Area, it could constitute passive discrimination against MWBEs, as the disparities could reflect barriers, possibly discriminatory, that MWBEs face in the private sector that serve to undermine their capacity to compete for contracts and subcontracts with the City of Somerville. 143 There were many instances in which the FM procedure could not identify the particular race/ethnicity/gender of applicants―other than them being identified as an MBE or WBE.

96 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA, 2025 DISPARITY STUDY Table 31: Distribution of Building Permits In the Relevant Market Area Fiscal Years 2017 – 2022 Business Ownership Classification Number of Building Permits Percentage of Building Permitsa Asian American 2 0.13% African American 3 0.19% Hispanic American 8 0.50% America Indian 1 0.06% Portuguese Americans 1 0.06% TOTAL MINORITY 15 0.94% Non-Minority Woman 19 1.19% TOTAL MWBE 34 2.13% Total Non-MWBE 1559 97.87% TOTAL Permits 1593 100.00% Griffin & Strong, 2025 Notes: aRounded to the nearest thousandth E. Bank Loan Denials To the extent that Minority, Women, and Disadvantaged Business Enterprises (“MWBEs”) are credit- constrained as a result of facing discrimination in private lending markets, their capacity to compete for and execute public projects could be compromised. In this context, a political jurisdiction that awards public contracts is potentially a passive participant in discrimination as MWBEs may only have recourse to higher cost financing due to facing discrimination in private credit markets, which compromises the competitiveness of their bids. Such a perspective on discrimination suggests that barriers faced by MWBEs in the private sector credit markets can rationalize targeted public contracting programs by political jurisdictions, and the capacity and growth of MWBEs could be enhanced with access to public contracting. To determine if MWBEs face barriers in the private credit market in the Relevant Market Area, Tables 32- 33 report, for each of the distinct MWBEs and owner self-reported race/ethnicity/gender ownership characteristics in the G&S sample, the estimated parameters of Fixed Effect Ordinary Least Squares regression, where the dependent variable is the standardized linear prediction of being denied for a commercial bank loan, which is estimated from an ordinal logit regression model.144 The estimated linear prediction captures how the outcome of interest is determined by presumably “race- neutral” factors determining a firm’s capacity to do business in the marketplace and with the City of Somerville. The regressors in the logit specification capturing firm capacity include: (1) Firm owner has more than 20 years of experience, (2) Firm has more than 10 employees, (3) Firm owner has a baccalaureate 144 See the Appendix for a detailed discussion of this regression methodology. The P-values are based upon heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.

97 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA, 2025 DISPARITY STUDY degree, (4) Firm gross revenue is more than 1.5 million dollars, (5) Firm bonding limit is more than 1.5 million dollars, (6) Whether or not financing is a barrier to securing public contracts, (7) Whether or not the firm is in the construction sector, (8) Whether or not the firm is registered to do business with the City of Somerville, (9) Whether or not the firm is a willing/able prime contractor for the City of Somerville, and (10), Whether or not the firm is a willing/able subcontractor for the City of Somerville. The estimated coefficients in Table 32 reveal that for the eight distinct broadly classified MWBEs in the G&S sample, relative to Non-MWBEs—the excluded group in the CRM specification— there are no statistically significant differences between MWBEs and Non-MWBEs in commercial bank loan denials. When disaggregated by the race/ethnicity/gender of owners, the results in Table 33 on the next page suggest that relative to Non-MWBEs, firms owned by African Americans, Asian Americans, Bi/multiracial Americans, and Women are more likely to have been denied commercial bank loans. This suggests that in theRelevant Market Area, any public procurement disparities between MWBEs and firms owned by African Americans and Women in the Relevant Market Area can be explained, at least in part by differential access to private credit (e.g. race-based credit market discrimination) that enables financing a capacity for success in public procurement. The G&S Survey of Business Owners sample data identifies firms categorized as LGBTQ+ owned, with coefficient estimates presented in Table 32. Table 32: Fixed Effects Regression Parameter Estimates-Bank Loan Denials: Firm Owner Race/Ethnicity/Gender and Commercial Bank Loan Denial Probabilities In City of Relevant Market Area Coefficient P-value Regressand: Standardized Linear Prediction of Commercial Bank Loan Denial Firm is a Certified Minority Business Enterprise: (Binary) 0.2896 0.0870 Firm is a Certified Woman Enterprise: (Binary) 0.2314 0.2216 Firm is a Certified Disabled Firm: (Binary) -0.1415 0.6262 Firm is a Certified LGBTQ+ Firm: (Binary) 0.0225 0.9273 Firm is a Certified Disadvantaged Firm: (Binary) 0.0838 0.7757 Firm is a Certified Veteran owned Firm: (Binary) 0.0546 0.9418 Constant -0.2054 0.0142 Number of Observations 212 R2 0.0364 Griffin & Strong, 2025

98 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA, 2025 DISPARITY STUDY Table 33: Fixed Effects Regression Parameter Estimates-Bank Loan Denials: Firm Certification Type and Commercial Bank Loan Denial Probabilities In City of Relevant Market Area Coefficient P-value Regressand: Linear Prediction of Commercial Bank Loan Denial Firm is African American owned: (Binary) 0.5841 0.0000 Firm is Hispanic American owned (Binary) 0.1063 0.7477 Firm is Asian American owned: (Binary) 0.6228 0.0104 Firm is American Indian owned: (Binary) -0.0778 0.6046 Firm is Bi/Multiracial owned: (Binary) 1.0978 0.0000 Firm is Other Race owned: (Binary) 0.0034 0.9724 Firm is Portuguese owned: (Binary) 0.6729 0.0706 Firm is Woman owned: (Binary) 0.2905 0.0000 Constant -0.3309 0.0031 Number of Observations 208 R2 0.1062 Griffin & Strong, 2025 F. Conclusion A descriptive and inferential private sector analysis of the Relevant Market Area revealed that in general, being an MWBE in the Relevant Market Area is associated with lower firm revenue relative to Non-MWBE firms. For African Americans, Hispanic Americans, and Women, self-employment likelihoods are lower, which lends some support to the “but-for” justification for affirmative action in public procurement—a policy intervention which can increase the self-employment outcomes of MWBEs. Lower revenues for MWBEs in the City of Relevant Market Area are suggestive of private sector discrimination that undermines their capacity to enter the market and compete with Non-MWBEs firms for public contracting and subcontracting opportunities. In other relevant outcomes, the regression results reported in Appendix G provide specific detail on which particular MWBEs in the Relevant Market Area are potentially constrained by barriers that could translate into lower likelhoods of winning prime contracts. Firms owned by African Americans, Hispanic Americans, Asian Americans, Bi/Multiracials, Portuguese Americans, and Women wererelatively more likely to have never secured a City of Somerville prime contract. G&S also finds that some MWBEs, were more likely, relative to Non-MWBEs to have their capacity to compete in the market for public procurement constrained as a result of being excluded from informal contracting networks that enhance success in winning public contracts with the City of Somerville, MA. In the Anecdotal Chapter, several MWBE interviewees expressed this sentiment, highlighting the presence of a “Good Ol’ Boy system” within the City.

99 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA, 2025 DISPARITY STUDY VII. ANECDOTAL EVIDENCE A. Introduction This chapter of the Study is designed to present an analysis of the experiences, perceptions, and beliefs of business owners and stakeholders about doing business or attempting to do business with the City of Somerville, or if they have not attempted to do business with the City, understanding why not. Comments, quotes, themes, and conversations presented are not intended to be representative of every single community member, or even the majority of the community, but are an attempt to authentically represent the variety of individual perspectives about the City’s contracting, procurement, and utilization of Small Disadvantaged Businesses (SDBs) and Disadvantaged Business Enterprises (DBEs). For Somerville’s purposes, SDBs include Minority and Women Business Enterprises (“MWBEs”), Veteran Business Enterprises (VBEs), Service-Disabled Veteran owned Small Enterprises, (“SDVOSBs), and LGBTQ+ owned business enterprises (“LGBTQ+”) as much as possible. Those experiences can be, and often are, perceived differently from one person to the next. However, perceived experiences undergird and inform beliefs, and those beliefs then undergird and inform behavior. Since the behavior of all parties involved in contracting and procurement is relevant to the Study, the beliefs, experiences, and perceptions of area business owners are integral to the Study as well. Having said that, there was some overlap in the views expressed by Study participants concerning both Brookline and Somerville. It appears that there were at least five (5) similarities: 1) an expressed need for Small Business support; 2) a general desire for Vendor Education on the Procurement process; 3) difficulties with bonding requirements; 4) inconsistent communication and/or lack of responsiveness from municipal employees; and 5) perceptions of the out-sized influence over the Procurement process by a small group of large businesses. On the other hand, one of the points of departure was that the Study participants generally thought of Somerville as a more inclusive business environment than Brookline. B. The Current Contracting Environment Griffin & Strong (G&S) conducted significant outreach to gather evidence pertaining to business owners’ experiences with the City of Somerville’s procurement process. For example, G&S sent out announcements for the informational meeting and public hearings to over 15 local organizations and sent email blasts to over five thousand firms. The City of Somerville also promoted these events through press releases, social media, and other materials to local media outlets. Nearly fifty business owners, affinity group representatives, and community members activists attended G&S’s public information session on June 13, 2024. G&S reached out to about 2,400 randomly selected firms and, from that base, conducted 30 anecdotal interviews. For the Focus Group sessions, G&S contacted hundreds of businesses, owned by either African Americans, Asian Americans, Hispanic Americans, American Indians, Portuguese/Cape Verdean Americans, and Non-Minority Women. In addition, G&S reached out to nearly a dozen affinity groups, such as the Portuguese American Civic League, the Massachusetts Veteran Chamber of Commerce, the Black Economic Council of Massachusetts and the National Association of Asian American Professionals. G&S also launched a survey of business owners, which was promoted on platforms such as LinkedIn and Constant Contact.

100 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA, 2025 DISPARITY STUDY Over 200 business owners responded to, and completed, the G&S survey. Of the 212 respondents, 66 identified as a White female, 61 identified as a Non-Minority male, 33 identified as African American, 17 identified as Asian American, and 15 identified as Hispanic American; the balance was relatively evenly divided between American Indian , Brazilian American and Bi/Multi-racial American. G&S also listed Portuguese and Cape Verdean as race/ethnicity categories in the survey but none of the respondents identified in those two categories. The respondents represented a broad range of Industry Categories, but the survey revealed some areas of concentration. Although only 17.9% of the overall respondents were in the Construction industry, 50% of Brazilian American survey respondents were in that industry, compared to 18% of White American Male businesses. Likewise, 10.8% of total respondents were in Architecture & Engineering, yet 26.7% of Hispanic American respondents, 18.2% of Non-Minority Woman respondents and 17.6% of Asian American respondents owned businesses in this sector; in contrast, only 4.9% of Non-Minority male respondents and 3% of African American respondents had firms in that category. Over 38% of total respondents indicated that their business fell within the “Professional Services” category, but 75% of American Indian, 66.7% of Bi/Multi- racial American, 45.5% of African American and 40.9% of Non-Minority Woman respondents identified their businesses in this way.145 Table 5. Which one of the following is your company’s primary line of business? Owners' Minority Status Responses African American American Indian Asian American Brazilian American Caucasian Hispanic American Multi- Racial or Bi-Racial Publicly Traded Company Woman Other Total Construction 6 0 5 2 11 2 1 0 11 0 38 18.2 % 0 % 29.4 % 50 % 18 % 13.3 % 33.3 % 0 % 16.7 % 0 % 17.9 % Architecture & Engineering 1 0 3 0 3 4 0 0 12 0 23 3 % 0 % 17.6 % 0 % 4.9 % 26.7 % 0 % 0 % 18.2 % 0 % 10.8 % Professional Services 15 3 6 1 18 4 2 0 27 6 82 45.5 % 75 % 35.3 % 25 % 29.5 % 26.7 % 66.7 % 0 % 40.9 % 75 % 38.7 % Non- Professional Services (Other Services) (e.g. Janitorial 4 1 0 1 8 2 0 0 2 0 18 12.1 % 25 % 0 % 25 % 13.1 % 13.3 % 0 % 0 % 3 % 0 % 8.5 % Goods (Commodity) 7 0 3 0 21 3 0 1 14 2 51 21.2 % 0 % 17.6 % 0 % 34.4 % 20 % 0 % 100 % 21.2 % 25 % 24.1 % Total 33 4 17 4 61 15 3 1 66 8 212 145 Somerville Survey, Survey Table #5.

101 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA, 2025 DISPARITY STUDY Moreover, 47.6% of total respondents indicated that their company had been in operation for 20 or more years. The only group to exceed this average notably was Non-Minority male owned firms, with 70.5% having been in operation for 20 or more years.146 For the purposes of the data collection, , “Non-Minority male” will not include disabled, White male or LGBTQ+ White male owned businesses. Only Asian American and African American respondents indicated that the majority of their firms were “owned and controlled” by Women, with 70.6% and 54.5%, respectively; 46.7% of Hispanic American and 33% of Bi/Multi-racial businesses in the survey also were owned by Women.147 When asked how many employees and independent contractors they kept on payroll, 82.6% of all respondents indicated 30 or fewer. Specifically, 100% of Brazilian American and Bi-Multi-racial American respondents, 76.5% of Asian American and 63.6% of African American firms had 10 or fewer employees. However, 27.9% of Non- Minority male respondents owned firms with a staff size between 31 and over 300.148 When asked “what is the highest level of education completed by any owner of your company,” 89.2% of all respondents replied with either “Some College, “College Graduate,” or “Post Graduate Degree.” The only demographic groups to have entries below “Some College” were the 6.7% of Hispanic Americans, 4.9% of Non-Minority males and 1.5% of White females who indicated “High School Graduate.”149 Thus, for the purposes of this survey, the educational levels of owners of MWBEs were on par with the education levels of their Non-Minority male peers. Having said that, years of experience and revenue generated were not as evenly distributed. When asked to indicate the greatest number of years of experience for any owner in their firm, 71.7% of all respondents said, “more than 20 years.” Yet, the only demographic categories to exceed the mean were Non-Minority males (85.2%) and White females (77.3%).150 In response to the question about their company’s gross revenues for Fiscal Year 2018, 63.2% of the total number of respondents indicated that their gross revenue fell into the two lowest categories: “$100,001-250,000” or $100,000 or less. Yet slightly higher concentrations of MWBEs fell into those bottom categories: 100% of American Indians, 73.3% of Hispanic Americans, 70.6% of Asian Americans, and 63.6% of African Americans. Even though 62.3% of Non-Minority male respondents fell into the bottom two revenue categories, they also were more evenly distributed than most other demographics among the next five revenue categories, ranging from $5,000,000 down to $250,001; the Non-Minority male cohort was the only one to have an entry for revenue between $5,000,000 and $20,000,000 (6.7%). Of those respondents who stated that their company was “out of business” in Fiscal Year 2018, 33.3% were Bi/Multi-Racial Americans and 15.2% were African Americans, compared to just 7.6% of White females and 3.3% of Non-Minority males.151 In a follow-up question asked about total gross revenues for Fiscal Year 2022 and 67.4% of all survey participants indicated that their business’ gross revenues fell into the two lowest categories. Again, slightly higher concentrations of MWBEs exceeded the mean but even Non-Minority males fell below it at 65.6%. Not only were Non-Minority male owned firms distributed more evenly in the upper revenue categories, but they were also the only demographic group with an entry in each of the top seven categories for which there were entries, spanning revenue ranges from $10,000,000 down to $250,001. Furthermore, of those respondents 146 Somerville Survey, Survey Table #6; it should be noted that 75% of American Indian respondents also fell into this category but there were only four (4) total American Indian respondents to the survey. 147 Somerville Survey, Survey Table #7. 148 Somerville Survey, Survey Table #12. 149 Somerville Survey, Survey Table #13; see also that the three (3) Bi-Multi Racial American respondents were evenly divided between “High School Graduate,” “Some College,” and “College Graduate”. 150 Somerville Survey, Survey Table #14; see also that three (3) of the four (4) American Indian respondents also fell into the “more than 20 years” category. 151 Somerville Survey, Survey Table #15.

102 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA, 2025 DISPARITY STUDY who stated that their company was “out of business” in Fiscal Year 2022, 3% were African Americans, compared to just 1.6% of Non-Minority males and 1.5% of White females.152 C. Key Themes KEY THEMES Uncertainty about the Usefulness of Certification An Opaque, Burdensome Bid Process Public and Private Actors Maintain Dim Views of SDBs and DBEs The Contracting Process is Skewed in Favor of the Same Large Firms Perceptions of Fairness Experiences of Discrimination Several key themes emerged from the anecdotal evidence collection. Study participants had mixed views about the usefulness of certification. Many expressed that the requirements to bid with the City were burdensome. In some cases, business owners stated that they were not aware of bidding opportunities or that other aspects of the bidding process discouraged them from offering a bid. For more details, see “Barriers to Participation” section, below. An often-repeated observation was that Study participants felt as if bidding for a City contract was unlikely to net positive results because the participants did not fully understand the process or know the decision-makers. This frustration also dovetailed with the participants’ perceptions that public and private actors maintained a dim view of SDBs and DBEs. This is further reinforced by the different perceptions of fairness that many interviewees felt, in addition to some preconditioned thoughts and perceptions towards Minority owned businesses one firm owner highlighted. Additionally, there is a broad-based perception that contracts are repeatedly given to the same large firms. As will be discussed below, some owners of small firms believe that the requirement for the City to accept the lowest bid privileges large firms. 152 Somerville Survey, Survey Table #16.

103 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA, 2025 DISPARITY STUDY Table 17. Is your company registered to do business with: [City of Somerville] Owners' Minority Status Responses African American American Indian Asian American Brazilian American Caucasian Hispanic American Multi- Racial or Bi- Racial Publicly Traded Company Woman Other Total Yes 16 2 7 2 40 5 2 0 40 2 116 48.5 % 50 % 41.2 % 50 % 65.6 % 33.3 % 66.7 % 0 % 60.6 % 25 % 54.7 % No 17 2 10 2 21 10 1 1 26 6 96 51.5 % 50 % 58.8 % 50 % 34.4 % 66.7 % 33.3 % 100 % 39.4 % 75 % 45.3 % Total 33 4 17 4 61 15 3 1 66 8 212 Table 18. If you answered "No" to the previous question, why is your company not registered with: [Do not know how to register?] [City of Somerville] Owners' Minority Status Responses African American American Indian Asian American Brazilian American Caucasian Hispanic American Multi- Racial or Bi- Racial Publicly Traded Company Woman Other Total Not Selected 6 2 5 1 15 5 1 1 16 2 54 35.3 % 100 % 50 % 50 % 71.4 % 50 % 100 % 100 % 61.5 % 33.3 % 56.2 % Selected 11 0 5 1 6 5 0 0 10 4 42 64.7 % 0 % 50 % 50 % 28.6 % 50 % 0 % 0 % 38.5 % 66.7 % 43.8 % Total 17 2 10 2 21 10 1 1 26 6 96

104 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA, 2025 DISPARITY STUDY A slight majority of survey respondents (54.7%) indicated that their business was registered to do business with the City.153 44% of survey respondents who answered “no” to the previous question also indicated that they did not know how to register with the City and 52.1% claimed to not know that there was a registry.154 Additionally, 34.6% of White female, 20% of Hispanic American, 10% of Asian American, 8.5% of Non- Minority male, and 5.9% of African American survey participants noted that “do not see any benefit in registering.”155 Nearly 16% of all survey participants stated that they did not register because they did not believe that their firm would be awarded a contract with the City. This sentiment was most pronounced among MWBEs: 50% of Brazilian Americans, 23.5% of African Americans, 20% of Asian Americans and 22.2% of Hispanic Americans maintained this belief, compared to 14.3% of Non-Minority Males and 11.5% of White females.156 Please see the Appendix for the definitions of the acronyms used in this chapter. By contrast, four out of five survey respondents had registered their firms with a different governmental agency, like the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.157 1. Efficacy of Certification All the business owners who participated in one-on-one interviews indicated that their firms were certified as either an MWBE, SDVOB, or LGBTQ+ owned enterprise. The most popular public entity for certification was the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, followed closely by the City of Boston. Several interviewees also were certified in other states or with a federal government agency. Although most participants believed that certification was helpful, not everyone agreed. A Hispanic American female business owner certified her business with both the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and the State of Rhode Island. She finds certification to be “helpful because it allows the company to be in the SDO database which allows the company to have more exposure.”158 An Asian American male interviewee offered a similar view, that he valued certification with the Commonwealth of Massachusetts “because it helped his business with the Jamaica Plain Neighborhood Development organization. The organization offered resources with reporting, paperwork, and financial grants. The company has had a relationship with the organization for the last four years and finds it rewarding.”159 An LGBTQ+ business owner gave full-throated support to certification, saying that “certification…helps get the online retail business a lot of web traffic”. In the long run, the owner believes the certification opens a new avenue. Overall, he feels certification is hard to quantify because he is unaware of who is viewing his business and what business can be attributed to it.160 Some are ambivalent with respect to the value of certification because they are waiting to see whether it will pay them dividends. An African American male said that he “does not find certification helpful” and [certification] does not influence his company’s ability to compete with other businesses because it has not won his business any work. Even though he has not seen a benefit, the owner renewed the certification because he believes one day it will be a benefit to his company. He does not know how or when, but he has faith that it will be beneficial. This individual has certified his business with the Commonwealth of 153 Somerville Survey, Survey Table #17. 154 Somerville Survey, Survey Tables #18 and 19. 155 Somerville Survey, Survey Table #20. 156 Somerville Survey, Survey Table #24. 157 Brookline Survey, Survey Table #27. 158 Somerville Interview, S-AI1. 159 Somerville Interview, S-AI2. 160 Somerville Interview, S-AI30.

105 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA, 2025 DISPARITY STUDY Massachusetts and is working on certification with the federal government.161 A different African American interviewee, whose firm is certified as an MBE with the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and a DBE with the federal government, also was somewhat lukewarm regarding certification: he finds certification has been helpful in some situations and does have an effect on his company’s ability to compete with other businesses. He finds it only accounts for a small percentage of the work the company gets, stating “being a Minority contractor alone will not sustain the company but has helped obtain some work.”162 One interviewee whose business is certified as a WBE with the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and the City of Boston has warmed to the idea of certification over time. Initially, she “found certification did not influence the company’s ability to compete with other businesses and had not seen a benefit during the first twenty years of having the certification. However, over the last four to five years, the owner finds businesses reach out because her company is a WBE and [they] required to use one.”163 An African American female indicated her support for certification despite its limited impact on revenue – her firm is certified as an MBE with the Commonwealth of Massachusetts – because it has been “most helpful when it comes to applying for grants, but it has not helped her win business.”164 However, some subjects did not reflect as positively on certification as their peers in the study. An African American interviewee whose firm is certified with both the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and the City of Boston indicated that she “finds having multiple certifications overwhelming so she was intentional about not registering her business with multiple certifying agencies.”165 One Non-Minority Woman whose business is certified as a WBE with the Commonwealth of Massachusetts finds certification is “not really helpful because it has not helped win any business.”166 Of those survey respondents who fell outside the large plurality of respondents who had certified their businesses, 10% indicated that they “have not had time to get certified/the process is too time-consuming.”167 12% of this total cohort indicated that they “[d]o not understand how certification can benefit my firm,” including 33% of Asian Americans and White females within this group.168 Perhaps most significant is that 60.6% of this group – including 100% of African Americans, Hispanic Americans and American Indians, 63.8% of Non-Minority males and 44.4% of White females – said that they believe “Certification does not benefit and/or will negatively impact my company.”169 2. Perceptions of Fairness a) Bias Toward Large Firms As mentioned in greater detail below, some of the interviewees perceive the procurement process to be tilted in favor of certain firms. Others pointed to other types of biases that might weigh negatively on their ability to win contracts with the City. A Non-Minority Woman business owner implied in her interview a bias toward large firms because one barrier to participation that she noticed was “seeing RFPs that are too large [that] her company is unable to do them.”170 161 Somerville, Interview, S-AI10. 162 Somerville interview, S-AI13. 163 Somerville Interview, S-AI25. 164 Somerville Interview, S-AI11. 165 Somerville Interview, S-AI19. 166 Somerville Interview, S-AI4. 167 Somerville Survey, Survey Table #97. 168 Somerville Survey, Survey Table #99. 169 Somerville Survey, Survey Table #98. 170 Somerville Interview, S-AI27.

106 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA, 2025 DISPARITY STUDY b) Lack of Understanding of Firm Offerings Some suggested that the lack of fairness could be the result of ignorance; in other words, a lack of understanding on the part of City officials. As an interviewer commented about one African American female business owner, “”[s]he finds her biggest obstacle is people feeling like there is not a need for her line of work. She finds herself always having to present people the problems and show them wellness tools and resources to solve them. She finds most people do not believe City employees need wellness or find it important.”171 c) Experiences of Discriminatory Behavior An Asian American male stated that he “feels like the biggest obstacle to being a Minority owned business is the perceptions of others and how they view his business. He feels people perceive his business as small and his company does not have the expertise because it is a Minority owned business. He would like people with those perceptions to meet him and get to know him and then they will see his company is more than capable.”172 An African American male interviewee said that he “believes the biggest obstacle faced by a Minority owned business is preconditioned obstacles from previous experiences and the expectations that municipalities do not want to work with Minority owned businesses. He hopes Minority businesses are in a place where they [can] overcome the preconditioned thoughts.”173 A longstanding MWBE interviewee said that part of the problem could be the labels that jurisdictions now use – or do not want to use. Specifically, he said that “the biggest obstacle to being a Minority owned business is how the category, that historically described African Americans, has been diluted to include other categories such as service disabled, women, and LGBTQ+.”174 One MWBE interviewee “mentioned how a lot of people in leadership view DEI as a waste of time and a barrier even though DEI helps employers retain their good employees and move into new markets. She believes DEI applied effectively can accomplish those things.”175 Survey participants pointed to negative perceptions in the broader marketplace that might spill into a discrete public marketplace like the City’s. 171 Somerville Interview, S-AI11. 172 Somerville Interview, S-AI15. 173 Somerville Interview, S-AI21. 174 Somerville Interview, S-AI13. 175 Somerville Interview, S-AI23.

107 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA, 2025 DISPARITY STUDY Table 116. From 2017 - Present, how often has your company experienced any racial, gender, or ethnicity discriminatory behavior from the Boston Metropolitan Area (i.e., non-governmental entities)? Owners' Minority Status Responses African American American Indian Asian American Brazilian American Caucasian Hispanic American Multi- Racial or Bi- Racial Publicly Traded Company Woman Other Total Never 11 3 8 1 38 8 0 1 39 5 114 33.3 % 75 % 47.1 % 25 % 62.3 % 53.3 % 0 % 100 % 59.1 % 62.5 % 53.8 % Seldom 5 0 5 0 2 3 2 0 9 0 26 15.2 % 0 % 29.4 % 0 % 3.3 % 20 % 66.7 % 0 % 13.6 % 0 % 12.3 % Often 6 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 2 1 12 18.2 % 0 % 0 % 50 % 1.6 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 3 % 12.5 % 5.7 % Very Often 3 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 8 9.1 % 0 % 5.9 % 25 % 1.6 % 6.7 % 0 % 0 % 1.5 % 0 % 3.8 % Do Not Know 8 1 3 0 19 3 1 0 15 2 52 24.2 % 25 % 17.6 % 0 % 31.1 % 20 % 33.3 % 0 % 22.7 % 25 % 24.5 % Total 33 4 17 4 61 15 3 1 66 8 212 When survey respondents were asked “[f]rom 2017 - Present, how often has your company experienced any racial, gender, or ethnicity discriminatory behavior from the Boston Metropolitan Area (i.e., non- governmental entities)?”, fewer than one in four replied “Seldom,” “Often” or “Very Often.” However, these experiences were strongest among MWBEs: 75% of Brazilian Americans, 66.7% of Bi/Multi-Racial Americans, 42.5% of African Americans, and 35.3% of Asian Americans indicating that they experienced such negative impacts “Seldom,” “Often” of “Very Often.”176 Although discriminatory experiences were much less pronounced when the focus shifted to the City, they did not abate. When survey participants were asked “[f]rom 2017 - Present, how often has your company experienced any racial, gender, or ethnicity discriminatory behavior from [the City]?”, 50% of Brazilian Americans, 33.3% of Bi/Multi-Racial Americans, 6.7% of Hispanic Americans, 6.1% of African Americans, and 3% of White Females answered “Seldom,” “Often” or “Very Often.”177 Although potentially subtle, these experiences can be discouraging. As one MWBE reflected in their interview, “the biggest obstacle [they face] as a Minority owned business is the old boys club [they experience] when attending networking events where [they do] not feel…comfortable.”178 The takeaway from these results is that discriminatory experiences persist in the metropolitan area. 176 Somerville Survey, Survey Table #116; it should be noted that 50% of Brazilian Americans, 18% of African Americans and 3% of White females responded “Often.” 177 Somerville Survey, Survey Table #117 178 Somerville Interview, S-AI18.

108 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA, 2025 DISPARITY STUDY None of the interviewees offered direct evidence of discrimination perpetrated by the City. However, many held the view that disparate treatment persists. Some of the behavior could be unintentional. One Non- Minority Woman business owner felt that “her biggest obstacle as a woman owned business is dealing with the expectations larger companies create of how things should be done. For example, she mentioned how larger companies say this is how they do something but do not allow for thinking outside of the box.”179 A different MWBE operator noted that “the biggest obstacle faced by Minority owned businesses is municipalities not wanting to do business with them. She expressed feeling the City of Somerville is open to working with Minority and Women owned firms, unlike the Town of Brookline. Another MWBE “owner feels his biggest obstacle being a Minority owned business is looking like a Minority and his accent, which he feels does not help.”180 These experiences were augmented by concerns that some of the interviewees expressed regarding Prime contractors. Although most of the interviewees had no experience working with Prime contractors who had won bids with the City, quite a few did speak to those relationships. A Hispanic American male business owner “is aware of practices prime contractors use to get around using Minority owned businesses and mentioned how prime contractors reach out just to check off a box. However, he looks at the practice as a win/win because he feels his company will be able to provide the service regardless.”181 Likewise, a Non-Minority Woman business owner said that “she finds prime contractors reach out just to perform their due diligence with no real intent to hire her company.”182 One interviewee referred to this practice as a game of “show and tell” that netted the MWBE nothing but provided some degree of credibility to the Prime contractors.183 An African American interviewee said that he was “positive prime contractors use practices to get around using MWBEs but there is no real way to prove it.”184 Similarly, a different African American business owner said that they were “aware of practices prime contractors use to get around using Minority owned businesses and finds they will reach out to make it seem like they want to work with Minority businesses so in turn they can win work with the State. The owner mentioned how the prime reaches out just that one time and [are] never heard from again.”185 A Hispanic American female had the exact same experience.186 An Asian American male interviewee remarked that he “is aware of practices prime contractors use to get around using Minority owned businesses and finds prime contractors reach out so much that he was averaging estimates of [$100,000] a month. The owner noticed the projects required Minority participation but never got any of the projects, so he stopped providing the estimates.”187 An African American female business owner echoed that sentiment: she “mentioned contractors reaching out to get estimates even though they already have another business in mind that they plan to use. Until she realized their true intentions, she believed she was providing estimates to credible leads.”188 To their point, nearly three dozen survey respondents asserted the same. When presented with the statement “[s]ometimes, a prime contractor will contact Minority, Woman, Veteran, LGBTQ+, or Disabled owned firm to ask for quotes but never give the proposal sufficient review to consider giving that firm the award,” 21.2% of all respondents marked “Strongly Agreed” or “Agreed.” Not surprisingly, the view was held most strongly by MWBEs: 100% of Brazilian Americans, 45.5% of African Americans, 33% of Bi/Multi-Racial Americans, 26.7% of Hispanic 179 Somerville Interview, S-AI4. 180 Somerville Interview, S-AI8. 181 Somerville Interview, S-AI5; see also S-AI11, S-AI15 and S-AI25. 182 Somerville Interview, S-AI28. 183 Somerville Interview, S-AI20. 184 Somerville Interview, S-AI13. 185 Somerville Interview, S-AI17. 186 See Somerville Interview, S-AI23. 187 Somerville Interview, S-AI18. 188 Somerville Interview, S-AI19; see also S-AI27.

109 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA, 2025 DISPARITY STUDY Americans, 23.6% of Asian Americans and 15.2% of White females – as compared to just 6.5% of Non- Minority males – indicated that they “Strongly Agreed” or “Agreed” with the statement.189 2. Barriers to Participation Many of the interviewees articulated barriers to participation. Most fall into one of the following categories: lack of scale; lack of familiarity with the City and/or its policies; effective communication; costs; and lack of experience. The anecdotal interviews demonstrated the overlap between these various issues as many interviewees raised more than one problem. a) Lack Of Scale Some of the participants indicated that the small size of their firm created an impediment to engaging the City’s procurement regime. One Non-Minority Woman interviewee flatly remarked on “how she does not have the time and resources to research and apply to RFPs.”190 An African American male who acknowledged not knowing how to use the City’s system also admitted “how his time is limited and does not have a lot of time to dedicate to researching municipality work.”191 Given the small size of their respective firms, some of the interview subjects indicated that they would need financial assistance (loans or grants) to defray the costs of bonding, insurance or other requirements.192 b) Vendor Education A Hispanic American female listed two barriers: 1) she does not know what the City is looking for and 2) she mentioned not seeing any RFPs to pursue. (S-AI1).193 More than one business owner expressed concern that they were not sure whether the RFPs that they saw issued by the City “the right fit” for their firms.194 As one person put it, they have been “receiving emails for construction related projects or sales of equipment which does not pertain to his company or the services they offer.”195 Another interviewee offered that they “[need] to see scopes of work related to the services his company offers.”196 For others, the problem is even simpler; they do not know how to bid on contracts with the City.197 As one person put it, they need “to know how to bid on an RFP because she had not completed any of the training. She feels like if she had a better understanding of the process,” she would be able to participate.198 It bears mentioning that the interview subject did not mention what type of training she was unable to complete. An African American male business owner “noted how he does not know how to apply for…work [with the City] given his company has never pursued municipality work.”199 50% of Brazilian American, 21.2% of African American, 17.6% of Asian American, and 14.8% of Non-Minority male survey respondents identified 189 Somerville Survey, Survey Table #142. 190 Somerville Interview, S-AI27. 191 Somerville Interview, S-AI21; see also Somerville Survey, Survey Table #55. 192 Somerville Interviews, S-AI10, S-AI11, S-AI14, S-AI20, S-AI27. 193 Somerville Interview, S-AI1 194 Somerville Interview, S-AI4; see also S-AI5, S-AI8, S-AI12, S-AI16, S-AI19, S-AI22, S-AI23 and S-AI28. 195 Somerville Interview, S-AI5. 196 Somerville Interview, S-AI6; see also Somerville Survey, Survey Table #83. 197 See Somerville Interviews, S-AI11 and S-AI20. 198 Somerville Interview, S-AI11. 199 Somerville Interview, S-AI21.

110 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA, 2025 DISPARITY STUDY a “[l]imited knowledge of [the City’s] purchasing/contracting policies and procedures” as a barrier to bidding on and winning City projects.200 c) Lack of communication and outreach For some, the problems boiled down to communication. A Hispanic American male “mentioned reaching out to municipalities but people who work for the municipality do not call back.”201 A different interviewee remarked on “how getting in contact or in front of people is challenging especially since more people work from home. Since people are not in the office, it is hard to connect with people.”202 Sometimes “a lack of awareness for what opportunities the City has and not knowing their needs” serves as a barrier.203 Likewise, an African American female “mentioned how the City does not know what services her company offers.”204 A Non-Minority Woman business owner said that “the City has an attitude that emits a sense of not wanting to work with non-local or non-Somerville based businesses” and further “noted how City employees can make it difficult to work on a job by questioning everything you do even when it does not make sense.”205 An African American business owner stated that he would like feedback on losing bids "so he can have a better understanding of what is required to win business with the municipality."206 d) Bidding Requirements 25% of American Indian, 18.2% of African American, 17.6% of Asian American, and 13.3% of Hispanic American business owners listed “pre-qualification requirements” as an issue that would prevent a firm from bidding on or obtaining work on a City project.207. About eight (8) of the twenty (20) respondents to this question owned construction or construction-related firms. A small contingent of MWBEs also mentioned “performance bond requirements” or “bid bind requirements as limiting factors.208 Three different interviewees mentioned issues related to costs that they are forced to bear or that the City does not take into consideration when accepting or rejecting a bid. For instance, a Non-Minority male business owner listed as a barrier “the proximity clause which includes warranty claims that come through on the product and the cost of maintaining that order is not considered.”209 Essentially, this Study participant was complaining that the extra cost burden his business has to bear regarding the products they sell is not taking into consideration in the bidding process by either private or public buyers. While a different interviewee “mentioned not having a DCAM certification, which is required to bid on certain opportunities,” as a hindrance.210 Although only 7.1% of all survey respondents mentioned issues with insurance prohibiting them from bidding on or winning City contracts, this issue drew spirited responses in Focus Group gatherings.211 200 Somerville Survey, Survey Table #52. 201 Somerville Interview, S-AI6. 202 Somerville Interview, S-AI15. 203 Somerville Interview, S-AI16. 204 Somerville Interview, S-AI19. 205 Somerville Interview, S-AI26. 206 Somerville Interview, S-AI10. 207 Somerville Survey, Survey Table #41. 208 Somerville Survey, Survey Tables #42 and 46. 209 Somerville Interview, S-AI12. 210 Somerville Interview, S-AI13. 211 Somerville Survey, Survey Table #48.

111 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA, 2025 DISPARITY STUDY An individual in one of the Focus Groups remarked that insurance and bonding can also be a barrier.212 For the participants in a different Focus Group, bonding is expensive and seems even more cost prohibitive than insurance.213 Individual interview subjects corroborated the views of Focus Group participants. One MWBE interviewee stated that the bonding and insurance requirements for their small firm were prohibitively high.214 An Asian American entrepreneur remarked that “the insurance requirements are expensive.”215 Both of these interview subjects agreed that the City should reduce the bonding and/or insurance requirements, while a third participant recommended that the Town help MWBEs qualify for loans to defray the costs of things like bonding and insurance.216 One MWBE participant in a Focus Group articulated the concern in this way: But some of this [excluding small businesses], from my experience, comes from the bonding requirements that goes into some of these contracts…I really would like the cities to reconsider what their bonding…levels are…I know when we were just starting out it was a real huge issue…if you have a company that’s not doing millions of dollars of business in revenue per quarter, it could be a…barrier.217 A different Focus Group participant told his own story to illustrate the point: You know, in my [line of work] I have a lot of insurance but the bonding is a little bit more difficult to obtain because now I have to go through all this rigmarole to get bonded as well. And, you know, I’m covered up to $5,000,000…If I’m paying $2000 a year for $5,000,000 coverage, then if I have to get bonded, it now…doubles or triples the insurance rate.218 Suffice it to say that complaints about bonding and insurance requirements were some of the most clearly expressed among study participants. A relative lack of experience also is a negative factor. An African American male interviewee “mentioned how the score card allows a certain number of points for municipality past performance which negatively affects businesses that do not have experience working on municipality projects.”219 A Hispanic American female “also shared how she has submitted RFPs with other municipalities but finds they want previous municipality work.”220 A small sample of survey respondents from all but one demographic group indicated that a “lack of experience” was a hindrance in bidding on or obtaining a City contract. Again, this barrier was felt most acutely by MWBEs, with 33% of Bi/Multi-Racial Americans, 17.6% of Asian Americans, 12.1% of African Americans and 6.7% of Hispanic Americans selecting “lack of experience” as a problem.221 212 Brookline/Somerville Joint Focus Group, Focus Group 1, June 6, 2024. 213 Brookline/Somerville Joint Focus Group, Focus Group 2, June 6, 2024. 214 Brookline Interview, B-AI11. 215 Brookline Interview, B-AI13. 216 Brookline Interview, B-AI14. 217 Brookline/Somerville Joint Focus Group, Focus Group 1. 218 Brookline/Somerville Joint Focus Group, Focus Group 2. 219 Somerville Interview, S-AI22. 220 Somerville Interview, S-AI7. 221 Somerville Survey, Survey Table #54.

112 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA, 2025 DISPARITY STUDY e) Complicated Bidding Process & Excessive Paperwork Since most of the interviewees had no experience working with the City, few of them offered a view on the bidding process. One Non-Minority male business owner said that he “finds the COMMBUYS portal hard to navigate and [it] does not really apply to businesses like his and is geared more toward construction businesses.”222 Moreover, 50% of Brazilian Americans, 30.3% of African Americans, 25% of American Indians and 11.8% of Asian Americans noted “excessive paperwork” as an impediment.223 With respect to the RFPs themselves, members of one Focus Group hoped that the City would revisit the creation of the RFPs to make sure that they are clearly written, with concise, easy-to-understand titles and delivered to the business community with ample time for adequate responses.224 It bears mentioning that some of the participants in the study may own firms that offer goods and/or services that the City does not buy. f) Lack of Knowledge of City Policies and/or Decision Makers More than one interviewee pointed to a lack of knowledge of either City decision-makers or policy as a problem that they have encountered with the City. For one MWBE, the only barrier he expressed as a hindrance to his participation was the fact that he has “no connections with the City.”225 Another MWBE mentioned how she “does not know anyone within the City of Somerville that she can reach out to and communicate what her company can do.”226 A different interviewee stated flatly that a problem for him has been “getting access to the City's needs and decision-makers.”227 For some, this lack of access is the result of a lack of responsiveness on the part of the City. One MWBE “mentioned reaching out to municipalities but people who work for the municipality do not call back.”228 A different MWBE mentioned being intimidated by the opacity of the process, implying that relationship-building with the City could improve transparency and encourage more disadvantaged businesses to try and work with the City.229 g) Prompt Payment Most interview subjects did not complain about payment from the City, though they regularly indicated that they hoped to be paid “net 15-30 days” or, at most, “net 60 days.”230 On the other hand reported that it took between 61 and 90 days to receive payment from the City, while 19% of subcontractor respondents indicated the same payment timeframe,231 survey participants indicated a similar level of concern regarding payment from the City as compared to payment from Prime contractors. Nearly 37% of survey respondents reported that it took between 61 and 90 days to receive payment from the City, while 19% of subcontractor respondents indicated the same payment timeframe. In a list of items that could prevent a firm from bidding on or winning a contract with the City, 7.1% of all survey respondents selected “[t]ime to receive payment from the City of Somerville;” 18.2% of African Americans, 13.3% of Hispanic Americans and 11.8% 222 Somerville Interview, S-AI30. 223 Somerville Survey, Survey Table #45. 224 Brookline/Somerville Focus Group, B-FG1; see also B-FG2. 225 Somerville Interview, S-AI2. 226 Somerville Interview, S-AI24; see also S-AI15. 227 Somerville Interview, S-AI9. 228 Somerville Interview, S-AI6. 229 Somerville Interview, S-AI20. 230 See Somerville Interviews, e.g., S-AI1, S-AI4, S-AI8, S-AI13, S-AI14, S-AI15, S-AI16, S-AI18, S-AI21, S- AI22, S-AI26 and S-AI29; but see S-AI2, S-AI10, S-AI11, S-AI12 and S-AI24 who would seek financial assistance from the City. 231 Somerville Survey Tables 83 and 84.

113 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA, 2025 DISPARITY STUDY of Asian Americans selected this response.232 By comparison, 6.6% of all survey respondents selected “[t]ime to receive payment from prime contractor(s),” as a reason a disadvantaged firm might not seek or win a City project. The MWBE response to this question was identical to the last.233 h) Capital As mentioned above, most interviewees did not anticipate needing assistance from the City if they were to win a contract. Nonetheless, some believed that issues of capitalization remain a powerful adverse force operating against MWBEs. An African American male interviewee said that he “believes the biggest obstacle he faces as a Minority owned business is funding. In general, the owner finds access to funding to be a huge issue followed by having flexibility with funding. He observes how his non-Minority counterparts find it easier to obtain loans, and grants, and have access to networks that can provide initial funding. Funding has been a challenge and deters Minority businesses from pursuing certain opportunities.”234 A different African American business owner noted that one “of the biggest obstacles faced by a Minority owned business is getting working capital because it is not easy for Minority vendors to come by. The owner recounted his experience visiting every bank and credit union within the community and being unable to get the line of credit he was looking for.”235 Survey results corroborate these accounts. When asked to identify the largest commercial loan their firm had received from 2017-present, 16.5% of all respondents indicated “$50,000 or less” but MWBEs selected this response in greater proportion than the entire group of survey respondents. In fact, the percentage of African Americans who chose that response was nearly double the overall rate. Taking into account the fact that more than half of all respondents selected “do not know” in response to this question, most MWBEs responded in ways that indicate they received smaller loans than their White counterparts. Only 6.1% of African American respondents indicated that they received a loan between $500,000 and $1,000,000, as compared to 18% of Non-Minority male respondents who received loans in the same range. Although nearly 5% of Non-Minority Woman respondents indicated that they had received loans between $1,000,001 and $5,000,000, no African Americans, American Indians or Bi/Multi-Racial Americans could say the same.236 In response to the question “[h]ow many times have you been denied a commercial (business) bank loan from 2017 - Present?”, 60.4% of all respondents marked “None.” 65% of Non-Minority Woman respondents and 57.4% of Non-Minority males marked “None” but only 50% of Brazilian Americans, 45% of African Americans and 33.3% of Bi/Multi-Racial Americans agreed. In sharp contrast, 33.3% of Bi/Multi- Racial Americans, 27.3% of African Americans and 17.6% of Asian Americans marked “1-10,” as compared to 1.6% of Non-Minority males and 1.5% of White females.237 Other survey results repeat this pattern.238 For example, among those who had been denied a loan, 28.6% of African Americans indicated that they had been denied an operational loan because of “insufficient documentation” and 40% of African Americans indicated that they had been denied a business start-up loan because of “insufficient business history;” no other demographic group selected either of these as a reason for the rejection of their loan application.239 232 Somerville Survey, Survey Table #4 233 Somerville Survey, Survey Table #44. 234 Somerville Interview, S-AI16. 235 Somerville Interview, S-AI17. 236 Somerville Survey, Survey Table #105. 237 Somerville Survey, Survey Table #106. 238 Somerville Survey, Survey Tables #107-136. 239 Somerville Survey, Survey Tables #108 and 112; see also Survey Tables #113, 119 and 120.

114 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA, 2025 DISPARITY STUDY i) Informal Networks When the discussion with an interviewee turned to “barriers to participation,” the subject noted that they felt that they faced “unfair competition when the City uses the same contractors repeatedly,” suggesting that certain firms benefit from a “Good Ol’ Boy system” within the City.240 A Non-Minority male interviewee, at a similar point in his interview, simply stated that "steep competition" was the thing that prevented him from winning contracts with the City.241 A Non-MWBE Focus Group participant, whose business had a positive experience working with Somerville, also suggested that “it seems…entities just want to work with large firms.”242 Another Focus Group participant said that he feels “that because his business is both small and new, it is hard to break through.”243 A Hispanic American male said that “he finds that people like to work with businesses that are like them,” in response to a question about the biggest obstacles faced by MWBEs.244 An African American interviewee hinted at the prevalence of informal networks when he said that the biggest obstacle “being a Minority owned business is feeling stifled because they are not given opportunities and are not on a preferred list.”245 A veteran African American business owner – who has failed to win numerous bids – opined that the “the biggest obstacle faced by a Minority owned business is municipalities wanting to work with certain Non- Minority businesses. He feels they only have an interest in working with those preferred businesses that are non-Minority.”246 Although this interview subject did not elaborate on this claim, survey results echo these sentiments. When asked “Do you believe there is an informal network of prime and subcontractors doing business with the City of Somerville…that monopolizes the public contracting process?”, 32.5% of all respondents selected “Yes.” It should be noted that 100% of Brazilian Americans, 66.7% of Bi/Multi-Racial Americans, 57.6% of African Americans, 35.3% of Asian Americans and 33.3% of Hispanic Americans held this belief.247 Likewise, when given the statement “Double standards in qualifications and work performance make it more difficult for Minority and/or Woman owned business to win bids or contracts.”, 75% of Brazilian Americans, 66.7% of Bi/Multi-Racial Americans, 48.5% of African Americans, 33.4% of Hispanic Americans and 23.5% of Asian Americans either “Agreed” or “Strongly Agreed;” even 16.6% of White females and 13.1% of Non-Minority males held the same sentiment.248 Unfortunately, the survey did not follow-up by asking for specific examples of “double standards.” j) Clarity/Outreach Although the interviewers did not ask specifically about the outreach efforts of the City, many interviewees implied that the outreach is lacking or ineffective. One MWBE said that she “believes the biggest obstacle faced by a Minority owned business is the lack of education on how things work. She described how she had to speak with three different individuals to get clarity on the difference between COMMBUYS and the supplier diversity portal. She never received any information on how to apply to an RFP and it was unclear 240 Somerville Interview, S-AI9. 241 Somerville Interview, S-AI14; see also S-AI18. 242 Brookline/Somerville Focus Group, B-FG1. 243 Somerville Interview, B-FG1. 244 Somerville Interview, S-AI5. 245 Somerville Interview, S-AI10. 246 Somerville Interview, S-AI20. 247 Somerville Survey, Survey Table #139. 248 Somerville Survey, Survey Table #141.

115 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA, 2025 DISPARITY STUDY how to go about submitting a successful proposal.”249 This participant’s comment reveals a confusion regarding the relationship between COMMBUYS and specific opportunities with local jurisdictions like the City. Participants in one Focus Group also complained that the user experience with COMMBUYS is discouraging because it can be “[d]ifficult to filter to find jobs.”250 Interestingly, of those survey respondents who provided feedback at the completion of the survey, 20% of African Americans and 16.7% of both Asian Americans and White females provided feedback that indicated problems with “[c]ontract management and clarity,” while another 7.5% of all respondents provided feedback that suggested problems with “[p]rocess clarity and accessibility.”251 3. Suggestions for Improvement While acknowledging that the City’s marketplace seems ideal for small businesses, several participants offered recommendations for change. For instance, some participants advocated for more direct interaction between the City and disadvantaged businesses. Other participants asserted that the City should break up large contracts into smaller units to improve the odds of small firms winning contracts. Many subjects recommended greater transparency in the bidding process, even to the point of providing feedback to SDBs and DBEs who fail to win a bid. Some participants advocated for the creation of a liaison or office within City government to support SDBs and DBEs. Other business owners suggested conducting procurement informational meetings, pre-bid conferences and “meet-and-greet” sessions with City officials and the Prime contractors upon whom they most often rely. A handful of participants suggested that the City eliminate certain requirements or create financial assistance that can attract all types of SDBs and DBEs. Finally, quite a few participants suggested that the City benchmark with other surrounding governmental entities, such as the City of Boston and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. In other words, the participants hoped that the City would engage MWBEs in a similar fashion to the wat that the City of Boston does, perhaps through vendor education or having a liaison whose job it is to work with MWBEs. A review of the survey results, interviews, and Focus Group comments reinforces these opinions and illuminates some of the sentiments among participants in G&S data collection. All the interviewees expressed one or more recommendations to improve the experience with the City’s procurement process. These suggestions can be grouped into three categories: 1) Communication/Clarity/Relationship-Building; 2) Process-Focused; and 3) race- and gender-specific remedies. The first category includes ideas about responsiveness, meet-and-greets, targeted communications and/or training, and direct outreach. The second category encompasses proposals around unbundling large contracts, the provision of financial assistance, and overcoming out-of-state competition, while the third category is self-explanatory.252 249 Somerville Interview, S-AI19. 250 Brookline/Somerville Joint Focus Group, B-FG2. 251 Somerville Survey, Survey Table #43. 252 See Somerville Interview, S-AI12, in which the interview subject complained about “national bidders coming in with lower prices and larger infrastructure” which prevents his firm from competing on price.

116 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA, 2025 DISPARITY STUDY k) Communication/Clarity/Relationship-Building i. Responsiveness A Hispanic American female business owner “suggested the City of Somerville be responsive to women owned businesses because the owner finds project managers take a long time to get back to businesses when they are trying to handle issues. She understands project managers have a heavy workload but finds they are hard to reach.”253 A Hispanic American male “suggested the City of Somerville communicate [directly] with MBEs and return calls because a lot of MBEs are ready to work.”254 Such responsiveness might include hiring a liaison between the City and MWBEs. Or, as one Asian American interviewee put it, “the City of Somerville [should] be accessible in case Minority businesses reach out so they can have someone to speak to…someone who can be available to answer questions and be a resource.”255 An LGBTQ+ interviewee made a similar plea: he “suggested the City of Somerville have an LGBTQ+ liaison in their office that would help the community and who knows who to go to and help gain more work for LGBTQ+ businesses.256 ii. Direct Outreach to Disadvantaged Businesses A MBWE interviewee requested that “the City of Somerville send RFPs directly to LGBTQ+ businesses because it is hard to allocate resources to finding and researching all the opportunities that may exist.”257 A Non-Minority Woman business owner recommended that “the City of Somerville reach out to smaller businesses when they have smaller projects because a lot of times smaller businesses feel like it is already a done deal with the municipality already awarding the project.”258 A different Non-Minority Woman interviewee “suggested the City of Somerville solicit Women owned businesses directly instead of making businesses go to the COMMBUYS portal.”259 This viewpoint was shared by an African American male business owner, who “suggested the City of Somerville directly market more to Minority businesses and does not recall seeing anything targeting Minority contractors. The owner is not saying marketing efforts are not being made, but to his recollection, he has not seen any.”260 A Non-MWBE business owner “suggested the City of Somerville send out bids directly to businesses where they do not need a general contractor and the small business can bid directly with the municipality.”261 An Asian American male interviewee “suggested the City of Somerville email RFPs when they may apply to businesses.”262 An African American female interviewee “suggested the City of Somerville create a [MWBE] mailing list to get updates on RFPs and find out what RFPs are available to bid on.”263 An African American male business owner said that this approach would work because he “finds email is effective and MBEs who are interested will reply.”264 A Non-Minority Woman interviewee “suggested the City of Somerville meet 253 Somerville Interview, S-AI1. 254 Somerville Interview, S-AI6. 255 Somerville Interview, S-AI15. 256 Somerville Interview, S-AI30. 257 Somerville Interviews, S-AI3 and S-AI21. 258 Somerville Interview, S-AI4. 259 Somerville Interview, S-AI28. 260 Somerville Interview, S-AI13; see also S-AI20. 261 Somerville Interview, S-AI14. 262 Somerville Interview, S-AI8. 263 Somerville Interview, S-AI11. 264 Somerville Interview, S-AI10.

117 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA, 2025 DISPARITY STUDY with Women owned businesses or pick up the phone and communicate what they need. If the company is unable to help, then they can recommend another business that can.”265 This direct approach might include the creation of a “supplier diversity program,”266 one that would be “similar to Boston’s.”267 In the alternative, a targeted approach could include reaching “out to those incubator organizations that are Women owned and Minority owned.” Specifically, an African American business owner offered that the City could “look to networking organizations to create and offer a mentor program. He referenced a networking group in the New England area that he is a part of, and the City could model a program after the Black Economic Council of Massachusetts””268 iii. Meet-and-Greets One Non-Minority Woman business owner advocated for “the City of Somerville [to] meet with WBEs and get to know them so there is an established relationship.”269 An MWBE recommended that “the City of Somerville introduce subcontractors to prime contractors who are currently working with the City and need work done. She feels Somerville has a lot of projects going on because it is an up-and-coming City and believes there is no way all the boxes are getting checked.”270 One Non-Minority Woman business owner simply stated that the City must “host meet and greets so Women owned businesses can be introduced to prime contractors.”271 This might be accomplished by creating “a mentor/protégé program so newer businesses can learn and get advice from more seasoned businesses. It would also be an opportunity for newer businesses to build relationships.”272 A mentor/protégé program also could help young firms “learn more about the RFP process.”273 and it would help “prime contractors so they can get to know MBEs and learn more about what [MBEs] offer and how they can be utilized on projects.”274 If “the City of Somerville [meets] with LGBTQ+ businesses, get to know each other, and share information on how they can be successful,” this approach would improve the odds of long-term relationship between the City and LGBTQ+ firms.275 The City should “reach out to LGBTQ+ businesses and find out what they do,” said another LGBTQ+ business owner. “Meet with them and see how their services can apply to municipal work.”276 Such events could include Spanish-speaking employees who could bridge the communication gap between the City’s decision-makers and business owners whose first language is Spanish.277 Inclusive events that host a diverse group of businesses can be useful for the City as well as the businesses.278 Or, as one Non-Minority Woman business owner said, she “finds putting a face to a name 265 Somerville Interview, S-AI28. 266 Somerville Interview, S-AI15; see also S-AI23. 267 Somerville Interview, S-AI19. 268 Somerville Interview, S-AI16. 269 Somerville Interview, S-AI4; see also S-AI25. 270 Somerville Interview, S-AI1; see also S-AI7, S-AI11, S-AI20, S-AI27. 271 Somerville Interview, S-AI28. 272 Somerville Interview, S-AI1; see also S-AI2, S-AI5, S-AI6, S-AI8, S-AI10, S-AI17, S-AI21, S-AI22 and S- AI29. 273 Somerville Interview, S-AI2. 274 Somerville Interview, S-AI20; see also S-AI24. 275 Somerville Interview, S-AI3. 276 Somerville Interview, S-AI30. 277 Somerville Interview, S-AI7. 278 Somerville Interview, S-AI18.

118 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA, 2025 DISPARITY STUDY helps build relationships.”279 The meet-and-greets would also allow “the City of Somerville [to] learn more about [MWBEs] and their capabilities.”280 On this point, an African American “mentioned how the product he has is not a Minority product and it is the same as what larger firms offer. The only difference is that the larger firm is well known, and the smaller business is not. He suggested the City get to know the small business and give them a chance.”281 An Asian American business owner joined this chorus, saying that meet-and-greets that he “would like the City to get to know them by asking for capabilities statements and sharing what upcoming projects may align with the Minority businesses.”282 To that end, participants in a Focus Group advocated for the City to hold “procurement fairs.” This group also suggested that the City hire a staff member who could serve as a liaison between the City and small, disadvantaged businesses.283 Interestingly enough, at least one interviewee implied that relationship-building with MWBEs could help the City become a better municipality.284 iv. Targeted Communications and Training An MWBE study participant “suggested the City of Somerville offer training on the RFP process.”285 An African American female agreed and said that the City could “make the RFP process easier to navigate.”286 In a similar vein, an African American male business owner “suggested the City of Somerville offer training on how to do business with the City and show them how to successfully submit RFPs.”287 A different African American interviewee expanded on this idea, “suggest[ing] the City of Somerville be clear on how to apply for the work and be clear on the expectations. Sometimes he experiences where the scope of work is not well defined as it relates to the budget, timeframe, and manpower needed for the project. When the scope of work is well defined it helps to put together a solid proposal.”288 Members of both Focus Groups touted the need for “vendor education” about the City, about its procedures and decision-makers.289 This type of training could come via a PDF that is emailed on a semi-regular basis or in-person seminars.”290 An LGBTQ+ interviewee offered that the City should “provide feedback or follow up on activities businesses have participated in. He gave an example of businesses participating in studies and having a dialogue with municipalities on how they can do more.”291 An Asian American male spoke to this end, “suggest[ing] the City of Somerville keep the Zoom evaluation meetings open so they will be able to hear feedback on the projects they applied for.”292 An MWBE said that she “would like municipalities to highlight their preference for working with smaller businesses and encourage smaller businesses to apply.”293 A Hispanic American male business owner said that the City should “create outreach to reach more Minority businesses and how they should expand their avenues to reach more businesses [and] directly email opportunities to Minority 279 Somerville Interview, S-AI26. 280 Somerville Interviews, S-AI9, S-AI18 and S-AI19. 281 Somerville Interview, S-AI17. 282 Somerville Interview, S-AI15; see also S-AI27. 283 Brookline/Somerville Joint Focus Group, B-FG1. 284 Somerville Interview, S-AI23. 285 Somerville Interview, S-AI11. 286 Somerville Interview, S-AI19. 287 Somerville Interview, S-AI21; see also S-AI24. 288 Somerville Interview, S-AI22. 289 Brookline/Somerville Joint Focus Groups, B-FG1 and B-FG2. 290 Brookline/Somerville Joint Focus Group, B-FG2. 291 Somerville Interview, S-AI3. 292 Somerville Interview, S-AI8. 293 Somerville Interview, S-AI4.

119 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA, 2025 DISPARITY STUDY businesses.”294 This targeted communication could include trainings in which “the City of Somerville [lets] businesses demo their capabilities so they can know what businesses offer.”295 An African American male interviewee said that “the City of Somerville [should] send out invitations for pre-bid meetings so MBEs will know about upcoming opportunities. Doing this will allow MBEs to separate themselves by following the activity surrounding the project.”296 A Focus Group participant spoke to this issue within the context of breaking up large contracts: “I was in on the policy that put the Supplier Diversity Office in place. So, when we [raised the issue of unbundling], we specifically talked about putting in unbundling for the very point of being able to have subprime contractors come in…Like, when’s the last time Brookline or Somerville did like, you know, had their chief procurement officer give a training on all the ins and outs of [unbundling a contract]?”297 l) Process-Focused Improvements i. Contract Unbundling (Smaller Contract Sizes) In an effort to create more level playing field for smaller firms, a Hispanic American female recommended that “the City of Somerville create smaller contracts that range from $50,000- $60,000.”298 A Non-Minority Woman business owner “suggested the City of Somerville create smaller projects by breaking down larger ones and creating a scope tailored for a small business.”299 Members of a Focus Group also supported the idea of unbundling large projects.300 A Hispanic American male business owner followed suit by saying that “the City of Somerville [should] have smaller contracts MBEs can pursue where they do not have to compete with larger firms.”301 An Asian American male business owner made nearly the exact recommendation: he “suggested the City of Somerville have smaller contracts specific to MBEs so larger firms will not apply.”302 Related to this was the concern that SDB and DBE firms cannot compete with larger firms on costs because of issues of scale. To that end, one Hispanic American interviewee “suggested the City of Somerville really look at the bids and the value they offer and stop awarding contracts to the lowest bidder.”303 This interviewee expressed a view that large firms have the resources to underbid small firms. In this person’s opinion, jurisdictions could better help small businesses by focusing on the overall value they bring to a particular project. Otherwise, the firms with the most resources can always beat small firms with limited resources and tiny profit margins. From this perspective, a facially neutral policy can unintentionally create disparate outcomes. Perhaps, as one Focus Group suggested, a race- and gender-neutral fix could include creating Blanket Contracts with small businesses that would allow them “to get a foot in the door” but that insured that they needed to win a bid in order to perform work for the City.304 294 Somerville Interview, S-AI5. 295 Somerville Interview, S-AI6. 296 Somerville Interview, S-AI10; see also S-AI11 and S-AI22. 297 Brookline/Somerville Joint Focus Groups, Focus Group 1. 298Somerville Interview, S-AI1. 299 Somerville Interview, S-AI4; see also S-AI26. 300 Brookline/Somerville Joint Focus Group, B-FG1; see also B-FG2. 301 Somerville Interview, S-AI7. 302 Somerville Interview, S-AI8; see also S-AI9, S-AI14, S-AI16, S-AI20, S-AI21 and S-AI27. 303 Somerville Interview, S-AI24. 304 Somerville Interview, B-FG1.

120 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA, 2025 DISPARITY STUDY ii. Financial Assistance An Asian American male interviewee recommended that “the City of Somerville offer financial grants so Minority businesses can grow their business.”305 An MBE interviewee “suggested the City of Somerville include incentives in the RFPs to help with bonding and anything needed.”306 Likewise, a Hispanic American male business owner “suggested the City of Somerville help MBEs get access to capital.”307 An African American business owner “suggested the City of Somerville help emerging businesses with revenues under five million to scale up…[and] get access to capital.”308 An African American female interviewee agreed, “suggest[ing] the City of Somerville support MBEs by offering resources to help them become successful.”309 Participants in the Focus Groups recommended that the City assess the need for certain requirements. In their minds, “[b]onding requirements are high,” and “seem even more cost prohibitive than insurance,” so the City should “ensure the amount is actually necessary.”310 Griffin & Strong can attest that bid bonds are very costly and burdensome for small businesses to acquire, especially when they are unsure whether they will win a bid. One solution might be to allow small, disadvantaged businesses to “submit the bid without bonding and then submit [their] proof of bonding within 10 days of being awarded a contract with the City.”311 Another solution for the City might be to request that the Commonwealth allow bid bonds to be waived for disadvantaged firms. iii. Model Procurement Practices in Other Jurisdictions An MWBE interviewee opined that the City should “look to Boston as an example when looking at how to work with Minority owned businesses.”312 An Asian American interviewee also “suggested the City of Somerville look to the City of Boston’s diversity program as an example and a program they can use as a model.313 Another answer was to partner with business advocacy or affinity groups, like “the Black Economic Council of Massachusetts”314 or “the National Gay and Lesbian Chamber of Commerce.”315 iv. Out-of-State Competition An MWBE interviewee suggested that “the City of Somerville utilize local businesses instead of using businesses that are not operating within the state.” This business owner “does not understand why municipalities find businesses in other states to do work that local businesses can do. He feels municipalities take money away from local [communities] by looking for contractors outside of the state.”316 A Non-MWBE interviewee offered a similar view by suggesting that “the City of Somerville add proximity as a factor when deciding to work with small businesses.”317 It bears mention that the perception differs from reality, as 98% of construction dollars, 97% of Architecture & Engineering, 86% of Professional Services, 65% of Goods and nearly 93% of all bid dollars are awarded to firms in the metropolitan area. Vendor Education may include 305 Somerville Interview, S-AI2. 306 Somerville Interview, S-AI20. 307 Somerville Interview, S-AI7; see also S-AI26. 308 Somerville Interview, S-AI16. 309 Somerville Interview, S-AI19; see also S-AI27. 310 Brookline/Somerville Joint Focus Groups, B-FG1 and B-FG2. 311 Brookline/Somerville Joint Focus Group, B-FG2. 312 Somerville Interview, S-AI2. 313 Somerville Interview, S-AI15. 314 Brookline Interviews, B-AI5 and B-AI8. 315 Brookline Interviews B-AI20 and B-AI21; see also Brookline/Somerville Joint Focus Group, B-FG1. 316 Somerville Interview, S-AI10. 317 Somerville Interview, S-AI12.

121 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA, 2025 DISPARITY STUDY an effort to disabuse business owners of this perception, as well as relevant Commonwealth policy regarding fair competition. m) Race- and Gender-Specific Opportunities for Improvement A LGBTQ+ business owner directly stated that the City should “offer a focused LGBTQ+ program that markets to the LGBTQ+ community and wants to work with LGBTQ+ businesses.”318 Such an approach also might help these firms overcome the need for extensive municipal experience, which many lack.319 Similarly, members of one Focus Group mentioned the “experience” requirement as a barrier and advocated for the City to create “a way to give firms that do not have experience as prime contractors an opportunity to perform” and gain that type of experience.320 Several interviewees specifically mentioned their desire to see the City create “set asides” for disadvantaged groups.321 Having said that, one MWBE participant cautioned that “the City of Somerville [should] audit the certification process to ensure Women owned businesses are truly that and not fronts for their husbands.322 A Non-Minority male business owner offered his own slant on the idea, suggesting that “the City of Somerville give small businesses set asides like the federal government. He described an example of set asides equaling where 10% or more must go to small businesses and veteran owned businesses. Those set asides would be dependent on skill set and would be helpful to newer smaller businesses starting out.”323 A Non-Minority Woman business owner said that the City should “have set asides specifically for Women owned businesses because it would allow them to get more work.”324 An African American male interviewee also “suggested the City of Somerville have set asides for Minority businesses.”325 A different African American male interviewee “suggested the City of Somerville remove some barriers to make it easier for MBEs to apply.”326 Or, as an Asian American business owner “suggested the City of Somerville consider having fewer requirements for Minority businesses and maybe transfer those requirements to other businesses that have more advantages,” adding that set asides could be randomized and “awarded through a lottery.”327 A Non-Minority Woman interviewee “suggested the City of Somerville make working with Women owned businesses a requirement and not a recommendation. She noted how it is a requirement at the state level and would like to see municipalities adopt the same practice.” She added that the City should “create goals and set asides for Women owned businesses because there are a lot of Women owned businesses who want to earn the work and prove their value but there has to be opportunities where they are given a chance to show their capabilities.”328 Some preferred for the set asides to be aimed at all types of small businesses, more broadly.329 Many of the interviewees felt that these race- and gender-conscious remedies were 318 Somerville Interview, S-AI3. 319 Somerville Interview, S-AI7. 320 Brookline/Somerville Joint Focus Group, B-FG1. 321 Somerville Interviews, S-AI7, S-AI13, S-AI18 and S-AI26 on set asides for MBEs. 322 Somerville Interview, S-AI13. 323 Somerville Interview, S-AI14. 324 Somerville Interview, S-AI28. 325 Somerville Interview, S-AI17; see also S-AI22 and S-AI24. 326 Somerville Interview, S-AI20. 327 Somerville Interview, S-AI18. 328 Somerville Interview, S-AI25. 329 Somerville Interview, S-AI29.

122 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA, 2025 DISPARITY STUDY necessary because of the history of exclusion in the area. One MBWE who is an expert on “diversity, equity & inclusion” issues put it this way: she “suggested the City of Somerville work with her company so they can learn and understand the benefits of the work she does. She noted how they can learn the characteristics of inclusive leaders and get training or coaching for leadership because identities of privilege lack awareness.”330 D. Conclusion The experiences of business owners and business advocates provide reason to cheer the City’s efforts to improve it contracting processes. The feedback from these groups also points to some areas of concern and improvement. Overall, the City seems energized about making procurement as fair and transparent as possible, a focus that G&S applauds. Somerville has a service-based economy featuring light manufacturing, professional, scientific & technical services, education and healthcare. The median income grew by roughly 10% in the early part of the decade, signaling meaningful growth in economic activity.331 The current challenge facing the City is how to maintain that growth in a way that benefits all parts of the economy. The Disparity Study aims to provide transparency regarding the processes, marketplace, and social dynamics that shape public contracting and business development in Somerville. The aim of this Study is not to blame any particular administration or department. Indeed, many of the suggestions from stakeholders were made in good faith to help Somerville improve its services and benefit a wide array of businesses that serve as the backbone of the metropolitan economy. Part of the journey to a more equitable future includes addressing historical and contemporary accounts herein as a representative sample of the experiences of the area’s business owners 330 Somerville Interview, S-AI23. 331 DataUSA, Somerville, MA. Snapshot, at https://datausa.io/profile/geo/somerville-ma, accessed on February 27, 2025.

A P P E N D I X A D e f i n i t i o n s C I T Y O F S O M E R V I L L E , M A 2 0 2 5 D I S P A R I T Y S T U D Y

124 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA, 2025 DISPARITY STUDY Appendix A: Disparity Study Definitions Anecdotal: A reported personal experience or encounter, retold through interview, testimony, email, or survey. Not necessarily verified or based on research. Availability Estimates: A term of art in Disparity Studies that refers to the percentage of ready, willing, and able firms in the entity’s Relevant Geographic in each Industry Category that is disaggregated by race/ethnicity/gender. City of Richmond v. J.A. Croson Company 488 U.S. 469 (1989) (“Croson”): Laws that, on their face, favor one class of citizens over another, may run afoul of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14 Amendment of the U.S. Constitution even if those laws are meant to remedy discrimination. Such laws, including those that create race conscious programs, must withstand judicial “strict scrutiny” or they will be dismantled. In its Croson decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the City of Richmond’s Minority Business Enterprise (hereinafter “MBE”) program failed to satisfy the requirements of “strict scrutiny” review under the 14th Amendment “Strict scrutiny” review involves two co-equal considerations to determine whether a race conscious program can withstand the Strict Scrutiny: First, the need to demonstrate a compelling governmental interest (which may be established through periodic disparity studies); Second, implementation of a program or method narrowly tailored to achieve/remedy the compelling interest. In Croson, the Supreme Court concluded that the City of Richmond failed to show that its Minority set-aside program was “necessary” to remedy the effects of discrimination in the marketplace. Construction: For the purposes of the City of Somerville Disparity Study, this means the horizontal and vertical construction including, erection, repair, renovation, or demolition, building, street, road, and all construction trades. Construction Services is one of the City’s Study Industry Categories. Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (“DBE”): A small, for-profit business that is owned and operated by individuals who are socially and economically disadvantaged own at least a 51% interest and also control management and daily business operations. Disparity Index: A statistical measure demonstrated by the failure to meet parity between availability and Utilization. Disparity is calculated by comparing the utilization percentage to the availability percentage of each race/gender/ethnic group. Will result in either overutilization, underutilization, or parity. Disparity Study (“Study”): A tool, identified by the Supreme Court as necessary for satisfying the strict scrutiny threshold for race conscious programs and demonstrating the compelling governmental interest by “factual predicate” that identifies discrimination and a narrowly tailored remedy to redress any finding of discrimination. Must adhere to the legal requirements of U.S Supreme Court decisions like City of Richmond v. J.A. Croson Company., 488 U.S. 469 (1989) and its progeny. Disparity studies are not designed to be an analysis of any current remedial programs but an analysis of race, ethnicity, and gender status and how it affects participation in the procurement process and in the marketplace. Architecture & Engineering: For the purpose of the City of Somerville Disparity Study, this means construction-related professional services, including architecture and engineering, surveying, and construction management. Goods: For the purposes of the City of Somerville Disparity Study, this means commodities, materials, supplies, and equipment.

125 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA, 2025 DISPARITY STUDY Industry Categories: Means, collectively, the industry categories included in the Disparity Study, which are: Construction, A&E, Professional Service, Other Services, Goods, as those industry categories are defined in this section. Minority and Women owned Business Enterprise (“MWBEs”): Means a certified for-profit, independent operating business that is at least 51% owned, operated, and controlled by Minority person(s) and/or a woman or women. The ownership by minorities and Women must be real and substantial. The Minority group member(s) or Women must have operational and managerial control, interest in capital, and earnings commensurate with the percentage of ownership. Minority Group Member: Means those persons, citizens of the United States and lawfully admitted resident aliens, who are defined as Black or African American, Asian American, Hispanic American, American Indian, or Portuguese American. Overutilization: The measure by which the utilization percentage is higher than the availability percentage and the Disparity Index is above 100. In order to be statistically significantly overutilized, the Disparity Index must be 100 or more. Parity: The absence of disparity, demonstrated by the utilization percentage being equal to availability percentage and the Disparity Index equaling 100. Prime Contractor: A business who has entered into a direct contractual relationship with the City of Somerville or other public or private entity to provide a good, service, or perform a scope of services. Qualitative Analysis: Also known as anecdotal analysis. Referring to a measurement of quality (ex. how good over how much). Typified through collection and analysis of constituents’ anecdotal impressions, such as interviews, public hearings, focus groups, and other forms of commentary. Quantitative Analysis: Commonly referred to as statistical analysis. Referring to a measurement of quantity over quality (ex. how much over how good). Typified by analysis of mathematical or statistical modeling. Regression Analysis: Statistical measure used to determine whether the race, ethnicity or gender status of a business owner are an impediment in contracting in the City of Somerville marketplace and whether, but for these, they would have the capacity to provide services on a higher level than is currently utilized. Relevant Geographic Market Area: A term of art in disparity studies that refers to the geographical area in which the entity spends at least 75% of its dollars based upon firm location. For the City of Somerville, the Relevant Geographic Market Area was the Boston-Cambridge-Newton MSA, which is composed of the following counties: Middlesex County, Massachusetts; Essex County, Massachusetts; Suffolk County, Massachusetts; Norfolk County, Massachusetts; Plymouth County, Massachusetts; Rockingham County, New Hampshire; and Strafford County, New Hampshire. Small Disadvantaged Business (“SDB”): It means that at least 51% owned and controlled by a socially and economically disadvantaged individual or individuals certified by the Commonwealth’s Supplier Diversity Office for Minority Business Enterprises (MBEs), Women Business Enterprises (WBEs), Service- Disabled Veteran Business Enterprises (SDVOBEs),Veteran Business Enterprises (VBEs), Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Business Enterprises (LGBTBEs); and Disability owned Business Enterprises (DOBEs). For the City of Somerville, this category includes minorities, women, veterans, and LGBTQ+

126 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA, 2025 DISPARITY STUDY persons. Strict Scrutiny: The highest level of judicial scrutiny used in determining the constitutionality of laws. Study Period: The period between which all the City of Somerville payments are subject to study analysis. For this study it has been defined as five (5) years from July 1, 2017, to June 30, 2022, FY2018 through FY2022. Subcontractor: A business who has entered into a direct contractual relationship with a Prime Contractor to either provide a good or service or perform a full scope, or portion of a scope of services. Underutilization: The measure by which the utilization percentage is less than the availability percentage and the Disparity Index is below 100. In order to be statistically significantly underutilized, the Disparity Index must be 80 or less. Utilization: A review of payments to determine where and with whom Prime Contractor and Subcontractor were made. The analysis is conducted both with regard to the number of firms and the dollars in each race, ethnicity, and gender group during each year of the Study.

A P P E N D I X B E x p a n d e d L e g a l A n a l y s i s C I T Y O F S O M E R V I L L E , M A 2 0 2 5 D I S P A R I T Y S T U D Y

128 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA, 2025 DISPARITY STUDY Appendix B – Expanded legal analysis Having provided an historical overview of the significant cases that led to the development of disparity studies, the following discussion underscores the importance of such studies for establishing and maintaining a legally defensible M/WBE program or initiative. Included in this expanded section is a review of the key aspects of the methodology utilized by G&S to conduct the Somerville/Brookline disparity studies, including the process by which G&S analyzes both the statistical and the anecdotal evidence, which together provide the “factual predicate” for recommended remedial programs and policies. A. Overview of Legal Challenges to M/WBE Programs and Legislation There are several important legal standards and considerations which arise when a legal evaluation of, or a constitutional challenge to an MBE/WBE program occurs. Matters such as the burden(s) of proof, the applicable judicial scrutiny, and the types and sufficiency of evidence necessary for the legal evaluation must all be addressed. 1. Burdens of Production/Proof As noted above, the Croson Court struck down the City of Richmond's Minority set-aside program because the City failed to provide an adequate evidentiary showing of past and present discrimination as was its initial burden.332 Since the Fourteenth Amendment only allows affirmative action policies that narrowly seek to remedy particularized discrimination, the Court reasoned that state and local governments “must identify that discrimination . . . with some specificity before they may use race-conscious relief.”333 The Court's rationale for judging the sufficiency of the City's factual predicate for affirmative action legislation was whether there existed a “strong basis in evidence for its [government's] conclusion that remedial action was necessary.”334 The initial burden of production on the state or local governmental entity is to demonstrate that its race- and gender-conscious contract program is aimed at remedying identified past or present discrimination.335 Merely articulating a “benign” or “remedial” purpose does not constitute a “strong basis in evidence” that the remedial plan is necessary, nor does it establish a prima facie case of discrimination.336 Thus, the local government must not only identify the discrimination it seeks to redress, but also produce particularized findings of discrimination.337 A governmental entity may, for example, establish an inference of discrimination by using empirical evidence of a significant statistical disparity between the number of qualified M/WBEs in the relevant 332 Croson, 488 U.S. at 498-506. 333 Id. at 504. 334 Id. at 500 (quoting Wygant v. Jackson Bd. of Educ., 476 U.S. 267, 277, 106 S.Ct. 1842, 1849 (1986)). See also Stuart v. Roache, 951 F.2d at 450 (requiring “strong basis in evidence” for police promotion program intended to remedy past discrimination); Cotter v. City of Boston, 193 F.Supp.2d 323 (D. Mass 2002) (same). 335 See West Tennessee Chapter of Associated Builders v. City of Memphis, 302 F.Supp.2d 860, 863 (W.D. Tenn. 2004) (citing Croson; Adarand III). 336 Croson, 488 U.S. at 500. 337 Id. at 500-01.

129 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA, 2025 DISPARITY STUDY market area and the number of M/WBE contractors awarded a contract by the governmental entity or brought in as subcontractors by prime contractors to which a public contract is awarded.338 The Courts maintain that the quantum of evidence required for the governmental entity is to be determined on a case-by-case basis, and in the context and breadth of the M/WBE program it purports to advance.339 Once the governmental entity has shown acceptable proof of a compelling interest in remedying past discrimination and illustrated that its plan is narrowly tailored to achieve this goal, the party challenging the affirmative action plan bears the ultimate burden of proving that the plan is unconstitutional.340 B. The Equal Protection Clause and Relevant Level of Judicial Scrutiny The Fourteenth Amendment provides that “No state shall . . . deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws”. U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1. Courts determine the appropriate standard of equal protection review by examining the protected classes embodied in the statute.341 1. Racial Classifications The Supreme Court has made clear that “all racial classifications imposed by government must be analyzed by a reviewing Court under strict scrutiny.”342 The Fourth Circuit previously put into sharp relief its view of the rationale for this level of judicial review: Racial and ethnic distinctions of any sort are inherently suspect and thus call for the most exacting judicial examination. The rationale for this stringent standard of review is plain. Of all the criteria by which men and women can be judged, the most pernicious is that of race. The injustice of judging human beings by the color of their skin is so apparent that racial classifications cannot be rationalized by the casual invocation of benign remedial aims. While the inequities and indignities visited by past discrimination are undeniable, the use of race as a reparational device risks perpetuating the very race-consciousness such a remedy purports to overcome.... It thus remains our constitutional premise that race is an impermissible arbiter of human fortunes.343 Again, “[u]nder strict scrutiny, a racial classification must (1) serve a compelling state interest and (2) be narrowly tailored to achieve that interest.”344 338 Id. at 509. 339 See Concrete Works of Colorado, Inc. v. City of Denver, 36 F.3d 1513 (10th Cir. 1994). 340 See Sherbrooke Turf, Inc. v. Minnesota D.O.T., 345 F.3d 964, 971 (8th Cir. 2003) (“Sherbrooke and Gross Seed have the ultimate burden of establishing that the DBE program is not narrowly tailored.”); Geyer Signal, Inc. v. Minnesota D.O.T., 2014 WL 1309092, *26 (D. Minn. 2014) (“The party challenging the constitutionality of the DBE program bears the burden of demonstrating that the government’s evidence did not support an inference of prior discrimination.”), citing Adarand VII, 228 F.3d at 1166.). 341 S. J. Groves & Sons Company v. Fulton County et. al., 920 F.2d 752, 767 (11th Cir. 1991). 342 Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306, 326 (2003). See also Adarand III, 515 U.S. at 212 (same). 343 Podberesky v. Kirwin, 38 F.3d 147, 152 (4th Cir. 1994) (citations omitted). 344 See Tuttle v. Arlington County School Board, 195 F.3d 698, 704 (4th Cir. 1999) (emphasis added) (citing Adarand III). See also Michigan Road Builders Ass’n v. Milliken, 834 F.2d 583, 589-90 (6th Cir. 1987) (setting forth two-part analysis); Associated General Contractors v. Drabik, 214 F.3d (6th Circuit 2000); Cleveland Firefighters for Fair Housing v. City of Cleveland, 917 F.Supp.2d 668, 6679-80 (N.D.

130 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA, 2025 DISPARITY STUDY 2. Gender Classifications Though still unsettled in some federal circuits, the First Circuit has established that programs with gender- based classifications are evaluated for constitutionality under a more relaxed level of scrutiny than race- based ones, i.e., intermediate scrutiny. Certain suspect classifications—race, alienage and national origin—require what the Court calls strict scrutiny, which entails both a compelling governmental interest and narrow tailoring. Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Pena, 515 U.S. 200, 227, 115 S.Ct. 2097, 132 L.Ed.2d 158 (1995). Gender-based classifications invoke intermediate scrutiny and must be substantially related to achieving an important governmental objective. Both are far more demanding than rational basis review as conventionally applied in routine matters of commercial, tax and like regulation.345 Thus, any gender-conscious remedy or policy implemented by Somerville/Brookline will likely be analyzed under level of scrutiny which is more favorable to than that which will be applied to the race-conscious component, if challenged. 3. Race and Gender-Neutral Classifications As indicated in the above-quoted material from the First Circuit’s opinion in Massachusetts v. U.S. Dept of HHS, government programs or policies that are race-neutral and gender-neutral (e.g., veterans, disabled persons, SBEs) are evaluated under rational basis review, which is significantly more permissive than strict scrutiny and intermediate scrutiny.346 C. “Compelling Public Interest” Considerations In order for a local government’s M/WBE contracting program to be constitutionally valid, it first must be rooted in a compelling governmental interest. Although imposing a substantial burden, strict scrutiny is not automatically “fatal in fact.” Adarand II, 515 U.S. at 237, 115 S.Ct. 2097. After all, “[t]he unhappy persistence of both the practice and the lingering effects of racial discrimination against Minority groups in this country is an unfortunate reality, and government is not disqualified from acting in response to it.” Id.; Alexander, 95 F.3d at 315. In so acting, a governmental entity must Ohio 2013). The strict scrutiny test further requires a “searching judicial inquiry into the justification” for the race conscious remedy to determine whether the classifications are remedial or “in fact, motivated by the illegitimate notions of social inferiority or simple social politics.” Doe v. Sundquist, 943 F. Supp. 886 (M.D. Tenn. 1996). 345 Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services, 632 F.3d 1, 8-9 and fn. 5 (1st Cir. 2012), citing United States v. Virginia (VMI ), 518 U.S. 515, 532–33, 116 S.Ct. 2264, 135 L.Ed.2d 735 (1996); Mississippi Univ. for Women v. Hogan, 458 U.S. 718, 724, 102 S.Ct. 3331, 73 L.Ed.2d 1090 (1982). 346 See supra, 632 F.3d at 9. See also City of Cleburne, Texas v. Cleburne Living Center, 473 U.S. 432, 440 (1985) (“The general rule is that legislation is presumed to be valid and will be sustained if the classification drawn by the statute is rationally related to a legitimate state interest. . . . The general rule gives way, however, when a statute classifies by race, alienage, or national origin.”).

131 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA, 2025 DISPARITY STUDY demonstrate it had a compelling interest in “remedying the effects of past or present racial discrimination.” Shaw v. Hunt, 517 U.S. 899, 909, 116 S.Ct. 1894, 135 L.Ed.2d 207 (1996). Thus, to justify a race-conscious measure, a state must “identify that discrimination, public or private, with some specificity,” Croson, 488 U.S. at 504, 109 S.Ct. 706, and must have a “‘strong basis in evidence for its conclusion that remedial action [is] necessary,’” id. at 500, 109 S.Ct. 706 (quoting Wygant v. Jackson Bd. of Educ., 476 U.S. 267, 277, 106 S.Ct. 1842, 90 L.Ed.2d 260 (1986) (plurality opinion)); see also Podberesky v. Kirwan, 38 F.3d 147, 153 (4th Cir.1994). As courts have noted, “there is no ‘precise mathematical formula to assess the quantum of evidence that rises to the Croson ‘strong basis in evidence’ benchmark.'” Rothe Dev. Corp. v. Dep’t of Def., 545 F.3d 1023, 1049 (Fed.Cir.2008) (Rothe II).347 This compelling interest must be proven by particularized findings of discrimination. The strict scrutiny test ensures that the means used to address the compelling goal of remedying discrimination “fit” so closely that there is little likelihood that the motive for the racial classification is illegitimate racial prejudice or stereotype.348 The relevant case law establishes that the compelling state interests of remedying past discrimination and of avoiding discrimination in the context of governmental procurement programs are well-accepted, and not controversial at this point.349 1. The Extent of Participation in Discrimination by the Public Entity The Courts have uniformly held that general societal discrimination is insufficient to justify the use of race- based measures to satisfy a compelling governmental interest.350 Rather, there must be some showing of prior discrimination by the governmental actor involved, either as an “active” or “passive” participant.351 347 H.B. Rowe Co., Inc. v. W. Lyndo Tippett, 615 F.3d 233, 241 (4th Cir. 2010). 348 Engineering Contractors Ass’n v. Metropolitan Dade County, 122 F.3d 895, 906 (11th Cir. 1997). See also, Adarand III, 515 U.S. at 235. 349 See W.H. Scott Const. Co. v. City of Jackson, 199 F.3d 206, 217 (5th Cir. 1999) (“Combatting racial discrimination is a compelling government interest.”); Croson, 488 U.S. at 492 (“It is beyond dispute that any public entity, state or federal, has a compelling interest in assuring that public dollars, drawn from the tax contributions of all citizens, do not serve to finance the evils of private prejudice.”); Adarand III, 515 U.S. at 237 (“The unhappy persistence of both the practice and the lingering effects of racial discrimination against Minority groups in this country is an unfortunate reality, and government is not disqualified from acting in response to it.”); Cotter v. City of Boston, 193 F.Supp.2d at 344 (remedying the “current vestiges of past discrimination” is a compelling state interest). 350 Adarand III, 515 U.S. at 227; Croson, 488 U.S. at 496-97. 351 Croson, 488 U.S. at 498. See also Ashton v. City of Memphis, 49 F. Supp.2d 1051, 1057 (W. D. Tenn. 1999) (citing Croson). As the court in Tennessee Asphalt clarified, “[g]overnmental entities are not restricted to eradicating the effects only of their own discriminatory acts.” 942 F.2d at 974. Thus, even if the governmental unit did not directly discriminate, it can take corrective action. Engineering Contractors, 122 F.3d at 907 (“[I]f the County could show that it had essentially become a ‘passive participant’ in a system of racial exclusion practiced by elements of the local construction industry,” the Supreme Court has made it "clear that the [County] could take affirmative steps to dismantle such a system.”).

132 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA, 2025 DISPARITY STUDY The upshot of this dual-faceted evaluation of the enacting governmental entity is that, even if the entity did not directly discriminate, it can take corrective action.352 Subsequent lower court rulings have provided more guidance on passive participation by local governments. In Concrete Works, the Tenth Circuit held that it was sufficient for the local government to demonstrate that it engaged in passive participation in discrimination rather than showing that it actively participated in the discrimination: Neither Croson nor its progeny clearly state whether private discrimination that is in no way funded with public tax dollars can, by itself, provide the requisite strong basis in evidence necessary to justify a municipality's affirmative action program. Although we do not read Croson as requiring the municipality to identify an exact linkage between its award of public contracts and private discrimination, such evidence would at least enhance the municipality's factual predicate for a race/gender-conscious program.353 Thus, the desire for a government entity to prevent the infusion of public funds into a discriminatory industry is enough to satisfy the requirement. The next question, however, is whether a public entity has the requisite factual support for its MWBE program in order to satisfy the particularized showing of discrimination required by Croson. This factual support can be developed from anecdotal and statistical evidence, as discussed hereafter. 2. Types of Evidence The types of evidence routinely presented to show the existence of a compelling interest include statistical and anecdotal evidence.354 Where gross statistical disparities exist, they alone may constitute prima facie proof of a pattern or practice of discrimination. Anecdotal evidence, such as testimony from Minority contractors, is most useful as a supplement to strong statistical evidence, as it cannot carry the burden for the entity by itself. For example, the majority decision in Croson implicitly endorsed the inclusion of personal accounts of discrimination, but Croson and subsequent decisions also make clear that selective anecdotal evidence about MBE/WBE experiences alone would not provide an ample basis in evidence to demonstrate public or private discrimination in a municipality's construction industry.355 Stated otherwise, personal accounts of actual discrimination or the effects of discriminatory practices are admissible and effective, and 352 Engineering Contractors, 122 F.3d at 907 (“[I]f the [County] could show that it had essentially become a ‘passive participant’ in a system of racial exclusion practiced by elements of the local construction industry, the Supreme Court has made it clear that the [County] could take affirmative steps to dismantle such a system.”); citing Croson, 488 U.S. at 492. 353 Concrete Works v. City of Denver, 36 F.3d at 1529. 354 Croson, 488 U.S. at 501. 355 Croson, 488 U.S. at 480 (noting as a weakness in the City's case that the Richmond City Council heard “no direct evidence of race-conscious discrimination on the part of the city in letting contracts or any evidence that the City's prime contractors had discriminated against Minority owned subcontractors”); See also Engineering Contractors Ass’n, 122 F. 3d at 925 (“[W]e have found that kind of evidence [anecdotal] to be helpful in the past, but only when it was combined with and reinforced by sufficiently probative statistical evidence.”).

133 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA, 2025 DISPARITY STUDY anecdotal evidence of a governmental entity’s institutional practices that provoke discriminatory market conditions is particularly probative. To carry the day, however, such evidence must be supplemented with strong statistical proof: A state need not conclusively prove the existence of past or present racial discrimination to establish a strong basis in evidence for concluding that remedial action is necessary. Instead, a state may meet its burden by relying on a significant statistical disparity between the availability of qualified, willing, and able Minority subcontractors and the utilization of such subcontractors by the governmental entity or its prime contractors. We further require that such evidence be corroborated by significant anecdotal evidence of racial discrimination.356 Accordingly, a combination of statistical disparities in the utilization of MWBEs and particularized anecdotal accounts of discrimination by the MWBEs (or others) are required to satisfy the factual predicate.357 Of note, several courts have rejected assertions by plaintiffs attacking programs that anecdotal evidence must be verified to be considered as part of a governmental entity’s evidentiary proffer.358 a) Statistical Data Generally The Court in Croson explained that an inference of discrimination may be made with empirical evidence that demonstrates “a significant statistical disparity between the number of qualified Minority contractors . . . and the number of such contractors actually engaged by the locality or the locality's prime contractors.”359 A predicate to governmental action is a demonstration that gross statistical disparities exist between the proportion of MBEs awarded government contracts and the proportion of MBEs in the local industry “willing and able to do the work,” in order to justify its use of race-conscious contract measures.360 In order to adequately assess statistical evidence, there must be information identifying the basic qualifications of Minority contractors “willing and able to do the job” and the Court must determine, based 356 H.B. Rowe, 615 F.3d at 241 (citations omitted). 357 See Middleton et. al. v. City of Flint, 92 F.3d 396, 405 (6th Cir. 1996) (“Anecdotal evidence is most useful as a supplement to strong statistical evidence[.]”). 358 Associated General Contractors v. California D.O.T., 713 F.23d at 1196-1197 (“AGC contends that the anecdotal evidence has little or no probative value in identifying discrimination because it is not verified. AGC cites to no controlling authority for a verification requirement. Both the Fourth and Tenth Circuits have rejected the need to verify anecdotal evidence.”), citing H.B. Rowe, 6115 F.3d at 249; Concrete Works, 321 F.3d at 989. See also Kossman Contracting Co. v. City of Houston, Case No. H-14-1203, at 58 (S.D. Texas 2016) (“Plaintiff criticizes the anecdotal evidence with which NERA supplemented its statistical analysis as not having been verified and investigated. Anecdotes are not the sole or even primary evidence of discrimination in this case. . . . One reason anecdotal evidence is valuable supplemental evidence is that it reaches what statistics cannot: a witness’ narrative of an incident told from the witness’ perspective and including the witness’ perceptions.”) (quotations and citations omitted). 359 488 U.S. at 509. See also Cotter v. City of Boston, 193 F.Supp. at 346 (citing the use of statistical evidence to provide a “strong basis” for remedial action). 360 Ensley Branch N.A.A.C.P. v. Seibels, 31 F.3d 1548, 1556 (11th Cir. 1994).

134 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA, 2025 DISPARITY STUDY upon these qualifications, the relevant statistical pool with which to make the appropriate statistical comparisons.361 Although subsequent lower court decisions have provided considerable guidelines for statistical analyses sufficient for satisfying the Croson factual predicate, there are multiple methods that the courts have accepted for conducting statistical analyses. The most prevalent of these are outlined hereafter. b) Availability The attempted methods of calculating MWBE availability have varied from case to case. In Contractors Association of Eastern Pennsylvania v. City of Philadelphia,362 the Third Circuit stated that available and qualified Minority owned businesses comprise the “relevant statistical pool” for purposes of determining availability.363 The court permitted availability to be based on the metropolitan statistical area (MSA) and local list of the Office of Minority Opportunity for non-MBE/WBEs, which itself was based on census data. In Associated General Contractors of America v. City of Columbus,364 the City’s consultants collected data on the number of M/WBE firms in the Columbus MSA in order to calculate the percentage of available M/WBE firms. Three sources were considered to determine the number of M/WBEs “ready, willing and able” to perform construction work for the city (the City Auditor Vendor Payment History file, Subcontractor Participation Reports, or Contract Document Database of the City).365 However, the Court found that none of these measures of availability purported to measure the number of M/WBEs who were qualified and willing to bid as a prime contractor on City construction projects because none of the three data sources relied upon were attentive to which firms were able to be responsible or provide either a bid bond or performance bond.366 The Court thus wrote “[t]here is no basis in the evidence for an inference that qualified M/WBE firms exist in the same proportions as they do in relation to all construction firms in the market.”367 In H.B. Rowe, availability was calculated using a vendor list that included: “1) subcontractors approved by the Department to perform subcontract work on state-funded projects, (2) subcontractors that performed such work during the study period, and (3) contractors qualified to perform prime construction work on state-funded contracts.”368 The issue of availability also was examined by the Eleventh Circuit in Contractors Association of South Florida.369 There, the Court opined that when reliance is made upon statistical disparity, and special qualifications are necessary to undertake a particular task, the relevant statistical pool must include only those Minority owned firms qualified to provide the requested services.370 Moreover, these Minority firms must be qualified, willing and able to provide the requested services.371 If the statistical analysis includes 361 Engineering Contractors, 122 F. 3d. at 925. 362 6 F.3d 990 (3rd Cir. 1993). 363 Id. 364 936 F. Supp. 1363 (1996), vacated on other grounds, 172 F.3d 411 (6th Cir. 1999). 365 Id. at 1372, 1388. 366 Id. at 1388-89. 367 Id. at 1389. 368 615 F.3d at 244. Cf. Contractors Association of South Florida v. Metropolitan Dade County, 122 F.3d 895 (11th Cir. 1997) (when special qualifications are necessary to undertake a particular task, the relevant statistical pool must include only those Minority owned firms qualified to provide the requested services.) 369 122 F.3d 895 370 Id. at 920-21. 371 Id. at 906-07.

135 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA, 2025 DISPARITY STUDY the proper pool of eligible minorities, any resulting disparity, in a proper case, may constitute prima facie proof of a pattern or practice of discrimination.372 A common question in collecting and applying availability data is whether prime contractor and subcontractor data needs to be evaluated separately. Though the First Circuit has not spoken on this particular question, the trend is to accept combined data. NCI’s argument is that IDOT essentially abused its discretion under this regulation by failing to separate prime contractor availability from subcontractor availability. However, NCI has not identified any aspect of the regulations that requires such separation. Indeed, as the district court observed, the regulations require the local goal to be focused on overall DBE participation in the recipient's DOT-assisted contracts. See 49 C.F.R. § 26.45(a)(1). It would make little sense to separate prime contractor and subcontractor availability as suggested by NCI when DBEs will also compete for prime contracts and any success will be reflected in the recipient's calculation of success in meeting the overall goal.373 Also, several courts have accepted the use of a “custom census” methodology for calculating availability. For example, in Northern Contracting, after identifying the relevant geographic market and product market (transportation construction) the analyst “surveyed Dun & Bradstreet’s Marketplace, which is a comprehensive database of American businesses that identifies which businesses are Minority or Women owned. Wainwright supplemented this survey with IDOT’s list of DBEs in Illinois.”).374 In Kossman, the consulting analyst “relied on data acquired from Dun & Bradstreet’s Hoovers subsidiary on the total number of businesses in the defined market area. . . . Because the Dun & Bradstreet data did not adequately identify all MWBEs, NERA collected information on MWBEs in Texas and surrounding states through lists from public and private entities, as well as prior NERA studies, and culled records for MWBEs within the [City’s] defined market area.”375 c) Utilization Utilization is a natural corollary of availability, in terms of statistical calculation. Different courts have applied utilization rates to different base measures, including percentage-based analyses regarding contract awards and dollars paid. 372 As discussed above, the Sixth Circuit in Drabik ruled that the State of Ohio failed to satisfy the strict scrutiny standard to justify the state’s Minority business enterprise act because it relied on statistical evidence that did not account for which firms were qualified, willing, and able to perform on construction contracts. Drabik, 214 F.3d at 736. 373 Northern Contracting, Inc. v. Illinois D.O.T., 473 F.3d 715, 723 (7th Cir. 2007). See also Associated General Contractors v. California D.O.T., 713 F.23d at 1199 (citing Northern Contracting); H.B. Rowe, 615 F.3d at 245 (court accepted combined data based on experts’ explanation that prime contractors are also qualified to do subcontracting work, and often do). 374 473 F.3d at 718. 375 Id. at 5. See also Midwest Fence, 840 F.3d at 950 (discussing and approving custom census method).

136 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA, 2025 DISPARITY STUDY In Engineering Contractors,376 the City’s consultants calculated the percentage of City contracting dollars that were paid to MWBE construction firms.377 In Associated General Contractors v. California D.O.T., the State’s Disparity Study consultants calculated the percentage of contracting dollars that were paid to DBE firms.378 This is referred to as the rate of utilization. From this point, one can determine if a disparity exists and, if so, to what extent. A similar methodology was utilized in Associated General Contractors of America v. City of Columbus.379 In Cone Corp. v. Hillsborough County,380 the following utilization statistics were developed and presented to justify an MBE program: The County documented the disparity between the percentage of MBE contractors in the area and the percentage of contracts awarded to those MBE contractors. Hillsborough County determined that the percentage of County construction dollars going to MBE contractors compared to the total percentage of County construction dollars spent. . .. The data extracted from the studies indicates that while ten percent of the businesses and twelve percent of the contractors in the County were minorities, only 7.89% of the County purchase orders, 1.22% of the County purchase dollars, 6.3% of the awarded bids, and 6.5% of the awarded dollars went to minorities. The statistical disparities between the total percentage of minorities involved in construction and the work going to minorities, therefore, varied from approximately four to ten percent, with a glaring 10.78% disparity between the percentage of Minority contractors in the County and the percentage of County construction dollars awarded to minorities. Such a disparity clearly constitutes a prima facie case of discrimination indicating that the racial classification in the County plan was necessary. As with availability, supra, some courts have deemed it appropriate to collect and analyze combined prime and subcontractor data when evaluating utilization.381 d) Disparity Indices Once the statistical data has been collected and preliminarily assessed, further analysis must be done to evaluate whether any disparity identified is statistically significant. Reviewing courts have approved the use 376 122 F.3d at 914. 377 615 F.3d at 241, 250-51 (“[A] state may meet its burden by relying on ‘a significant statistical disparity’ between the availability of qualified, willing, and able Minority subcontractors and the utilization of such subcontractors by the governmental entity or its prime contractors.”), citing Croson, 488 U.S. at 509, 109 S.Ct. 706. 378 713 F.23d at 1191-1193. In Kossman v. City of Houston, NERA used both “award amounts” and “paid amounts” to determine utilization. Id. at 3, n. 10. The Court, in approving the statistical proffer, looked only at the award amounts to “simplify matters.” Id. 379 936 F. Supp. 1363 (City calculated the percentage of City contracting dollars that were paid to M/WBE construction firms) 380 908 F.3d 908, 915-16 (11th Cir. 1990). 381 See, e.g., Kossman, at 58 (“Separately considering prime contractors and subcontractors is not only unnecessary but may be misleading. The anecdotal evidence indicates that construction firms had served on different contracts, as both.”).

137 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA, 2025 DISPARITY STUDY of disparity indices and standard deviations for this purpose, and G&S will be utilizing them in the present Studies. To demonstrate the under-utilization of MWBEs in a particular area, parties can first employ a statistical device known as the “disparity index.” The use of such an index was explained, and cited approvingly, in H.B. Rowe.382 In H.B. Rowe, after noting the increasing use of disparity indices, the Court explained that the State (through a consulting firm) calculated a disparity index for each relevant racial or gender group covered by the MWBE program, and further, conducted a standard deviation analysis on each of those indices using t-tests.383 The resulting calculations “demonstrated marked underutilization of [] African American and American Indian subcontractors,” according to the court.384 The utility of disparity indices or similar measures to examine the utilization of minorities or Women in a particular industry has been recognized by a number of federal circuit courts.385 Specifically, courts have used these MWBE disparity indices to apply the “strong basis in evidence” standard in Croson. As noted, the disparity index in H.B. Rowe was 0.46 for African Americans and was 0.48 for American Indians.386 Based on a disparity index of 0.22, the Ninth Circuit upheld the denial of a preliminary injunction to a challenger of the City of San Francisco's MBE plan based upon an equal protection claim.387 Similarly, the Third Circuit held that a disparity of 0.04 was "probative of discrimination in City contracting in the Philadelphia construction industry.”388 e) Use of Standard Deviation The number calculated via the disparity index (established above) is then tested for its validity through the application of a standard deviation analysis. Standard deviation analysis measures the probability that a result is a random deviation from the predicted result (the more standard deviations, the lower the probability the result is a random one). Social scientists consider the finding of two standard deviations significant, meaning that there is about one chance in 20 that the explanation for the deviation could be random, so the deviation must be accounted for by some factor. As noted above, standard deviations were applied by the State of North Carolina in the statistical analysis utilized to defend its MBE/WBE program in H.B. Rowe.389 The Fourth Circuit described the significance of the findings as follows: 382 615 F.3d at 243-44. 383 Id. at 244. The disparity index is calculated by dividing the percentage of available MBE/WBE participation (amount of contract dollars) by the percentage of MBE/WBEs in the relevant population of local firms. A disparity index of one (1) demonstrates full MBE/WBE participation, whereas the closer the index is to zero, the greater the MBE/WBE under-utilization. Some courts multiply the disparity index by 100, thereby creating a scale between 0 and 100, with 100 representing full MBE/WBE utilization. Engineering Contractors, 122 F.3d at 914. 384Id. 385 See Concrete Works, 36 F.3d at 1523 n. 10 (10th Cir.1994) (employing disparity index); Contractors Ass'n, 6 F.3d at 1005 (3d Cir.1993) (employing disparity index); Associated Gen. Contractors v. Coalition for Economic Equity, 950 F.2d 1401, 1414 (9th Cir.1991) (employing similar statistical data). 386 Id. at 245. 387 AGC v. Coalition for Economic Equity, 950 F.2d 1401, 1414 (9th Cir. 1991). 388 Contractors Ass’n., 6 F.3d at 1005. 389 615 F.3d at 244-45.

138 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA, 2025 DISPARITY STUDY For African Americans the t-value of 3.99 fell outside of two standard deviations from the mean and, therefore, was statistically significant at a 95% confidence level. In other words, there was at least a 95% probability that prime contractors’ underutilization of African American subcontractors was not the result of mere chance. For American Indian subcontractors, the t-value of 1.41 was significant at a confidence level of approximately 85 percent.390 Similarly, the Eleventh Circuit has directed that “’where the difference between the expected value and the observed number is greater than two or three standard deviations’, then the hypothesis that [employees] were hired without regard to race would be suspect.”391 f) Regression Analysis In conducting its statistical analyses of Somerville/Brookline purchasing, G&S will also be employing a regression analysis, which essentially seeks to control for numerous factors other than discrimination, e.g., firm size, experience level, which may be causing or contributing to any disparity identified. This aspect of the G&S methodology likewise has the support of several courts as a current “best practice” for disparity studies. For example, after the Fourth Circuit in H.B. Rowe noted the statistical significance of certain quantitative analyses showing two standard deviations or a disparity ratio higher than .80, it addressed the value of a regression analysis as a further evaluative tool. Specifically, in discussing the disparity evidence offered by the State, the Court favorably noted: To corroborate the disparity data, MGT conducted a regression analysis studying the influence of certain company and business characteristics - with a particular focus on owner race and gender - on a firm's gross revenues. MGT obtained the data from a telephone survey of firms that conducted or attempted to conduct business with the Department. The survey pool consisted of a random sample of 647 such firms; of this group, 627 participated in the survey. MGT used the firms’ gross revenues as the dependent variable in the regression analysis to test the effect of other variables, including company age and number of full-time employees, and the owners’ years of experience, level of education, race, ethnicity, and gender. The analysis revealed that Minority and Women ownership universally had a negative effect on revenue. African American ownership of a firm had the largest negative effect on that firm's gross revenue of all the independent variables included in the regression model. These findings led MGT to conclude that “for African Americans, in particular, the disparity in firm revenue was not due to capacity-related or managerial characteristics alone.”392 390 Id. at 245. 391 Peightal v. Metropolitan Dade County, 26 F.3d 1545, 1556 (11th Cir. 1994) (quoting Hazelwood School District et al. v. United States, 433 U.S. 299 (1977). 392 Id. at 245-46; 250.

139 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA, 2025 DISPARITY STUDY g) Geographic Scope The Croson Court also observed that because discrimination varies across market areas, state and local governments cannot rely on national statistics of discrimination in the disputed industry to draw conclusions about prevailing market conditions in their respective regions.393 However, to confine the permissible data to a governmental entity’s strict geographical borders would ignore the economic reality that contracts are awarded to firms located in adjacent areas. Thus, courts closely scrutinize pertinent data related to the jurisdictional area of the state or municipality. Generally, the scope of the statistical analyses pertains to the geographic market area from which the governmental entity offerors come. In addition, disparities concerning utilization, firm size, and formation are also relevant in determining discrimination in a marketplace. It has been deemed appropriate to examine the existence of discrimination against MWBEs even when these areas go beyond the geographical boundaries of the local jurisdictions.394 When utilizing evidence of discrimination from nearby public entities and from within the relevant private marketplace, however, extra-jurisdictional evidence must still pertain to the operation of an industry within geographic boundaries of the jurisdiction. As the Court wrote in Tennessee Asphalt v. Farris, “[s]tates and lesser units of local government are limited to remedying sufficiently identified past and present discrimination within their own spheres of authority.”395 D. Requirement for Narrowly Tailored Remedies Under the Croson framework, any race-conscious plan must be narrowly tailored to ameliorate the effects of past discrimination.396 “Generally, while ‘goals’ are permissible, unyielding preferential ‘quotas’ will normally doom an affirmative action plan.”397 The Fourth Circuit addressed the parameters of this requirement in Tuttle v. Arlington County: When reviewing whether a state racial classification is narrowly tailored, we consider factors such as: (1) the efficacy of alternative race-neutral policies, (2) the planned duration of the policy, (3) the relationship between the numerical goal and the percentage of Minority group members in the relevant population or work force, (4) the flexibility of the policy, including the provision of waivers if the goal cannot be met, and (5) the burden of the policy on innocent third parties.398 393 Croson, 488 U.S. at 504. 394 See Contractors Association of Eastern Pennsylvania v. City of Philadelphia, 91 F.3d 586, 604 (3rd Cir. 1996). 395 942 F.2d 969, 974 (6th Cir. 1991). 396 See Michigan Road Builders Ass’n v. Milliken, 834 F.2d 583, 589-90 (6th Cir. 1987). See also Stuart v. Roache, 951 F.2d at 454-55 (enumerating narrow tailoring considerations, including effectiveness of race- neutral efforts, qualification requirements for inclusion in program, and limited timeframe for remedial program, i.e., sunset provision). 397 Virdi v. DeKalb County School District, 135 Fed. Appx. 262 (11th Cir. 2005). See also Sherbrooke Turf, 345 F.3d at 972 (citing Croson, 488 U.S. at 496). 398 195 F.3d 698, at 706.

140 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA, 2025 DISPARITY STUDY In Croson, the Court considered similar factors, including 1) whether the city has first considered race- neutral measures, but found them to be ineffective;399 2) the basis offered for the goals selected; 3) whether the program provides for waivers; and 4) whether the program applies only to MBEs who operate in the geographic jurisdiction covered by the program.400 More refined guideposts are provided in several post-Croson cases wrestling with efforts to meet the “narrowly tailored” prong – which we simply list for ease of reference: • Relief is limited to Minority groups for which there is identified discrimination; • Remedies are limited to redressing the discrimination within the boundaries of the enacting jurisdiction; • The goals of the programs should be flexible and provide waiver provisions; • Race and/or gender-neutral measures should be considered; and • The program should include provisions or mechanisms for periodic review and sunset. Recall that, as discussed earlier in this analysis, the Sixth Circuit in Associated General Contractors v. Drabik affirmed that Ohio’s MBEA statute was not narrowly tailored to remedy past discrimination because: (1) the MBEA suffered from under inclusiveness and over inclusiveness, (lumping together racial and ethnic groups without identified discrimination); (2) the MBEA lacked a sunset date; and (3) the state failed to provide specific evidence that Ohio had considered race-neutral alternatives before adopting the plan to increase Minority participation.401 Again, Drabik underscores that MWBE Programs must be designed so that the benefits of the programs are targeted specifically toward those firms that faced discrimination in the local marketplace; to withstand a challenge, relief must extend only to those Minority groups for which there is evidence of discrimination.402 Inherent in the above discussion is the notion that MWBE Programs and remedies must maintain flexibility with regard to local conditions in the public and private sectors. Courts have suggested project-by-project goal setting and waiver provisions as means of ensuring fairness to all vendors. Finally, “review” or “sunset” provisions are strongly suggested components for an MWBE program to guarantee that remedies do not out-live their intended remedial purpose.403 399 488 U.S. at 507-08. See also Sherbrooke Turf, 345 F.3d at 971-72 (“Narrow tailoring does not require exhaustion of every conceivable race-neutral alternative, but it does require serious, good faith consideration of workable race-neutral alternatives.”). 400 Sherbrooke Turf, 345 F.3d at 971 (“In determining whether a race-conscious remedy is narrowly tailored, we look to factors such as the efficacy of alternative remedies, the flexibility and duration of the race-conscious remedy, the relationship of the numerical goals to the relevant labor market, and the impact of the remedy on third parties.”). 401 214 F.3d 739. 402 214 F.3d at 735 (discussing the need for a "fit" between past/present harm and the proffered remedy). 403 Stuart v. Roache, 951 F.2d at 455.

A P P E N D I X C D a t a A s s e s s m e n t R e p o r t C I T Y O F S O M E R V I L L E , M A 2 0 2 5 D I S P A R I T Y S T U D Y

142 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA, 2025 DISPARITY STUDY APPENDIX C: DATA ASSESSMENT REPORT CITY OF SOMERVILLE 2024 DISPARITY STUDY DATA ASSESSMENT REPORT Griffin & Strong (“G&S”) conducted a virtual data assessment meeting on September 11, 2023. This report summarizes the meetings and sets forth action items and preliminary questions to be answered. It is necessary to issue a data assessment report prior to completing the data collection plan to confirm that G&S has the correct understanding of how and where data is kept by the City of Somerville (herein referred to as the “City”). All data requests will be submitted to the respective City departments, and all data will be submitted to the City through Luis Quizhpe, Strategic Planning & Equity Manger, Office of Strategic Planning & Community Development. The meeting was attended by: Name Title Angela Allen Director, Purchasing Department Andrea Caruth Deputy Chief Procurement Officer, Procurement and Contracting Services Luis Quizhpe Strategic Planning & Equity Manager, Office of Strategic Planning & Community Development Stephen Haynes Director of Finance, Water and Sewer Alan Inacio Senior Accountant, Office of Planning and Community Development Lisa Gallagher Noonan Manager of Accounts Payable, Auditing Michael Richards Director of Finance and Administration, Infrastructure and Asset Management David Maher Legal Partner, Griffin & Strong Austin Broussard Project Manager, Griffin & Strong Jerrica Lighting Deputy Project Manager, Griffin & Strong Kalvin Walden Data Analyst, Griffin & Strong I. Scope Statement The Study will determine whether a legally defensible basis exists for establishing a race and/or gender conscious contracting program for DBEs and SDBs (such as a “sheltered market” pursuant to Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 30B) and the appropriate and effective parameters of such a program. The study period for the Disparity Study has been determined as a five (5) year period from July 1, 2017, to June 30,2022, FY2018 through FY2022.

143 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA, 2025 DISPARITY STUDY The contracting activity measured in the Disparity Study shall consist of the following five industry categories: 1. Construction 2. Architecture and Engineering 3. Professional Services 4. Other Services 5. Goods The City’s departments participating in the Study include: • 311 • ACCESSIBILITY SERVICES • APPOINTMENTS ADVISORY COMMITTEE • AFFORDABLE HOUSING TRUST FUND • ARTS COUNCIL BOARD • ANIMAL CONTROL • ARTS COUNCIL • ADMINISTRATION (OF OSPCD) • ARCHIVES • ASSESSING • AUDITING • BENEFITS • BICYCLE COMMITTEE • BIOSAFETY COMMITTEE • BOARD OF ASSESSORS • BOARD OF HEALTH • BOARD OF LIBRARY TRUSTEES • CAPITAL PROJECTS • CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEE • CITY CLERK • CITY COUNCIL • CITY TV • COMMISSION ON ENERGY USE AND CLIMATE CHANGE • COMMUNICATIONS AND COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT • COMMUNITY MEETINGS • COMMUNITY PRESERVATION COMMITTEE • CONDOMINIUM REVIEW BOARD • CONSERVATION COMMISSION • CONSTITUENT SERVICES • COUNCIL ON AGING • COUNCIL ON AGING BOARD • DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS (DPW) • DPW – BUILDINGS • DPW – ELECTRICAL LIGHTS AND LINES • DPW – GROUNDS • DPW – HIGHWAYS

144 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA, 2025 DISPARITY STUDY • DPW – SANITATION • ELECTIONS • ELECTION COMMISSION • ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT • EMPLOYEE WELLNESS • ENGINEERING • ETHICS COMMISSION • FAIR HOUSING COMMISSION • FINANCE • FIRE DEPARTMENT • GRANTS DEVELOPMENT • HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES • HISTORIC EVENTS AND EDUCATION • HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION • HOUSING • HUMAN RESOURCES • HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION • HUMAN SERVICES • INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY (IT) • INFRASTRUCTURE AND ASSET MANAGEMENT • INSPECTIONAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT (ISD) • ISD – BUILDING DIVISION • ISD – HEALTH DIVISION • ISD – WEIGHTS AND MEASURES • JOB CREATION AND RETENTION TRUST • LAW DEPARTMENT • LEGISLATIVE MATTERS COMMITTEE • LIBRARIES • LICENSING COMMISSION • MAYOR’S OFFICE • MOBILITY • MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS COMMISSION • MUNICIPAL COMPENSATION ADVISORY BOARD • OFFICE OF FOOD ACCESS AND HEALTHY COMMUNITIES • OFFICE OF HOUSING STABILITY • OFFICE OF STRATEGIC PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT (OSPCD) • OFFICE OF SUSTAINABILITY AND ENVIRONMENT • PARKING DEPARTMENT • PARKS AND RECREATION • PEDESTRIAN AND TRANSIT ADVISORY COMMITTEE (PTAC) • PLANNING BOARD • POLICE • PLANNING AND ZONING • PUBLIC HEALTH NURSING • PUBLIC SPACE AND URBAN FORESTRY • PROCUREMENT AND CONTRACTING SERVICES

145 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA, 2025 DISPARITY STUDY • RACIAL AND SOCIAL JUSTICE (RSJ) • RSJ – ACCESSIBILITY SERVICES • RECREATION COMMISSION • RETIREMENT • SCHOOL COMMITTEE • SCHOOL DEPARTMENT • SOCIAL MEDIA • SOMERPROMISE • SOMERPROMISE ADVISORY BOARD • SOMERSTAT • SOMERVILLE CHILDREN’S CABINET • SOMERVIVA: OFFICE OF IMMIGRANT AFFAIRS • SOMERVILLE AUXILIARY FIRE DEPARTMENT • SOMERVILLE COMMISSION FOR PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES • SOMERVILLE COMMISSION FOR WOMEN • SOMERVILLE HOUSING AUTHORITY • SOMERVILLE PREVENTION SERVICES • SOMERVILLE REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY • TRAFFIC BOARD • TRAFFIC COMMISSION • TREASURER / COLLECTOR • URBAN DESIGN COMMISSION • URBAN FORESTRY • URBAN FORESTRY COMMITTEE • VETERANS COMMISSION ON MONUMENTS, MEMORIALS AND DEDICATIONS • VETERANS’ SERVICES • WATER AND SEWER • WORKERS’ COMPENSATION • YOUNG SOMERVILLE ADVISORY GROUP • ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS There are no museums, libraries, or transportation, or airports included in the study.

146 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA, 2025 DISPARITY STUDY II. Preliminary Purchasing Practices a) Contract Thresholds i. Awards up to $10,000.00 require departments to use sound business practices. ii. Awards $10,000.00-$49,999.99 are informal. Departments are required to seek quotes, and a contract must be in place. iii. Formal awards are $50,000 and above, and departments must engage in a competitive RFP process. III. Data Assessment a) General Data i. The City’s data is centralized and is kept in the MUNIS system. ii. The state procurement office, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, procures contracts for all public entities in the state which can be utilized by the City. iii. The City may utilize national consortia contracts. These contracts are employed in accordance with the established guidelines and rules governing their usage. iv. Owners’ Project Managers (OPMs) may be hired by the City for applicable qualifying construction projects, and the OPMs run procurement projects on the City’s behalf while adhering to the City’s rules and policies. v. Training materials that site policies that are at the state level can be found on the City’s website. b) Purchasing Thresholds i. Informal a. $9,999.99 and below 1. Departments may use sound business practices – they can seek quotes and are not beholden to the procurement laws. b. $10,000.00 to $49,999.99 1. A contract must be in place. 2. Department must seek quotes. ii. Formal a. $50,000.00 and above 1. The department must engage in a competitive RFP process. c) Specific Data Files It was determined in this meeting that the City has the following data: • Solicitations (Study Period) • Vendor List (Current)

147 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA, 2025 DISPARITY STUDY • Purchase Orders (Study Period) • Bids (Study Period) • Payments (Study Period) • Awards/Contracts (Study Period) • P-Cards (Study Period) • Building Permit Data (Study Period) • CMARs (Study Period) • Subcontractors (Study Period) a) Solicitations • Overall, the City has access to all solicitations. o In the City’s share drive, documents are separated by project and department. o The City also uses Google Drive, mainly for technical specs. b) Vendor List • The City maintains a bid-holders list which the City sometimes shares for each bid. • The City utilizes BidExpress which has a plan holders portion. • The City previously had a vendor registration form on its website, but it is no longer active. • Procurement only uses UNSPSC codes for COMMBUYS projects, but outside of that, the City does not use commodity codes. c) Purchase Orders (Pos) • The City has a master purchase order file that is kept in MUNIS. • Departments may use purchase orders to secure encumbrances. d) Bid Tabulations • Bid packages are kept in PDF format. Some bids may have a pricing sheet that may be in Excel. • The City may also post bid packages on BidExpress. They can receive bids and proposals electronically through this platform. • Bid tabulations are kept on the City’s share drive. • Some bids are disseminated by the City through public record request and are available on the City’s website. o The bid opening forms which show the overall bid amount and vendors that bid can be found here, but most of the granular detail is available in the City’s share drive. • Any IFB will have its own bid tabulation and would contain the pricing for all the vendors who submitted a bid. • Vendors are not required to be registered with the City to bid on a project. • Generally, subcontractor information is not kept within bid tabs. o Some bid documents may ask for vendors to provide the subcontractors that they intend to use on a project, but this information may not be final because it is subject to negotiation with the City and the department.

148 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA, 2025 DISPARITY STUDY e) Payment Data • GL information can be retrieved from MUNIS. • Payments list the invoice date, invoice number, payment description (freehand at the requisition level, can be updated by the department or Auditing), invoice amount, vendor number, vendor name, check number, check data, and check amount. o The same information is provided for EFTs and ACIs. • Payments do not contain contract numbers and PO numbers, but do contain invoice numbers that can be tracked back to the contract number in MUNIS. o All the invoices associated with a contract can be viewed by looking at the contract number in MUNIS. o A PO number may be viewed if looking at the general ledger code. • Federally funded payments / projects o Somerville receives some portion of Community Planning and Development Formula program applications: ▪ CDBG ▪ HOME ▪ ESG o Somerville Does not receive the following, but these go to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, who distribute it: ▪ RHP ▪ HOPWA o Infrastructure & Asset Management ▪ Only receives a Congressionally-directed funding grant administered by the EPA. Department has applied to the federal BRIC grant in the past but has been unsuccessful. ▪ Department does receive funding through the State Revolving Fund (SRF) that itself is partially funded by federal earmarks, but it is a direct loan to the City from a state-managed fund program. f) Awards/Contracts • Awards are posted on the City’s website and housed internally as well. • The full amount of an award is kept within MUNIS. • There are some contracts that have goals, and these contracts follow G.L. c. 30B. Generally, the contracts that have goals are construction projects. • Vendors are awarded contracts via email. • The City has had goals on contracts in the past. When they have had goals, they typically follow the Commonwealth of Massachusetts’ goals for public construction projects. o When the Commonwealth of Massachusetts provides funds for such construction projects, the City is allowed to use goals, and they also hire professional project managers that are responsible for tracking spend and utilization of certified contractors, including subcontractors. o Goals are tracked manually but are not consistently kept across industry categories. Typically, goals have been more robustly tracked when required on construction projects. • Change Orders o For the total spend on Somerville contracts, the City absorbs the change order and amendment increases into the Contract record in Munis.

149 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA, 2025 DISPARITY STUDY ▪ So for a contract named 235R2, it would be the renewal year 2(2nd year of the contract) and Munis would show the original and revised amount ie. Griffin & Strong would want to pull the “revised amount” for each contract to know the complete spend. g) P-Cards (excluded from the Study) • The City has 16 cards throughout various departments. • Overall, the City limit is $50,000.00 o The limit varies for each department. ▪ Many departments have $5,000.00 limits. ▪ A few departments have $10,000.00 limits. ▪ No department has a limit greater than $10,000.00. • P-cards are primarily used for vendors that do not accept a purchase order such as travel, subscriptions, trainings, etc. • Each department will enter purchases into MUNIS individually, and these purchases will appear with Commerce as the vendor which is the City’s P-card program provider. o The department will enter the description of what the services were or the name of the vendor. o The only other time Commerce would appear as a vendor is when the City processes Active Card Integration (ACI) payments. ACI payments are slowly being phased out because the City now does EFT payments. • The GL codes would be the most effective way to find out what was purchased. • P-cards are not to be used for high dollar contract items. h) Building Permit Data • Building permit data is kept by the Inspectional Services Department (ISD). The department utilizes an electronic system called Citizens Serve to maintain this data and receive documents from vendors. i) CMAR/JV • The City does utilize CMARs. CMARs have been growing in usage recently and are becoming typical. • OPMs are always required on CMAR projects under Massachusetts general law. o OPMs are one of the contractors on a CMAR project. • JVs are not typically utilized by the City. • The City does use design/build for public buildings for vertical construction. o The City follows Massachusetts G.L. c. 7C which is called the Designer Selection Law. This is a qualifications-based procurement process, and the City procures a designer pursuant to this law. o Once a designer has been selected by the City, they design the building with the City’s project managers and prepare the plans and specifications for a bid package that is developed in conjunction with the Procurement and Contracting Services Department. An invitation for bids is then issued by the department, and the rule for awarding a contractor is it goes to the lowest responsible and eligible bidder.

150 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA, 2025 DISPARITY STUDY j) Subcontractors • The City does not formally track subcontractor data. • If a project is large enough, there may be subcontractors as the City has a process where they publicly bid the trades if they are above $25,000.00 on a large building project. • On CMAR projects that have goals, OPMs are tasked with tracking payments to certified vendors toward those goals. • Subcontractor data may be included in change orders for construction projects. • The City does not utilize lien waivers. • All contracts, CMAR or otherwise, route all payments from the City directly to and through the general contractor or construction manager. Somerville does not contract with or pay subs directly; City’s relationship is directly with the GCs and it is their responsibility to pay their subs. k) Certifications • The City does not certify. • The City utilizes the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and Boston’s certifications.

A P P E N D I X D R e l e v a n t M a r k e t A n a l y s i s C I T Y O F S O M E R V I L L E , M A 2 0 2 5 D I S P A R I T Y S T U D Y

152 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA, 2025 DISPARITY STUDY Appendix D: Relevant Market The tables in Appendix D (Tables D-1 through D-5) present the dollar value of awards by county for the City of Somerville prime spending, broken down by the five Industry Categories. The top counties are arranged from the highest dollar value to the lowest dollar value, first within the relevant market and then within the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and then outside of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. The first percentage column is the percentage of City of Somerville prime spending with firms in that county. The last column is the cumulative percentage of City of Somerville spending with firms for that county and the counties above it. The counties highlighted in purple are the relevant market for the study. Counties outside of Massachusetts with less than $10,000 in spending were omitted from Professional Services, Other Services and Goods (Tables D-3, D-4 and D-5).

153 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA, 2025 DISPARITY STUDY Table D-1: Prime Construction by Counties (Using Payment Dollars, FY 2018-2022) City of Somerville Disparity Study Griffin & Strong, 2025 County State Relevant Market Total Amount Percent Cumulative Percent CITY OF SOMERVILLE MA MSA 19,926,817.71 $ 5.15% 5.15% SUFFOLK COUNTY MA MSA 240,603,993.55 $ 62.16% 67.31% NORFOLK COUNTY MA MSA 57,405,661.07 $ 14.83% 82.14% MIDDLESEX COUNTY MA MSA 48,119,924.01 $ 12.43% 94.57% PLYMOUTH COUNTY MA MSA 6,972,559.92 $ 1.80% 96.37% ESSEX COUNTY MA MSA 6,025,509.86 $ 1.56% 97.93% ROCKINGHAM COUNTY NH MSA 305,729.75 $ 0.08% 98.01% PROVIDENCE COUNTY RI CSA 1,352,448.00 $ 0.35% 98.36% BRISTOL COUNTY MA CSA 471,124.50 $ 0.12% 98.48% WORCESTER COUNTY MA CSA 107,422.18 $ 0.03% 98.51% HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY NH CSA 102,735.81 $ 0.03% 98.53% BARNSTABLE COUNTY MA CSA 62,600.00 $ 0.02% 98.55% HAMPDEN COUNTY MA REST OF MA 3,516,065.67 $ 0.91% 99.46% SOMERSET COUNTY NJ REST OF USA 2,000,348.32 $ 0.52% 99.98% NEW YORK COUNTY NY REST OF USA 38,276.85 $ 0.01% 99.99% SUFFOLK COUNTY NY REST OF USA 34,162.40 $ 0.01% 99.99% HARTFORD COUNTY CT REST OF USA 19,700.00 $ 0.01% 100.00% SKAGIT COUNTY WA REST OF USA 2,600.00 $ 0.00% 100.00%

154 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA, 2025 DISPARITY STUDY Table D-2: Prime A&E by Counties (Using Payment Dollars, FY 2018-2022) City of Somerville Disparity Study Griffin & Strong, 2025 County State Relevant Market Total Amount Percent Cumulative Percent CITY OF SOMERVILLE MA MSA 620,502.31 $ 1.01% 1.01% MIDDLESEX COUNTY MA MSA 31,558,113.56 $ 51.47% 52.48% SUFFOLK COUNTY MA MSA 25,980,210.91 $ 42.37% 94.85% ESSEX COUNTY MA MSA 1,526,550.63 $ 2.49% 97.34% NORFOLK COUNTY MA MSA 258,054.38 $ 0.42% 97.76% ROCKINGHAM COUNTY NH MSA 40,325.00 $ 0.07% 97.83% PLYMOUTH COUNTY MA MSA 6,300.00 $ 0.01% 97.84% PROVIDENCE COUNTY RI CSA 130,348.96 $ 0.21% 98.05% BARNSTABLE COUNTY MA CSA 43,896.12 $ 0.07% 98.12% BRISTOL COUNTY MA CSA 7,220.00 $ 0.01% 98.14% MIAMI-DADE COUNTY FL REST OF USA 448,612.62 $ 0.73% 98.87% FULTON COUNTY GA REST OF USA 249,375.75 $ 0.41% 99.27% NASSAU COUNTY NY REST OF USA 106,740.53 $ 0.17% 99.45% MONTGOMERY COUNTY MD REST OF USA 98,740.00 $ 0.16% 99.61% JEFFERSON COUNTY AL REST OF USA 92,398.53 $ 0.15% 99.76% MADISON COUNTY AL REST OF USA 76,851.94 $ 0.13% 99.89% KING COUNTY WA REST OF USA 24,880.00 $ 0.04% 99.93% SAGADAHOC COUNTY ME REST OF USA 18,887.78 $ 0.03% 99.96% PHILADELPHIA COUNTY PA REST OF USA 14,047.87 $ 0.02% 99.98% SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY CA REST OF USA 3,692.26 $ 0.01% 99.99% PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY MD REST OF USA 3,282.50 $ 0.01% 99.99% MONTGOMERY COUNTY PA REST OF USA 3,180.00 $ 0.01% 100.00% WARREN COUNTY NY REST OF USA 2,405.00 $ 0.00% 100.00%

155 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA, 2025 DISPARITY STUDY Table D-3: Prime Professional Services by Counties (Using Payment Dollars, FY 2018-2022) City of Somerville Disparity Study Griffin & Strong, 2025 County State Relevant Market Total Amount Percent Cumulative Percent CITY OF SOMERVILLE MA MSA 1,097,467 $ 3.24% 3.24% SUFFOLK COUNTY MA MSA 16,368,581 $ 48.35% 51.60% MIDDLESEX COUNTY MA MSA 7,628,076 $ 22.53% 74.13% NORFOLK COUNTY MA MSA 2,473,618 $ 7.31% 81.44% PLYMOUTH COUNTY MA MSA 814,890 $ 2.41% 83.84% ESSEX COUNTY MA MSA 768,731 $ 2.27% 86.11% ROCKINGHAM COUNTY NH MSA 8,181 $ 0.02% 86.14% WORCESTER COUNTY MA CSA 936,560 $ 2.77% 88.90% PROVIDENCE COUNTY RI CSA 56,292 $ 0.17% 89.07% HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY NH CSA 48,570 $ 0.14% 89.21% BELKNAP COUNTY NH CSA 14,629 $ 0.04% 89.26% BRISTOL COUNTY MA CSA 6,213 $ 0.02% 89.28% BARNSTABLE COUNTY MA CSA 1,116 $ 0.00% 89.28% DUKES COUNTY MA REST OF MA 16,850 $ 0.05% 89.33% HAMPSHIRE COUNTY MA REST OF MA 5,180 $ 0.02% 89.34% HAMPDEN COUNTY MA REST OF MA 277 $ 0.00% 89.35% HOWARD COUNTY MD REST OF USA 761,347 $ 2.25% 91.59% FAIRFAX COUNTY VA REST OF USA 453,346 $ 1.34% 92.93% CUYAHOGA COUNTY OH REST OF USA 270,119 $ 0.80% 93.73% FULTON COUNTY GA REST OF USA 184,710 $ 0.55% 94.28% NEW YORK COUNTY NY REST OF USA 171,199 $ 0.51% 94.78% DEKALB COUNTY GA REST OF USA 136,921 $ 0.40% 95.19% WAKE COUNTY NC REST OF USA 121,558 $ 0.36% 95.55% CUMBERLAND COUNTY ME REST OF USA 108,965 $ 0.32% 95.87% EL PASO COUNTY CO REST OF USA 88,938 $ 0.26% 96.13% PINELLAS COUNTY FL REST OF USA 86,505 $ 0.26% 96.39% NEW HANOVER COUNTY NC REST OF USA 78,881 $ 0.23% 96.62% TRAVIS COUNTY TX REST OF USA 77,845 $ 0.23% 96.85% ORANGE COUNTY CA REST OF USA 73,182 $ 0.22% 97.07% HONOLULU COUNTY HI REST OF USA 72,300 $ 0.21% 97.28% SAN MATEO COUNTY CA REST OF USA 53,636 $ 0.16% 97.44% PHILADELPHIA COUNTY PA REST OF USA 50,901 $ 0.15% 97.59% KING COUNTY WA REST OF USA 46,995 $ 0.14% 97.73% FORT BEND COUNTY TX REST OF USA 43,600 $ 0.13% 97.86% WILLIAMSON COUNTY TN REST OF USA 42,413 $ 0.13% 97.98% HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY FL REST OF USA 41,373 $ 0.12% 98.10% DUVAL COUNTY FL REST OF USA 40,748 $ 0.12% 98.22% CLACKAMAS COUNTY OR REST OF USA 40,242 $ 0.12% 98.34% KANE COUNTY IL REST OF USA 38,178 $ 0.11% 98.46%

156 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA, 2025 DISPARITY STUDY Table D-3 (cont.): Prime Professional Services by Counties (Using Payment Dollars, FY 2018-2022) City of Somerville Disparity Study Griffin & Strong, 2025 County State Relevant Market Total Amount Percent Cumulative Percent PASSAIC COUNTY NJ REST OF USA 38,177 $ 0.11% 98.57% DALLAS COUNTY TX REST OF USA 37,993 $ 0.11% 98.68% MECKLENBURG COUNTY NC REST OF USA 35,925 $ 0.11% 98.79% LOS ANGELES COUNTY CA REST OF USA 32,717 $ 0.10% 98.88% ALAMEDA COUNTY CA REST OF USA 31,564 $ 0.09% 98.98% MARICOPA COUNTY AZ REST OF USA 19,900 $ 0.06% 99.04% WINDSOR COUNTY VT REST OF USA 19,487 $ 0.06% 99.09% WASHINGTON COUNTY VT REST OF USA 18,000 $ 0.05% 99.15% MONTGOMERY COUNTY MD REST OF USA 17,691 $ 0.05% 99.20% LANCASTER COUNTY NE REST OF USA 16,767 $ 0.05% 99.25% SANTA CLARA COUNTY CA REST OF USA 15,544 $ 0.05% 99.29% COOK COUNTY IL REST OF USA 13,194 $ 0.04% 99.33% FAIRFIELD COUNTY CT REST OF USA 12,088 $ 0.04% 99.37% NEW CASTLE COUNTY DE REST OF USA 12,000 $ 0.04% 99.40% UNION COUNTY NJ REST OF USA 11,970 $ 0.04% 99.44% HARRIS COUNTY TX REST OF USA 11,520 $ 0.03% 99.47% MONTEREY COUNTY CA REST OF USA 10,486 $ 0.03% 99.50% DAVIDSON COUNTY TN REST OF USA 10,048 $ 0.03% 99.53%

157 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA, 2025 DISPARITY STUDY Table D-4: Prime Other Services by Counties (Using Payment Dollars, FY 2018-2022) City of Somerville Disparity Study Griffin & Strong, 2025 County State Relevant Marke Total Amount Percent Cumulative Percent CITY OF SOMERVILLE MA MSA 14,270,867 $ 16.56% 16.56% MIDDLESEX COUNTY MA MSA 25,293,843 $ 29.35% 45.91% SUFFOLK COUNTY MA MSA 14,819,489 $ 17.20% 63.10% NORFOLK COUNTY MA MSA 14,482,964 $ 16.81% 79.91% ESSEX COUNTY MA MSA 8,017,977 $ 9.30% 89.21% PLYMOUTH COUNTY MA MSA 845,528 $ 0.98% 90.19% ROCKINGHAM COUNTY NH MSA 563,943 $ 0.65% 90.85% STRAFFORD COUNTY NH MSA 30,870 $ 0.04% 90.88% HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY NH CSA 525,805 $ 0.61% 91.49% BRISTOL COUNTY MA CSA 508,826 $ 0.59% 92.08% PROVIDENCE COUNTY RI CSA 342,764 $ 0.40% 92.48% WORCESTER COUNTY MA CSA 322,361 $ 0.37% 92.86% BARNSTABLE COUNTY MA CSA 152,414 $ 0.18% 93.03% WASHINGTON COUNTY RI CSA 55,196 $ 0.06% 93.10% HAMPDEN COUNTY MA REST OF MA 141,546 $ 0.16% 93.26% HAMPSHIRE COUNTY MA REST OF MA 980 $ 0.00% 93.26% FRANKLIN COUNTY MA REST OF MA 186 $ 0.00% 93.26% MARICOPA COUNTY AZ REST OF USA 614,382 $ 0.71% 93.98% NEW YORK COUNTY NY REST OF USA 599,410 $ 0.70% 94.67% MONTGOMERY COUNTY PA REST OF USA 268,706 $ 0.31% 94.98% CAPE MAY COUNTY NJ REST OF USA 263,766 $ 0.31% 95.29% SACRAMENTO COUNTY CA REST OF USA 256,182 $ 0.30% 95.59% HAMILTON COUNTY OH REST OF USA 223,022 $ 0.26% 95.84% MERCER COUNTY NJ REST OF USA 182,519 $ 0.21% 96.06% BROOME COUNTY NY REST OF USA 170,680 $ 0.20% 96.25% WOOD COUNTY WI REST OF USA 155,405 $ 0.18% 96.43% MONTGOMERY COUNTY MD REST OF USA 153,900 $ 0.18% 96.61% HARRIS COUNTY TX REST OF USA 146,445 $ 0.17% 96.78% CUMBERLAND COUNTY ME REST OF USA 122,969 $ 0.14% 96.93% MONROE COUNTY NY REST OF USA 122,385 $ 0.14% 97.07% YORK COUNTY ME REST OF USA 120,661 $ 0.14% 97.21% MARTIN COUNTY FL REST OF USA 118,910 $ 0.14% 97.35% COOK COUNTY IL REST OF USA 118,052 $ 0.14% 97.48% HENNEPIN COUNTY MN REST OF USA 113,431 $ 0.13% 97.61% LOS ANGELES COUNTY CA REST OF USA 107,225 $ 0.12% 97.74% RAMSEY COUNTY MN REST OF USA 104,293 $ 0.12% 97.86% MILWAUKEE COUNTY WI REST OF USA 96,034 $ 0.11% 97.97% SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY CA REST OF USA 90,703 $ 0.11% 98.08% SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY CA REST OF USA 82,651 $ 0.10% 98.17% WAKE COUNTY NC REST OF USA 70,720 $ 0.08% 98.25%

158 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA, 2025 DISPARITY STUDY Table D-5 (cont.): Prime Other Services by Counties (Using Payment Dollars, FY 2018-2022) City of Somerville Disparity Study Griffin & Strong, 2025 County State Relevant Marke Total Amount Percent Cumulative Percent FORT BEND COUNTY TX REST OF USA 70,429 $ 0.08% 98.34% KING COUNTY WA REST OF USA 65,696 $ 0.08% 98.41% NEW HAVEN COUNTY CT REST OF USA 53,598 $ 0.06% 98.47% PHILADELPHIA COUNTY PA REST OF USA 51,960 $ 0.06% 98.54% WASHTENAW COUNTY MI REST OF USA 49,433 $ 0.06% 98.59% JOHNSON COUNTY KS REST OF USA 47,649 $ 0.06% 98.65% WAYNE COUNTY MI REST OF USA 47,409 $ 0.06% 98.70% ESSEX COUNTY NJ REST OF USA 45,670 $ 0.05% 98.76% DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA DC REST OF USA 43,601 $ 0.05% 98.81% ARLINGTON COUNTY VA REST OF USA 42,333 $ 0.05% 98.86% KENT COUNTY MI REST OF USA 36,963 $ 0.04% 98.90% ORANGE COUNTY CA REST OF USA 36,651 $ 0.04% 98.94% BOULDER COUNTY CO REST OF USA 33,043 $ 0.04% 98.98% BROWARD COUNTY FL REST OF USA 32,822 $ 0.04% 99.02% MARIN COUNTY CA REST OF USA 30,291 $ 0.04% 99.05% DENTON COUNTY TX REST OF USA 30,178 $ 0.04% 99.09% LAKE COUNTY IL REST OF USA 29,968 $ 0.03% 99.12% TARRANT COUNTY TX REST OF USA 29,210 $ 0.03% 99.16% ROCKLAND COUNTY NY REST OF USA 27,260 $ 0.03% 99.19% LOUISA COUNTY VA REST OF USA 27,190 $ 0.03% 99.22% GWINNETT COUNTY GA REST OF USA 26,918 $ 0.03% 99.25% DENVER COUNTY CO REST OF USA 26,507 $ 0.03% 99.28% ALAMEDA COUNTY CA REST OF USA 24,743 $ 0.03% 99.31% CUYAHOGA COUNTY OH REST OF USA 23,881 $ 0.03% 99.34% MINNEHAHA COUNTY SD REST OF USA 23,799 $ 0.03% 99.37% ONONDAGA COUNTY NY REST OF USA 23,723 $ 0.03% 99.39% HARTFORD COUNTY CT REST OF USA 22,947 $ 0.03% 99.42% ST. LOUIS COUNTY MO REST OF USA 20,954 $ 0.02% 99.44% BRAZOS COUNTY TX REST OF USA 20,257 $ 0.02% 99.47% BALTIMORE COUNTY MD REST OF USA 20,018 $ 0.02% 99.49% UTAH COUNTY UT REST OF USA 19,609 $ 0.02% 99.51% DALLAS COUNTY TX REST OF USA 19,453 $ 0.02% 99.54% NASSAU COUNTY NY REST OF USA 19,325 $ 0.02% 99.56% FAIRFAX COUNTY VA REST OF USA 18,765 $ 0.02% 99.58% FULTON COUNTY GA REST OF USA 18,521 $ 0.02% 99.60% HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY FL REST OF USA 17,932 $ 0.02% 99.62% FAIRFIELD COUNTY CT REST OF USA 16,193 $ 0.02% 99.64% WESTCHESTER COUNTY NY REST OF USA 15,226 $ 0.02% 99.66% BREVARD COUNTY FL REST OF USA 15,206 $ 0.02% 99.68% WASHINGTON COUNTY OR REST OF USA 14,679 $ 0.02% 99.69% YORK COUNTY SC REST OF USA 13,842 $ 0.02% 99.71% CHESTER COUNTY PA REST OF USA 12,909 $ 0.01% 99.72% KINGS COUNTY NY REST OF USA 12,680 $ 0.01% 99.74% MECKLENBURG COUNTY NC REST OF USA 11,031 $ 0.01% 99.75% CRAWFORD COUNTY KS REST OF USA 10,998 $ 0.01% 99.76%

159 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA, 2025 DISPARITY STUDY Table D-5 : Prime Goods by Counties (Using Payment Dollars, FY 2018-2022) City of Somerville Disparity Study Griffin & Strong, 2025 County State Relevant Market Total Amount Percent Cumulative Percent CITY OF SOMERVILLE MA MSA 1,832,030 $ 2.67% 2.67% MIDDLESEX COUNTY MA MSA 22,946,013 $ 33.49% 36.17% SUFFOLK COUNTY MA MSA 6,470,360 $ 9.44% 45.61% NORFOLK COUNTY MA MSA 5,617,469 $ 8.20% 53.81% PLYMOUTH COUNTY MA MSA 3,552,183 $ 5.18% 58.99% ESSEX COUNTY MA MSA 3,502,021 $ 5.11% 64.10% ROCKINGHAM COUNTY NH MSA 689,730 $ 1.01% 65.11% STRAFFORD COUNTY NH MSA 36,156 $ 0.05% 65.16% BRISTOL COUNTY MA CSA 1,507,338 $ 2.20% 67.36% WORCESTER COUNTY MA CSA 1,506,146 $ 2.20% 69.56% HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY NH CSA 510,212 $ 0.74% 70.31% PROVIDENCE COUNTY RI CSA 156,788 $ 0.23% 70.54% BELKNAP COUNTY NH CSA 137,790 $ 0.20% 70.74% BARNSTABLE COUNTY MA CSA 119,801 $ 0.17% 70.91% MERRIMACK COUNTY NH CSA 32,394 $ 0.05% 70.96% KENT COUNTY RI CSA 21,697 $ 0.03% 70.99% WASHINGTON COUNTY RI CSA 2,756 $ 0.00% 71.00% NEWPORT COUNTY RI CSA 995 $ 0.00% 71.00% HAMPDEN COUNTY MA REST OF MA 1,279,349 $ 1.87% 72.86% FRANKLIN COUNTY MA REST OF MA 231,185 $ 0.34% 73.20% HAMPSHIRE COUNTY MA REST OF MA 97,178 $ 0.14% 73.34% BERKSHIRE COUNTY MA REST OF MA 22,832 $ 0.03% 73.38% FAIRFAX COUNTY VA REST OF USA 3,561,857 $ 5.20% 78.58% NEW HAVEN COUNTY CT REST OF USA 2,578,539 $ 3.76% 82.34% COOK COUNTY IL REST OF USA 842,652 $ 1.23% 83.57% CARROLL COUNTY IA REST OF USA 630,177 $ 0.92% 84.49% LOS ANGELES COUNTY CA REST OF USA 602,755 $ 0.88% 85.37% SUFFOLK COUNTY NY REST OF USA 565,052 $ 0.82% 86.19% MINNEHAHA COUNTY SD REST OF USA 546,957 $ 0.80% 86.99% SAN DIEGO COUNTY CA REST OF USA 497,003 $ 0.73% 87.72% WOODBURY COUNTY IA REST OF USA 372,649 $ 0.54% 88.26% MARION COUNTY IN REST OF USA 353,898 $ 0.52% 88.78% DALLAS COUNTY TX REST OF USA 299,721 $ 0.44% 89.21% SACRAMENTO COUNTY CA REST OF USA 295,735 $ 0.43% 89.65% CUMBERLAND COUNTY NJ REST OF USA 291,871 $ 0.43% 90.07% LUCAS COUNTY OH REST OF USA 275,069 $ 0.40% 90.47% FAIRFIELD COUNTY CT REST OF USA 274,217 $ 0.40% 90.87% DOUGLAS COUNTY NE REST OF USA 256,875 $ 0.37% 91.25% ERIE COUNTY NY REST OF USA 243,843 $ 0.36% 91.60% OUTAGAMIE COUNTY WI REST OF USA 219,290 $ 0.32% 91.93%

160 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA, 2025 DISPARITY STUDY Table D-5 (cont.): Prime Goods by Counties (Using Payment Dollars, FY 2018-2022) City of Somerville Disparity Study Griffin & Strong, 2025 County State Relevant Market Total Amount Percent Cumulative Percent MCHENRY COUNTY IL REST OF USA 213,451 $ 0.31% 92.24% WAUPACA COUNTY WI REST OF USA 209,280 $ 0.31% 92.54% HARTFORD COUNTY CT REST OF USA 199,590 $ 0.29% 92.83% MILWAUKEE COUNTY WI REST OF USA 196,205 $ 0.29% 93.12% ARAPAHOE COUNTY CO REST OF USA 187,383 $ 0.27% 93.39% DAKOTA COUNTY MN REST OF USA 175,207 $ 0.26% 93.65% BURLINGTON COUNTY NJ REST OF USA 147,810 $ 0.22% 93.86% HENNEPIN COUNTY MN REST OF USA 144,660 $ 0.21% 94.08% ONEIDA COUNTY NY REST OF USA 136,372 $ 0.20% 94.27% NEW LONDON COUNTY CT REST OF USA 117,626 $ 0.17% 94.45% JEFFERSON COUNTY KY REST OF USA 113,846 $ 0.17% 94.61% STEELE COUNTY MN REST OF USA 111,359 $ 0.16% 94.78% NEW YORK COUNTY NY REST OF USA 103,917 $ 0.15% 94.93% BOONE COUNTY IN REST OF USA 88,354 $ 0.13% 95.06% CUYAHOGA COUNTY OH REST OF USA 86,759 $ 0.13% 95.18% PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY MD REST OF USA 83,374 $ 0.12% 95.30% OAKLAND COUNTY MI REST OF USA 80,887 $ 0.12% 95.42% GORDON COUNTY GA REST OF USA 80,171 $ 0.12% 95.54% JOHNSON COUNTY KS REST OF USA 78,950 $ 0.12% 95.65% SANTA CLARA COUNTY CA REST OF USA 78,911 $ 0.12% 95.77% MONROE COUNTY PA REST OF USA 78,561 $ 0.11% 95.88% CHESTER COUNTY PA REST OF USA 76,828 $ 0.11% 96.00% LEON COUNTY FL REST OF USA 76,134 $ 0.11% 96.11% GWINNETT COUNTY GA REST OF USA 72,532 $ 0.11% 96.21% MIDDLESEX COUNTY NJ REST OF USA 68,448 $ 0.10% 96.31% CHESHIRE COUNTY NH REST OF USA 64,250 $ 0.09% 96.41% KENOSHA COUNTY WI REST OF USA 62,405 $ 0.09% 96.50% LORAIN COUNTY OH REST OF USA 62,090 $ 0.09% 96.59% BERGEN COUNTY NJ REST OF USA 61,821 $ 0.09% 96.68% ALLEGHENY COUNTY PA REST OF USA 59,737 $ 0.09% 96.77% UNION COUNTY NJ REST OF USA 55,838 $ 0.08% 96.85% UTAH COUNTY UT REST OF USA 55,671 $ 0.08% 96.93% WESTCHESTER COUNTY NY REST OF USA 53,200 $ 0.08% 97.01% SALT LAKE COUNTY UT REST OF USA 47,829 $ 0.07% 97.08% KENNEBEC COUNTY ME REST OF USA 46,147 $ 0.07% 97.14% KING COUNTY WA REST OF USA 45,911 $ 0.07% 97.21% KINGS COUNTY NY REST OF USA 44,629 $ 0.07% 97.28% MCLEAN COUNTY IL REST OF USA 42,784 $ 0.06% 97.34% WINNEBAGO COUNTY WI REST OF USA 42,680 $ 0.06% 97.40% ST. LOUIS CITY MO REST OF USA 40,929 $ 0.06% 97.46% FRANKLIN COUNTY OH REST OF USA 40,446 $ 0.06% 97.52% LARAMIE COUNTY WY REST OF USA 39,733 $ 0.06% 97.58% HAMILTON COUNTY OH REST OF USA 39,395 $ 0.06% 97.64% FULTON COUNTY GA REST OF USA 38,118 $ 0.06% 97.69% DAVIDSON COUNTY TN REST OF USA 35,075 $ 0.05% 97.74% DUPAGE COUNTY IL REST OF USA 34,531 $ 0.05% 97.79% KALAMAZOO COUNTY MI REST OF USA 34,251 $ 0.05% 97.84% QUEEN ANNE'S COUNTY MD REST OF USA 33,972 $ 0.05% 97.89% LACKAWANNA COUNTY PA REST OF USA 32,846 $ 0.05% 97.94%

161 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA, 2025 DISPARITY STUDY Table D-5 (cont.): Prime Goods by Counties (Using Payment Dollars, FY 2018-2022) City of Somerville Disparity Study Griffin & Strong, 2025 County State Relevant Market Total Amount Percent Cumulative Percent CUMBERLAND COUNTY PA REST OF USA 32,278 $ 0.05% 97.99% NASSAU COUNTY NY REST OF USA 31,407 $ 0.05% 98.03% MONMOUTH COUNTY NJ REST OF USA 31,034 $ 0.05% 98.08% DENTON COUNTY TX REST OF USA 30,254 $ 0.04% 98.12% SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY CA REST OF USA 28,990 $ 0.04% 98.16% VENTURA COUNTY CA REST OF USA 27,986 $ 0.04% 98.21% WASHINGTON COUNTY OR REST OF USA 27,733 $ 0.04% 98.25% BLACK HAWK COUNTY IA REST OF USA 26,486 $ 0.04% 98.28% WAKE COUNTY NC REST OF USA 23,477 $ 0.03% 98.32% RUSH COUNTY IN REST OF USA 23,360 $ 0.03% 98.35% ORANGE COUNTY FL REST OF USA 22,922 $ 0.03% 98.39% SANTA CRUZ COUNTY CA REST OF USA 22,821 $ 0.03% 98.42% WEBB COUNTY TX REST OF USA 21,394 $ 0.03% 98.45% CAMDEN COUNTY NJ REST OF USA 21,334 $ 0.03% 98.48% DANE COUNTY WI REST OF USA 21,291 $ 0.03% 98.51% SONOMA COUNTY CA REST OF USA 19,677 $ 0.03% 98.54% ST. LOUIS COUNTY MO REST OF USA 19,659 $ 0.03% 98.57% MORRIS COUNTY NJ REST OF USA 19,001 $ 0.03% 98.60% ESSEX COUNTY VT REST OF USA 18,700 $ 0.03% 98.63% ANDROSCOGGIN COUNTY ME REST OF USA 18,482 $ 0.03% 98.65% JOHNSON COUNTY IA REST OF USA 17,946 $ 0.03% 98.68% ESSEX COUNTY NJ REST OF USA 17,773 $ 0.03% 98.70% JEFFERSON COUNTY CO REST OF USA 17,705 $ 0.03% 98.73% KNOX COUNTY IL REST OF USA 17,065 $ 0.02% 98.76% ULSTER COUNTY NY REST OF USA 16,938 $ 0.02% 98.78% BARTHOLOMEW COUNTY IN REST OF USA 16,665 $ 0.02% 98.80% CUMBERLAND COUNTY ME REST OF USA 16,646 $ 0.02% 98.83% BUFFALO COUNTY NE REST OF USA 16,020 $ 0.02% 98.85% ST. JOHNS COUNTY FL REST OF USA 15,756 $ 0.02% 98.88% LAKE COUNTY IL REST OF USA 15,056 $ 0.02% 98.90% WILLIAMSON COUNTY TN REST OF USA 15,011 $ 0.02% 98.92% SEBASTIAN COUNTY AR REST OF USA 14,649 $ 0.02% 98.94% MULTNOMAH COUNTY OR REST OF USA 14,628 $ 0.02% 98.96% ORANGE COUNTY CA REST OF USA 14,291 $ 0.02% 98.98% HUNTERDON COUNTY NJ REST OF USA 14,167 $ 0.02% 99.00% BOONE COUNTY KY REST OF USA 14,056 $ 0.02% 99.02% TRAVIS COUNTY TX REST OF USA 14,024 $ 0.02% 99.04% ALAMEDA COUNTY CA REST OF USA 13,241 $ 0.02% 99.06% BROOMFIELD COUNTY CO REST OF USA 12,785 $ 0.02% 99.08% DUVAL COUNTY FL REST OF USA 11,825 $ 0.02% 99.10% SARATOGA COUNTY NY REST OF USA 11,802 $ 0.02% 99.12% COBB COUNTY GA REST OF USA 11,263 $ 0.02% 99.13% BRUNSWICK COUNTY NC REST OF USA 11,230 $ 0.02% 99.15% WAYNE COUNTY MI REST OF USA 11,143 $ 0.02% 99.17% WASHTENAW COUNTY MI REST OF USA 11,122 $ 0.02% 99.18% LA PLATA COUNTY CO REST OF USA 10,986 $ 0.02% 99.20% PALM BEACH COUNTY FL REST OF USA 10,848 $ 0.02% 99.21% HARRIS COUNTY TX REST OF USA 10,502 $ 0.02% 99.23%

A P P E N D I X E A v a i l a b i l i t y A n a l y s i s C I T Y O F S O M E R V I L L E , M A 2 0 2 5 D I S P A R I T Y S T U D Y

163 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA, 2025 DISPARITY STUDY Appendix E: AVAILABILITY NUMBERS Tables E-1 through E-5 present numbers on MWBE availability corresponding to the availability percentages in Figures 2-6 in the Quantitative Analysis chapter. The availability methodology for creating the Master Vendor table for these availability tables is contained in the Quantitative Analysis chapter. Table E-1: Availability of Firms by Business Ownership in Market Area Construction – Master Vendor List City of Somerville Disparity Study Business Ownership Classification Construction Construction (#) (%) African American 106 7.34% Asian American 23 1.59% Hispanic American 99 6.86% American Indian 6 0.42% Portuguese American 16 1.11% Unknown MBE 2 0.14% TOTAL MINORITY 252 17.45% Non-Minority Woman 150 10.39% TOTAL MWBE 402 27.84% Non-MWBE 1042 72.16% TOTAL FIRMS 1444 100.00% Griffin & Strong, 2025 Table E-2: Availability of Firms by Business Ownership in Market Area A&E - Master Vendor List City of Somerville Disparity Study Business Ownership Classification Architecture & Engineering Architecture & Engineering (#) (%) African American 21 2.95% Asian American 53 7.44% Hispanic American 23 3.23% American Indian 0 0.00% Portuguese American 0 0.00% Unknown MBE 1 0.14% TOTAL MINORITY 98 13.76% Non-Minority Woman 135 18.96% TOTAL MWBE 233 32.72% Non-MWBE 479 67.28% TOTAL FIRMS 712 100.00% Griffin & Strong, 2025

164 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA, 2025 DISPARITY STUDY Table E-3: Availability of Firms by Business Ownership in Market Area Professional Services - Master Vendor List City of Somerville Disparity Study Business Ownership Classification Professional Services Professional Services (#) (%) African American 170 10.49% Asian American 105 6.48% Hispanic American 71 4.38% American Indian 2 0.12% Portuguese American 9 0.56% Unknown MBE 3 0.19% TOTAL MINORITY 360 22.22% Non-Minority Woman 368 22.72% TOTAL MWBE 728 44.94% Non-MWBE 892 55.06% TOTAL FIRMS 1620 100.00% Griffin & Strong, 2025 Table E-4: Availability of Firms by Business Ownership in Market Area Prime Data, Other Services - Master Vendor List City of Somerville Disparity Study Business Ownership Classification Other Services Other Services (#) (%) African American 174 7.86% Asian American 49 2.21% Hispanic American 76 3.43% American Indian 1 0.05% Portuguese American 14 0.63% Unknown MBE 3 0.14% TOTAL MINORITY 317 14.32% Non-Minority Woman 230 10.39% TOTAL MWBE 547 24.72% Non-MWBE 1666 75.28% TOTAL FIRMS 2213 100.00% Griffin & Strong, 2025

165 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA, 2025 DISPARITY STUDY Table E-5: Availability of Firms by Business Ownership in Market Area Prime Data, Goods - Master Vendor List City of Somerville Disparity Study Business Ownership Classification Goods Goods (#) (%) African American 49 2.35% Asian American 41 1.97% Hispanic American 22 1.05% American Indian 1 0.05% Portuguese American 2 0.10% Unknown MBE 3 0.14% TOTAL MINORITY 118 5.66% Non-Minority Woman 136 6.52% TOTAL MWBE 254 12.18% Non-MWBE 1832 87.82% TOTAL FIRMS 2086 100.00% Griffin & Strong, 2025

A P P E N D I X F P r i m e a n d S u b c o n t r a c t o r D i s p a r i t y R a t i o s C I T Y O F S O M E R V I L L E , M A 2 0 2 5 D I S P A R I T Y S T U D Y

167 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA, 2025 DISPARITY STUDY Appendix F: Disparity Ratios The tables in Appendix F (Tables F-1 through F-5) present prime disparity ratios on City of Somerville projects by year over the Study Period, prime disparity ratios for projects less than $500,000 (Tables F-6 through F-10), and prime disparity ratios for projects less than $1,000,000 (Tables F-11 through F-15). There was Underutilization in prime contracts for all available MWBE groups, except Asian American and Hispanic American owned firms in Professional Services. Similar results remained when taking out larger contracts. There was Underutilization in prime contracts for all available MWBE groups for Contracts under $500,000 and under $1 million, except for Asian American owned firms in Professional Services for both contracts under $500,000 and under $1 million.

168 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA, 2025 DISPARITY STUDY Table F-1: Disparity Results, Geographic Relevant Market Area, Master Vendor List Business Ownership Classification by Fiscal Year, Construction Using Payment Dollars, FY 2018-2022 City of Somerville Disparity Study Fiscal Year Business Ownership Classification Percent of Dollars Percent of Available Firms Disparity Index Disparate Impact of Utilization Less than 80% Statistical Significance 2018 African American 0.47% 7.34% 6.37 Underutilization * Asian American 0.00% 1.59% 0.00 Underutilization * Hispanic American 0.00% 6.86% 0.00 Underutilization * American Indian 0.00% 0.42% 0.00 Underutilization * Portuguese American 0.00% 1.11% 0.00 Underutilization * TOTAL MINORITY 0.47% 17.45% 2.68 Underutilization * Non-Minority Woman 3.56% 10.39% 34.30 Underutilization * TOTAL MWBE 4.03% 27.84% 14.48 Underutilization * Non-MWBE 95.97% 72.16% 132.99 Overutilization 2019 African American 0.02% 7.34% 0.25 Underutilization * Asian American 0.00% 1.59% 0.00 Underutilization * Hispanic American 0.00% 6.86% 0.00 Underutilization * American Indian 0.00% 0.42% 0.00 Underutilization * Portuguese American 0.00% 1.11% 0.00 Underutilization * TOTAL MINORITY 0.02% 17.45% 0.10 Underutilization * Non-Minority Woman 0.61% 10.39% 5.89 Underutilization * TOTAL MWBE 0.63% 27.84% 2.26 Underutilization * Non-MWBE 99.37% 72.16% 137.71 Overutilization 2020 African American 0.00% 7.34% 0.00 Underutilization * Asian American 0.00% 1.59% 0.00 Underutilization * Hispanic American 0.00% 6.86% 0.00 Underutilization * American Indian 0.00% 0.42% 0.00 Underutilization * Portuguese American 0.00% 1.11% 0.00 Underutilization * TOTAL MINORITY 0.00% 17.45% 0.00 Underutilization * Non-Minority Woman 0.35% 10.39% 3.39 Underutilization * TOTAL MWBE 0.35% 27.84% 1.27 Underutilization * Non-MWBE 99.65% 72.16% 138.09 Overutilization 2021 African American 0.04% 7.34% 0.52 Underutilization * Asian American 0.00% 1.59% 0.00 Underutilization * Hispanic American 0.00% 6.86% 0.00 Underutilization * American Indian 0.00% 0.42% 0.00 Underutilization * Portuguese American 0.00% 1.11% 0.00 Underutilization * TOTAL MINORITY 0.04% 17.45% 0.22 Underutilization * Non-Minority Woman 0.94% 10.39% 9.04 Underutilization * TOTAL MWBE 0.98% 27.84% 3.51 Underutilization * Non-MWBE 99.02% 72.16% 137.23 Overutilization 2022 African American 0.08% 7.34% 1.09 Underutilization * Asian American 0.00% 1.59% 0.00 Underutilization * Hispanic American 0.00% 6.86% 0.00 Underutilization * American Indian 0.00% 0.42% 0.00 Underutilization * Portuguese American 0.00% 1.11% 0.00 Underutilization * TOTAL MINORITY 0.08% 17.45% 0.46 Underutilization * Non-Minority Woman 1.14% 10.39% 10.97 Underutilization * TOTAL MWBE 1.22% 27.84% 4.38 Underutilization * Non-MWBE 98.78% 72.16% 136.89 Overutilization TOTAL African American 0.06% 7.34% 0.78 Underutilization * p <.05 Asian American 0.00% 1.59% 0.00 Underutilization * p <.05 Hispanic American 0.00% 6.86% 0.00 Underutilization * p <.05 American Indian 0.00% 0.42% 0.00 Underutilization * p <.05 Portuguese American 0.00% 1.11% 0.00 Underutilization * p <.05 TOTAL MINORITY 0.06% 17.45% 0.33 Underutilization * p <.05 Non-Minority Woman 0.89% 10.39% 8.59 Underutilization * p <.05 TOTAL MWBE 0.95% 27.84% 3.41 Underutilization * p <.05 Non-MWBE 99.05% 72.16% 137.26 Overutilization Griffin & Strong, 2025

169 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA, 2025 DISPARITY STUDY Table F-2: Disparity Results, Geographic Relevant Market Area, Master Vendor List Business Ownership Classification by Fiscal Year, Prime A&E Using Payment Dollars, FY 2018-2022 City of Somerville Disparity Study Fiscal Year Business Ownership Classification Percent of Dollars Percent of Available Firms Disparity Index Disparate Impact of Utilization Less than 80% Statistical Significance 2018 African American 0.00% 2.95% 0.00 Underutilization * Asian American 0.00% 7.44% 0.00 Underutilization * Hispanic American 0.00% 3.23% 0.00 Underutilization * American Indian 0.00% 0.00% - n/a Portuguese American 0.00% 0.00% - n/a TOTAL MINORITY 0.00% 13.76% 0.00 Underutilization * Non-Minority Woman 1.55% 18.96% 8.20 Underutilization * TOTAL MWBE 1.55% 32.72% 4.75 Underutilization * Non-MWBE 98.45% 67.28% 146.33 Overutilization 2019 African American 0.00% 2.95% 0.00 Underutilization * Asian American 0.00% 7.44% 0.00 Underutilization * Hispanic American 0.00% 3.23% 0.00 Underutilization * American Indian 0.00% 0.00% - n/a Portuguese American 0.00% 0.00% - n/a TOTAL MINORITY 0.00% 13.76% 0.00 Underutilization * Non-Minority Woman 4.40% 18.96% 23.18 Underutilization * TOTAL MWBE 4.40% 32.72% 13.43 Underutilization * Non-MWBE 95.60% 67.28% 142.11 Overutilization 2020 African American 0.00% 2.95% 0.00 Underutilization * Asian American 0.00% 7.44% 0.00 Underutilization * Hispanic American 0.00% 3.23% 0.00 Underutilization * American Indian 0.00% 0.00% - n/a Portuguese American 0.00% 0.00% - n/a TOTAL MINORITY 0.00% 13.76% 0.00 Underutilization * Non-Minority Woman 2.78% 18.96% 14.65 Underutilization * TOTAL MWBE 2.78% 32.72% 8.49 Underutilization * Non-MWBE 97.22% 67.28% 144.51 Overutilization 2021 African American 0.00% 2.95% 0.00 Underutilization * Asian American 0.00% 7.44% 0.00 Underutilization * Hispanic American 0.00% 3.23% 0.00 Underutilization * American Indian 0.00% 0.00% - n/a Portuguese American 0.00% 0.00% - n/a TOTAL MINORITY 0.00% 13.76% 0.00 Underutilization * Non-Minority Woman 4.73% 18.96% 24.92 Underutilization * TOTAL MWBE 4.73% 32.72% 14.44 Underutilization * Non-MWBE 95.27% 67.28% 141.62 Overutilization 2022 African American 0.00% 2.95% 0.00 Underutilization * Asian American 1.37% 7.44% 18.38 Underutilization * Hispanic American 0.00% 3.23% 0.00 Underutilization * American Indian 0.00% 0.00% - n/a Portuguese American 0.00% 0.00% - n/a TOTAL MINORITY 1.37% 13.76% 9.94 Underutilization * Non-Minority Woman 8.29% 18.96% 43.74 Underutilization * TOTAL MWBE 9.66% 32.72% 29.52 Underutilization * Non-MWBE 90.34% 67.28% 134.28 Overutilization TOTAL African American 0.00% 2.95% 0.00 Underutilization * p <.05 Asian American 0.29% 7.44% 3.87 Underutilization * p <.05 Hispanic American 0.00% 3.23% 0.00 Underutilization * p <.05 American Indian 0.00% 0.00% - n/a #DIV/0! Portuguese American 0.00% 0.00% - n/a #DIV/0! TOTAL MINORITY 0.29% 13.76% 2.09 Underutilization * p <.05 Non-Minority Woman 4.28% 18.96% 22.59 Underutilization * p <.05 TOTAL MWBE 4.57% 32.72% 13.97 Underutilization * p <.05 Non-MWBE 95.43% 67.28% 141.85 Overutilization Griffin & Strong, 2025

170 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA, 2025 DISPARITY STUDY Table F-3: Disparity Results, Geographic Relevant Market Area, Master Vendor List Business Ownership Classification by Fiscal Year, Prime Professional Services Using Payment Dollars, FY 2018-2022 City of Somerville Disparity Study Fiscal Year Business Ownership Classification Percent of Dollars Percent of Available Firms Disparity Index Disparate Impact of Utilization Less than 80% Statistical Significance 2018 African American 0.00% 10.49% 0.00 Underutilization * Asian American 6.45% 6.48% 99.50 Underutilization Hispanic American 19.09% 4.38% 435.60 Overutilization American Indian 0.00% 0.12% 0.00 Underutilization * Portuguese American 0.00% 0.56% 0.00 Underutilization * TOTAL MINORITY 25.54% 22.22% 114.93 Overutilization Non-Minority Woman 1.04% 22.72% 4.59 Underutilization * TOTAL MWBE 26.58% 44.94% 59.16 Underutilization * Non-MWBE 73.42% 55.06% 133.34 Overutilization 2019 African American 0.00% 10.49% 0.00 Underutilization * Asian American 2.28% 6.48% 35.22 Underutilization * Hispanic American 32.76% 4.38% 747.53 Overutilization American Indian 0.00% 0.12% 0.00 Underutilization * Portuguese American 0.00% 0.56% 0.00 Underutilization * TOTAL MINORITY 35.05% 22.22% 157.70 Overutilization Non-Minority Woman 0.41% 22.72% 1.83 Underutilization * TOTAL MWBE 35.46% 44.94% 78.91 Underutilization * Non-MWBE 64.54% 55.06% 117.21 Overutilization 2020 African American 0.00% 10.49% 0.00 Underutilization * Asian American 10.72% 6.48% 165.36 Overutilization Hispanic American 38.73% 4.38% 883.76 Overutilization American Indian 0.00% 0.12% 0.00 Underutilization * Portuguese American 0.00% 0.56% 0.00 Underutilization * TOTAL MINORITY 49.45% 22.22% 222.53 Overutilization Non-Minority Woman 0.86% 22.72% 3.80 Underutilization * TOTAL MWBE 50.31% 44.94% 111.96 Overutilization Non-MWBE 49.69% 55.06% 90.24 Underutilization 2021 African American 0.00% 10.49% 0.00 Underutilization * Asian American 16.55% 6.48% 255.41 Overutilization Hispanic American 33.39% 4.38% 761.76 Overutilization American Indian 0.00% 0.12% 0.00 Underutilization * Portuguese American 0.00% 0.56% 0.00 Underutilization * TOTAL MINORITY 49.94% 22.22% 224.73 Overutilization Non-Minority Woman 0.32% 22.72% 1.41 Underutilization * TOTAL MWBE 50.26% 44.94% 111.84 Overutilization Non-MWBE 49.74% 55.06% 90.33 Underutilization 2022 African American 0.00% 10.49% 0.00 Underutilization * Asian American 1.42% 6.48% 21.97 Underutilization * Hispanic American 25.58% 4.38% 583.58 Overutilization American Indian 0.00% 0.12% 0.00 Underutilization * Portuguese American 0.00% 0.56% 0.00 Underutilization * TOTAL MINORITY 27.00% 22.22% 121.50 Overutilization Non-Minority Woman 0.44% 22.72% 1.92 Underutilization * TOTAL MWBE 27.44% 44.94% 61.06 Underutilization * Non-MWBE 72.56% 55.06% 131.78 Overutilization TOTAL African American 0.00% 10.49% 0.00 Underutilization * p <.05 Asian American 7.91% 6.48% 122.10 Overutilization Hispanic American 30.34% 4.38% 692.35 Overutilization American Indian 0.00% 0.12% 0.00 Underutilization * Small Number Portuguese American 0.00% 0.56% 0.00 Underutilization * p <.05 TOTAL MINORITY 38.26% 22.22% 172.16 Overutilization Non-Minority Woman 0.61% 22.72% 2.68 Underutilization * p <.05 TOTAL MWBE 38.87% 44.94% 86.49 Underutilization p <.05 Non-MWBE 61.13% 55.06% 111.03 Overutilization Griffin & Strong, 2025

171 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA, 2025 DISPARITY STUDY Table F-4: Disparity Results, Geographic Relevant Market Area, Master Vendor List Business Ownership Classification by Fiscal Year, Prime Other Services Using Payment Dollars, FY 2018-2022 City of Somerville Disparity Study Fiscal Year Business Ownership Classification Percent of Dollars Percent of Available Firms Disparity Index Disparate Impact of Utilization Less than 80% Statistical Significance 2018 African American 0.00% 7.86% 0.00 Underutilization * Asian American 0.00% 2.21% 0.00 Underutilization * Hispanic American 0.00% 3.43% 0.00 Underutilization * American Indian 0.00% 0.05% 0.00 Underutilization * Portuguese American 0.00% 0.63% 0.00 Underutilization * TOTAL MINORITY 0.00% 14.32% 0.00 Underutilization * Non-Minority Woman 0.53% 10.39% 5.15 Underutilization * TOTAL MWBE 0.53% 24.72% 2.16 Underutilization * Non-MWBE 99.47% 75.28% 132.12 Overutilization 2019 African American 0.00% 7.86% 0.00 Underutilization * Asian American 0.00% 2.21% 0.00 Underutilization * Hispanic American 0.66% 3.43% 19.17 Underutilization * American Indian 0.00% 0.05% 0.00 Underutilization * Portuguese American 0.00% 0.63% 0.00 Underutilization * TOTAL MINORITY 0.66% 14.32% 4.60 Underutilization * Non-Minority Woman 0.65% 10.39% 6.21 Underutilization * TOTAL MWBE 1.30% 24.72% 5.28 Underutilization * Non-MWBE 98.70% 75.28% 131.10 Overutilization 2020 African American 0.00% 7.86% 0.00 Underutilization * Asian American 0.00% 2.21% 0.00 Underutilization * Hispanic American 1.76% 3.43% 51.34 Underutilization * American Indian 0.00% 0.05% 0.00 Underutilization * Portuguese American 0.00% 0.63% 0.00 Underutilization * TOTAL MINORITY 1.76% 14.32% 12.31 Underutilization * Non-Minority Woman 0.74% 10.39% 7.10 Underutilization * TOTAL MWBE 2.50% 24.72% 10.12 Underutilization * Non-MWBE 97.50% 75.28% 129.51 Overutilization 2021 African American 0.00% 7.86% 0.00 Underutilization * Asian American 0.11% 2.21% 5.03 Underutilization * Hispanic American 0.00% 3.43% 0.00 Underutilization * American Indian 0.00% 0.05% 0.00 Underutilization * Portuguese American 0.00% 0.63% 0.00 Underutilization * TOTAL MINORITY 0.11% 14.32% 0.78 Underutilization * Non-Minority Woman 0.57% 10.39% 5.52 Underutilization * TOTAL MWBE 0.68% 24.72% 2.77 Underutilization * Non-MWBE 99.32% 75.28% 131.92 Overutilization 2022 African American 0.00% 7.86% 0.00 Underutilization * Asian American 0.00% 2.21% 0.00 Underutilization * Hispanic American 0.03% 3.43% 1.00 Underutilization * American Indian 0.00% 0.05% 0.00 Underutilization * Portuguese American 0.00% 0.63% 0.00 Underutilization * TOTAL MINORITY 0.03% 14.32% 0.24 Underutilization * Non-Minority Woman 0.52% 10.39% 5.02 Underutilization * TOTAL MWBE 0.56% 24.72% 2.25 Underutilization * Non-MWBE 99.44% 75.28% 132.09 Overutilization TOTAL African American 0.00% 7.86% 0.00 Underutilization * p <.05 Asian American 0.02% 2.21% 0.92 Underutilization * p <.05 Hispanic American 0.49% 3.43% 14.14 Underutilization * p <.05 American Indian 0.00% 0.05% 0.00 Underutilization * Small Number Portuguese American 0.00% 0.63% 0.00 Underutilization * p <.05 TOTAL MINORITY 0.51% 14.32% 3.53 Underutilization * p <.05 Non-Minority Woman 0.60% 10.39% 5.78 Underutilization * p <.05 TOTAL MWBE 1.11% 24.72% 4.48 Underutilization * p <.05 Non-MWBE 98.89% 75.28% 131.36 Overutilization Griffin & Strong, 2025

172 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA, 2025 DISPARITY STUDY Table F-5: Disparity Results, Geographic Relevant Market Area, Master Vendor List Business Ownership Classification by Fiscal Year, Prime Goods Using Payment Dollars, FY 2018-2022 City of Somerville Disparity Study Fiscal Year Business Ownership Classification Percent of Dollars Percent of Available Firms Disparity Index Disparate Impact of Utilization Less than 80% Statistical Significance 2018 African American 0.00% 2.35% 0.00 Underutilization * Asian American 1.24% 1.97% 62.88 Underutilization * Hispanic American 0.00% 1.05% 0.00 Underutilization * American Indian 0.00% 0.05% 0.00 Underutilization * Portuguese American 0.04% 0.10% 40.36 Underutilization * TOTAL MINORITY 1.27% 5.66% 22.53 Underutilization * Non-Minority Woman 1.59% 6.52% 24.34 Underutilization * TOTAL MWBE 2.86% 12.18% 23.50 Underutilization * Non-MWBE 97.14% 87.82% 110.61 Overutilization 2019 African American 0.12% 2.35% 5.23 Underutilization * Asian American 1.16% 1.97% 59.07 Underutilization * Hispanic American 0.00% 1.05% 0.00 Underutilization * American Indian 0.00% 0.05% 0.00 Underutilization * Portuguese American 0.05% 0.10% 54.14 Underutilization * TOTAL MINORITY 1.34% 5.66% 23.61 Underutilization * Non-Minority Woman 2.25% 6.52% 34.48 Underutilization * TOTAL MWBE 3.58% 12.18% 29.43 Underutilization * Non-MWBE 96.42% 87.82% 109.78 Overutilization 2020 African American 0.00% 2.35% 0.00 Underutilization * Asian American 1.27% 1.97% 64.68 Underutilization * Hispanic American 0.00% 1.05% 0.00 Underutilization * American Indian 0.00% 0.05% 0.00 Underutilization * Portuguese American 0.01% 0.10% 8.51 Underutilization * TOTAL MINORITY 1.28% 5.66% 22.62 Underutilization * Non-Minority Woman 1.75% 6.52% 26.84 Underutilization * TOTAL MWBE 3.03% 12.18% 24.88 Underutilization * Non-MWBE 96.97% 87.82% 110.42 Overutilization 2021 African American 0.00% 2.35% 0.00 Underutilization * Asian American 1.03% 1.97% 52.46 Underutilization * Hispanic American 0.00% 1.05% 0.00 Underutilization * American Indian 0.00% 0.05% 0.00 Underutilization * Portuguese American 0.00% 0.10% 4.31 Underutilization * TOTAL MINORITY 1.04% 5.66% 18.30 Underutilization * Non-Minority Woman 9.91% 6.52% 151.96 Overutilization TOTAL MWBE 10.94% 12.18% 89.86 Underutilization Non-MWBE 89.06% 87.82% 101.41 Overutilization 2022 African American 0.00% 2.35% 0.00 Underutilization * Asian American 2.15% 1.97% 109.33 Overutilization Hispanic American 0.00% 1.05% 0.00 Underutilization * American Indian 0.00% 0.05% 0.00 Underutilization * Portuguese American 0.00% 0.10% 3.58 Underutilization * TOTAL MINORITY 2.15% 5.66% 38.05 Underutilization * Non-Minority Woman 8.11% 6.52% 124.46 Overutilization TOTAL MWBE 10.27% 12.18% 84.31 Underutilization Non-MWBE 89.73% 87.82% 102.17 Overutilization TOTAL African American 0.02% 2.35% 0.97 Underutilization * p <.05 Asian American 1.36% 1.97% 69.17 Underutilization * Small Number Hispanic American 0.00% 1.05% 0.00 Underutilization * p <.05 American Indian 0.00% 0.05% 0.00 Underutilization * Small Number Portuguese American 0.02% 0.10% 21.23 Underutilization * Small Number TOTAL MINORITY 1.40% 5.66% 24.80 Underutilization * p <.05 Non-Minority Woman 4.98% 6.52% 76.38 Underutilization * p <.05 TOTAL MWBE 6.38% 12.18% 52.42 Underutilization * p <.05 Non-MWBE 93.62% 87.82% 106.60 Overutilization Griffin & Strong, 202

173 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA, 2025 DISPARITY STUDY Table F-6: Disparity Results, Geographic Relevant Market Area, Master Vendor List Business Ownership Classification by Fiscal Year, Construction Using Awards Dollars, FY 2018-2022, Less than $500,000 City of Somerville Disparity Study Fiscal Year Business Ownership Classification Percent of Dollars Percent of Available Firms Disparity Index Disparate Impact of Utilization Less than 80% Statistical Significance 2018 African American 3.19% 7.34% 43.48 Underutilization * Asian American 0.00% 1.59% 0.00 Underutilization * Hispanic American 0.00% 6.86% 0.00 Underutilization * American Indian 0.00% 0.42% 0.00 Underutilization * Portuguese American 0.00% 1.11% 0.00 Underutilization * TOTAL MINORITY 3.19% 17.45% 18.29 Underutilization * Non-Minority Woman 9.90% 10.39% 95.31 Underutilization TOTAL MWBE 13.09% 27.84% 47.03 Underutilization * Non-MWBE 86.91% 72.16% 120.44 Overutilization 2019 African American 0.00% 7.34% 0.00 Underutilization * Asian American 0.00% 1.59% 0.00 Underutilization * Hispanic American 0.00% 6.86% 0.00 Underutilization * American Indian 0.00% 0.42% 0.00 Underutilization * Portuguese American 0.08% 1.11% 7.11 Underutilization * TOTAL MINORITY 0.08% 17.45% 0.45 Underutilization * Non-Minority Woman 5.64% 10.39% 54.33 Underutilization * TOTAL MWBE 5.72% 27.84% 20.55 Underutilization * Non-MWBE 94.28% 72.16% 130.65 Overutilization 2020 African American 0.00% 7.34% 0.00 Underutilization * Asian American 0.00% 1.59% 0.00 Underutilization * Hispanic American 0.00% 6.86% 0.00 Underutilization * American Indian 0.00% 0.42% 0.00 Underutilization * Portuguese American 0.00% 1.11% 0.00 Underutilization * TOTAL MINORITY 0.00% 17.45% 0.00 Underutilization * Non-Minority Woman 3.44% 10.39% 33.15 Underutilization * TOTAL MWBE 3.44% 27.84% 12.37 Underutilization * Non-MWBE 96.56% 72.16% 133.81 Overutilization 2021 African American 0.00% 7.34% 0.00 Underutilization * Asian American 0.00% 1.59% 0.00 Underutilization * Hispanic American 0.00% 6.86% 0.00 Underutilization * American Indian 0.00% 0.42% 0.00 Underutilization * Portuguese American 0.00% 1.11% 0.00 Underutilization * TOTAL MINORITY 0.00% 17.45% 0.00 Underutilization * Non-Minority Woman 20.30% 10.39% 195.41 Overutilization TOTAL MWBE 20.30% 27.84% 72.92 Underutilization * Non-MWBE 79.70% 72.16% 110.45 Overutilization 2022 African American 0.00% 7.34% 0.00 Underutilization * Asian American 0.00% 1.59% 0.00 Underutilization * Hispanic American 0.00% 6.86% 0.00 Underutilization * American Indian 0.00% 0.42% 0.00 Underutilization * Portuguese American 0.00% 1.11% 0.00 Underutilization * TOTAL MINORITY 0.00% 17.45% 0.00 Underutilization * Non-Minority Woman 7.50% 10.39% 72.15 Underutilization * TOTAL MWBE 7.50% 27.84% 26.92 Underutilization * Non-MWBE 92.50% 72.16% 128.19 Overutilization TOTAL African American 0.69% 7.34% 9.44 Underutilization * p <.05 Asian American 0.00% 1.59% 0.00 Underutilization * p <.05 Hispanic American 0.00% 6.86% 0.00 Underutilization * p <.05 American Indian 0.00% 0.42% 0.00 Underutilization * p <.05 Portuguese American 0.02% 1.11% 1.53 Underutilization * p <.05 TOTAL MINORITY 0.71% 17.45% 4.07 Underutilization * p <.05 Non-Minority Woman 9.16% 10.39% 88.21 Underutilization Small Number TOTAL MWBE 9.87% 27.84% 35.47 Underutilization * p <.05 Non-MWBE 90.13% 72.16% 124.90 Overutilization Griffin & Strong, 2025

174 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA, 2025 DISPARITY STUDY Table F-7: Disparity Results, Geographic Relevant Market Area, Master Vendor List Business Ownership Classification by Fiscal Year, A&E Using Awards Dollars, FY 2018-2022, Less than $500,000 City of Somerville Disparity Study Fiscal Year Business Ownership Classification Percent of Dollars Percent of Available Firms Disparity Index Disparate Impact of Utilization Less than 80% Statistical Significance 2018 African American 0.00% 2.95% 0.00 Underutilization * Asian American 0.00% 7.44% 0.00 Underutilization * Hispanic American 0.00% 3.23% 0.00 Underutilization * American Indian 0.00% 0.00% - n/a Portuguese American 0.00% 0.00% - n/a TOTAL MINORITY 0.00% 13.76% 0.00 Underutilization * Non-Minority Woman 9.98% 18.96% 52.66 Underutilization * TOTAL MWBE 9.98% 32.72% 30.51 Underutilization * Non-MWBE 90.02% 67.28% 133.80 Overutilization 2019 African American 0.00% 2.95% 0.00 Underutilization * Asian American 0.00% 7.44% 0.00 Underutilization * Hispanic American 0.00% 3.23% 0.00 Underutilization * American Indian 0.00% 0.00% - n/a Portuguese American 0.00% 0.00% - n/a TOTAL MINORITY 0.00% 13.76% 0.00 Underutilization * Non-Minority Woman 0.00% 18.96% 0.00 Underutilization * TOTAL MWBE 0.00% 32.72% 0.00 Underutilization * Non-MWBE 100.00% 67.28% 148.64 Overutilization 2020 African American 0.00% 2.95% 0.00 Underutilization * Asian American 0.00% 7.44% 0.00 Underutilization * Hispanic American 0.00% 3.23% 0.00 Underutilization * American Indian 0.00% 0.00% - n/a Portuguese American 0.00% 0.00% - n/a TOTAL MINORITY 0.00% 13.76% 0.00 Underutilization * Non-Minority Woman 10.90% 18.96% 57.49 Underutilization * TOTAL MWBE 10.90% 32.72% 33.31 Underutilization * Non-MWBE 89.10% 67.28% 132.44 Overutilization 2021 African American 0.00% 2.95% 0.00 Underutilization * Asian American 0.00% 7.44% 0.00 Underutilization * Hispanic American 0.00% 3.23% 0.00 Underutilization * American Indian 0.00% 0.00% - n/a Portuguese American 0.00% 0.00% - n/a TOTAL MINORITY 0.00% 13.76% 0.00 Underutilization * Non-Minority Woman 15.45% 18.96% 81.49 Underutilization TOTAL MWBE 15.45% 32.72% 47.22 Underutilization * Non-MWBE 84.55% 67.28% 125.68 Overutilization 2022 African American 0.00% 2.95% 0.00 Underutilization * Asian American 9.29% 7.44% 124.85 Overutilization Hispanic American 0.00% 3.23% 0.00 Underutilization * American Indian 0.00% 0.00% - n/a Portuguese American 0.00% 0.00% - n/a TOTAL MINORITY 9.29% 13.76% 67.52 Underutilization * Non-Minority Woman 16.08% 18.96% 84.82 Underutilization TOTAL MWBE 25.38% 32.72% 77.55 Underutilization * Non-MWBE 74.62% 67.28% 110.92 Overutilization TOTAL African American 0.00% 2.95% 0.00 Underutilization * p <.05 Asian American 0.37% 7.44% 5.03 Underutilization * p <.05 Hispanic American 0.00% 3.23% 0.00 Underutilization * p <.05 American Indian 0.00% 0.00% - n/a n/a Portuguese American 0.00% 0.00% - n/a n/a TOTAL MINORITY 0.37% 13.76% 2.72 Underutilization * p <.05 Non-Minority Woman 9.21% 18.96% 48.56 Underutilization * p <.05 TOTAL MWBE 9.58% 32.72% 29.28 Underutilization * p <.05 Non-MWBE 90.42% 67.28% 134.40 Overutilization Griffin & Strong, 2025

175 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA, 2025 DISPARITY STUDY Table F-8: Disparity Results, Relevant Market Area, Master Vendor List Business Ownership Classification by Fiscal Year, Professional Services Using Awards Dollars, FY 2018-2022, Less than $500,000 City of Somerville Disparity Study Fiscal Year Business Ownership Classification Percent of Dollars Percent of Available Firms Disparity Index Disparate Impact of Utilization Less than 80% Statistical Significance 2018 African American 0.00% 10.49% 0.00 Underutilization * Asian American 2.38% 6.48% 36.78 Underutilization * Hispanic American 0.00% 4.38% 0.00 Underutilization * American Indian 0.00% 0.12% 0.00 Underutilization * Portuguese American 0.00% 0.56% 0.00 Underutilization * TOTAL MINORITY 2.38% 22.22% 10.73 Underutilization * Non-Minority Woman 1.96% 22.72% 8.63 Underutilization * TOTAL MWBE 4.34% 44.94% 9.67 Underutilization * Non-MWBE 95.66% 55.06% 173.72 Overutilization 2019 African American 0.00% 10.49% 0.00 Underutilization * Asian American 5.92% 6.48% 91.37 Underutilization Hispanic American 0.00% 4.38% 0.00 Underutilization * American Indian 0.00% 0.12% 0.00 Underutilization * Portuguese American 0.00% 0.56% 0.00 Underutilization * TOTAL MINORITY 5.92% 22.22% 26.65 Underutilization * Non-Minority Woman 2.18% 22.72% 9.58 Underutilization * TOTAL MWBE 8.10% 44.94% 18.02 Underutilization * Non-MWBE 91.90% 55.06% 166.91 Overutilization 2020 African American 0.00% 10.49% 0.00 Underutilization * Asian American 23.60% 6.48% 364.06 Overutilization Hispanic American 0.00% 4.38% 0.00 Underutilization * American Indian 0.00% 0.12% 0.00 Underutilization * Portuguese American 0.00% 0.56% 0.00 Underutilization * TOTAL MINORITY 23.60% 22.22% 106.19 Overutilization Non-Minority Woman 0.96% 22.72% 4.21 Underutilization * TOTAL MWBE 24.55% 44.94% 54.64 Underutilization * Non-MWBE 75.45% 55.06% 137.02 Overutilization 2021 African American 0.00% 10.49% 0.00 Underutilization * Asian American 34.38% 6.48% 530.39 Overutilization Hispanic American 0.00% 4.38% 0.00 Underutilization * American Indian 0.00% 0.12% 0.00 Underutilization * Portuguese American 0.00% 0.56% 0.00 Underutilization * TOTAL MINORITY 34.38% 22.22% 154.70 Overutilization Non-Minority Woman 0.39% 22.72% 1.70 Underutilization * TOTAL MWBE 34.76% 44.94% 77.36 Underutilization * Non-MWBE 65.24% 55.06% 118.48 Overutilization 2022 African American 0.00% 10.49% 0.00 Underutilization * Asian American 6.23% 6.48% 96.05 Underutilization Hispanic American 0.00% 4.38% 0.00 Underutilization * American Indian 0.00% 0.12% 0.00 Underutilization * Portuguese American 0.00% 0.56% 0.00 Underutilization * TOTAL MINORITY 6.23% 22.22% 28.02 Underutilization * Non-Minority Woman 0.91% 22.72% 4.01 Underutilization * TOTAL MWBE 7.14% 44.94% 15.88 Underutilization * Non-MWBE 92.86% 55.06% 168.65 Overutilization TOTAL African American 0.00% 10.49% 0.00 Underutilization * p <.05 Asian American 15.89% 6.48% 245.21 Overutilization Hispanic American 0.00% 4.38% 0.00 Underutilization * p <.05 American Indian 0.00% 0.12% 0.00 Underutilization * Small Number Portuguese American 0.00% 0.56% 0.00 Underutilization * p <.05 TOTAL MINORITY 15.89% 22.22% 71.52 Underutilization * p <.05 Non-Minority Woman 1.19% 22.72% 5.22 Underutilization * p <.05 TOTAL MWBE 17.08% 44.94% 38.01 Underutilization * p <.05 Non-MWBE 82.92% 55.06% 150.59 Overutilization Griffin & Strong, 2025

176 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA, 2025 DISPARITY STUDY Table F-9: Disparity Results, Relevant Market Area, Master Vendor List Business Ownership Classification by Fiscal Year, Other Services Using Awards Dollars, FY 2018-2022, Less than $500,000 City of Somerville Disparity Study Fiscal Year Business Ownership Classification Percent of Dollars Percent of Available Firms Disparity Index Disparate Impact of Utilization Less than 80% Statistical Significance 2018 African American 0.00% 7.86% 0.00 Underutilization * Asian American 0.00% 2.21% 0.00 Underutilization * Hispanic American 0.00% 3.43% 0.00 Underutilization * American Indian 0.00% 0.05% 0.00 Underutilization * Portuguese American 0.00% 0.63% 0.00 Underutilization * TOTAL MINORITY 0.00% 14.32% 0.00 Underutilization * Non-Minority Woman 2.55% 10.39% 24.51 Underutilization * TOTAL MWBE 2.55% 24.72% 10.31 Underutilization * Non-MWBE 97.45% 75.28% 129.45 Overutilization 2019 African American 0.00% 7.86% 0.00 Underutilization * Asian American 0.00% 2.21% 0.00 Underutilization * Hispanic American 6.38% 3.43% 185.70 Overutilization American Indian 0.00% 0.05% 0.00 Underutilization * Portuguese American 0.00% 0.63% 0.00 Underutilization * TOTAL MINORITY 6.38% 14.32% 44.52 Underutilization * Non-Minority Woman 0.57% 10.39% 5.46 Underutilization * TOTAL MWBE 6.94% 24.72% 28.10 Underutilization * Non-MWBE 93.06% 75.28% 123.61 Overutilization 2020 African American 0.00% 7.86% 0.00 Underutilization * Asian American 0.00% 2.21% 0.00 Underutilization * Hispanic American 0.05% 3.43% 1.56 Underutilization * American Indian 0.00% 0.05% 0.00 Underutilization * Portuguese American 0.00% 0.63% 0.00 Underutilization * TOTAL MINORITY 0.05% 14.32% 0.37 Underutilization * Non-Minority Woman 0.40% 10.39% 3.86 Underutilization * TOTAL MWBE 0.46% 24.72% 1.84 Underutilization * Non-MWBE 99.54% 75.28% 132.23 Overutilization 2021 African American 0.00% 7.86% 0.00 Underutilization * Asian American 0.42% 2.21% 18.82 Underutilization * Hispanic American 0.00% 3.43% 0.00 Underutilization * American Indian 0.00% 0.05% 0.00 Underutilization * Portuguese American 0.00% 0.63% 0.00 Underutilization * TOTAL MINORITY 0.42% 14.32% 2.91 Underutilization * Non-Minority Woman 6.96% 10.39% 67.00 Underutilization * TOTAL MWBE 7.38% 24.72% 29.86 Underutilization * Non-MWBE 92.62% 75.28% 123.03 Overutilization 2022 African American 0.04% 7.86% 0.52 Underutilization * Asian American 0.16% 2.21% 7.14 Underutilization * Hispanic American 0.14% 3.43% 4.01 Underutilization * American Indian 0.00% 0.05% 0.00 Underutilization * Portuguese American 0.00% 0.63% 0.00 Underutilization * TOTAL MINORITY 0.34% 14.32% 2.35 Underutilization * Non-Minority Woman 4.09% 10.39% 39.39 Underutilization * TOTAL MWBE 4.43% 24.72% 17.92 Underutilization * Non-MWBE 95.57% 75.28% 126.95 Overutilization TOTAL African American 0.01% 7.86% 0.09 Underutilization * p <.05 Asian American 0.09% 2.21% 3.95 Underutilization * p <.05 Hispanic American 1.61% 3.43% 47.02 Underutilization * p <.05 American Indian 0.00% 0.05% 0.00 Underutilization * Small Number Portuguese American 0.00% 0.63% 0.00 Underutilization * p <.05 TOTAL MINORITY 1.71% 14.32% 11.93 Underutilization * p <.05 Non-Minority Woman 2.56% 10.39% 24.64 Underutilization * p <.05 TOTAL MWBE 4.27% 24.72% 17.28 Underutilization * p <.05 Non-MWBE 95.73% 75.28% 127.16 Overutilization Griffin & Strong, 2025

177 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA, 2025 DISPARITY STUDY Table F-10: Disparity Results, Relevant Market Area, Master Vendor List Business Ownership Classification by Fiscal Year, Goods Using Awards Dollars, FY 2018-2022, Less than $500,000 City of Somerville Disparity Study Fiscal Year Business Ownership Classification Percent of Dollars Percent of Available Firms Disparity Index Disparate Impact of Utilization Less than 80% Statistical Significance 2018 African American 0.00% 2.35% 0.00 Underutilization * Asian American 0.75% 1.97% 38.27 Underutilization * Hispanic American 0.00% 1.05% 0.00 Underutilization * American Indian 0.00% 0.05% 0.00 Underutilization * Portuguese American 0.01% 0.10% 15.35 Underutilization * TOTAL MINORITY 0.77% 5.66% 13.56 Underutilization * Non-Minority Woman 2.84% 6.52% 43.52 Underutilization * TOTAL MWBE 3.60% 12.18% 29.60 Underutilization * Non-MWBE 96.40% 87.82% 109.76 Overutilization 2019 African American 0.13% 2.35% 5.52 Underutilization * Asian American 1.25% 1.97% 63.46 Underutilization * Hispanic American 0.00% 1.05% 0.00 Underutilization * American Indian 0.00% 0.05% 0.00 Underutilization * Portuguese American 0.06% 0.10% 60.94 Underutilization * TOTAL MINORITY 1.44% 5.66% 25.37 Underutilization * Non-Minority Woman 1.99% 6.52% 30.46 Underutilization * TOTAL MWBE 3.42% 12.18% 28.10 Underutilization * Non-MWBE 96.58% 87.82% 109.97 Overutilization 2020 African American 0.00% 2.35% 0.00 Underutilization * Asian American 1.30% 1.97% 66.11 Underutilization * Hispanic American 0.00% 1.05% 0.00 Underutilization * American Indian 0.00% 0.05% 0.00 Underutilization * Portuguese American 0.00% 0.10% 0.00 Underutilization * TOTAL MINORITY 1.30% 5.66% 22.97 Underutilization * Non-Minority Woman 16.96% 6.52% 260.11 Overutilization TOTAL MWBE 18.26% 12.18% 149.94 Overutilization Non-MWBE 81.74% 87.82% 93.08 Underutilization 2021 African American 0.00% 2.35% 0.00 Underutilization * Asian American 1.42% 1.97% 72.06 Underutilization * Hispanic American 0.00% 1.05% 0.00 Underutilization * American Indian 0.00% 0.05% 0.00 Underutilization * Portuguese American 0.00% 0.10% 0.00 Underutilization * TOTAL MINORITY 1.42% 5.66% 25.04 Underutilization * Non-Minority Woman 2.48% 6.52% 38.05 Underutilization * TOTAL MWBE 3.90% 12.18% 32.00 Underutilization * Non-MWBE 96.10% 87.82% 109.43 Overutilization 2022 African American 0.00% 2.35% 0.00 Underutilization * Asian American 3.95% 1.97% 201.05 Overutilization Hispanic American 0.00% 1.05% 0.00 Underutilization * American Indian 0.00% 0.05% 0.00 Underutilization * Portuguese American 0.00% 0.10% 0.00 Underutilization * TOTAL MINORITY 3.95% 5.66% 69.86 Underutilization * Non-Minority Woman 2.95% 6.52% 45.28 Underutilization * TOTAL MWBE 6.90% 12.18% 56.70 Underutilization * Non-MWBE 93.10% 87.82% 106.00 Overutilization TOTAL African American 0.02% 2.35% 0.98 Underutilization * p <.05 Asian American 1.57% 1.97% 79.75 Underutilization * Small Number Hispanic American 0.00% 1.05% 0.00 Underutilization * p <.05 American Indian 0.00% 0.05% 0.00 Underutilization * Small Number Portuguese American 0.01% 0.10% 14.99 Underutilization * Small Number TOTAL MINORITY 1.60% 5.66% 28.37 Underutilization * p <.05 Non-Minority Woman 5.75% 6.52% 88.18 Underutilization Small Number TOTAL MWBE 7.35% 12.18% 60.39 Underutilization * p <.05 Non-MWBE 92.65% 87.82% 105.49 Overutilization Griffin & Strong, 2025

178 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA, 2025 DISPARITY STUDY Table F-11: Disparity Results, Relevant Market Area, Master Vendor List Business Ownership Classification by Fiscal Year, Construction Using Awards Dollars, FY 2018-2022, Less than $1,000,000 City of Somerville Disparity Study Fiscal Year Business Ownership Classification Percent of Dollars Percent of Available Firms Disparity Index Disparate Impact of Utilization Less than 80% Statistical Significance 2018 African American 1.38% 7.34% 18.77 Underutilization * Asian American 0.00% 1.59% 0.00 Underutilization * Hispanic American 0.00% 6.86% 0.00 Underutilization * American Indian 0.00% 0.42% 0.00 Underutilization * Portuguese American 0.00% 1.11% 0.00 Underutilization * TOTAL MINORITY 1.38% 17.45% 7.90 Underutilization * Non-Minority Woman 4.28% 10.39% 41.15 Underutilization * TOTAL MWBE 5.65% 27.84% 20.31 Underutilization * Non-MWBE 94.35% 72.16% 130.75 Overutilization 2019 African American 0.00% 7.34% 0.00 Underutilization * Asian American 0.00% 1.59% 0.00 Underutilization * Hispanic American 0.00% 6.86% 0.00 Underutilization * American Indian 0.00% 0.42% 0.00 Underutilization * Portuguese American 0.04% 1.11% 3.88 Underutilization * TOTAL MINORITY 0.04% 17.45% 0.25 Underutilization * Non-Minority Woman 11.37% 10.39% 109.42 Overutilization TOTAL MWBE 11.41% 27.84% 40.98 Underutilization * Non-MWBE 88.59% 72.16% 122.77 Overutilization 2020 African American 0.00% 7.34% 0.00 Underutilization * Asian American 0.00% 1.59% 0.00 Underutilization * Hispanic American 0.00% 6.86% 0.00 Underutilization * American Indian 0.00% 0.42% 0.00 Underutilization * Portuguese American 0.00% 1.11% 0.00 Underutilization * TOTAL MINORITY 0.00% 17.45% 0.00 Underutilization * Non-Minority Woman 1.86% 10.39% 17.89 Underutilization * TOTAL MWBE 1.86% 27.84% 6.67 Underutilization * Non-MWBE 98.14% 72.16% 136.00 Overutilization 2021 African American 0.00% 7.34% 0.00 Underutilization * Asian American 0.00% 1.59% 0.00 Underutilization * Hispanic American 0.00% 6.86% 0.00 Underutilization * American Indian 0.00% 0.42% 0.00 Underutilization * Portuguese American 0.00% 1.11% 0.00 Underutilization * TOTAL MINORITY 0.00% 17.45% 0.00 Underutilization * Non-Minority Woman 10.45% 10.39% 100.56 Overutilization TOTAL MWBE 10.45% 27.84% 37.52 Underutilization * Non-MWBE 89.55% 72.16% 124.10 Overutilization 2022 African American 0.00% 7.34% 0.00 Underutilization * Asian American 0.00% 1.59% 0.00 Underutilization * Hispanic American 0.00% 6.86% 0.00 Underutilization * American Indian 0.00% 0.42% 0.00 Underutilization * Portuguese American 0.00% 1.11% 0.00 Underutilization * TOTAL MINORITY 0.00% 17.45% 0.00 Underutilization * Non-Minority Woman 4.44% 10.39% 42.79 Underutilization * TOTAL MWBE 4.44% 27.84% 15.97 Underutilization * Non-MWBE 95.56% 72.16% 132.42 Overutilization TOTAL African American 0.36% 7.34% 4.91 Underutilization * p <.05 Asian American 0.00% 1.59% 0.00 Underutilization * p <.05 Hispanic American 0.00% 6.86% 0.00 Underutilization * p <.05 American Indian 0.00% 0.42% 0.00 Underutilization * p <.05 Portuguese American 0.01% 1.11% 0.80 Underutilization * p <.05 TOTAL MINORITY 0.37% 17.45% 2.11 Underutilization * p <.05 Non-Minority Woman 6.46% 10.39% 62.19 Underutilization * p <.05 TOTAL MWBE 6.83% 27.84% 24.53 Underutilization * p <.05 Non-MWBE 93.17% 72.16% 129.12 Overutilization Griffin & Strong, 2025

179 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA, 2025 DISPARITY STUDY Table F-12: Disparity Results, Relevant Market Area, Master Vendor List Business Ownership Classification by Fiscal Year, A&E Using Awards Dollars, FY 2018-2022, Less than $1,000,000 City of Somerville Disparity Study Fiscal Year Business Ownership Percent of Percent of Disparity Disparate Impact Less than Statistical 2018 African American 1.38% 7.34% 18.77 Underutilization * Asian American 0.00% 1.59% 0.00 Underutilization * Hispanic American 0.00% 6.86% 0.00 Underutilization * American Indian 0.00% 0.42% 0.00 Underutilization * Portuguese American 0.00% 1.11% 0.00 Underutilization * TOTAL MINORITY 1.38% 17.45% 7.90 Underutilization * Non-Minority Woman 4.28% 10.39% 41.15 Underutilization * TOTAL MWBE 5.65% 27.84% 20.31 Underutilization * Non-MWBE 94.35% 72.16% 130.75 Overutilization 2019 African American 0.00% 7.34% 0.00 Underutilization * Asian American 0.00% 1.59% 0.00 Underutilization * Hispanic American 0.00% 6.86% 0.00 Underutilization * American Indian 0.00% 0.42% 0.00 Underutilization * Portuguese American 0.04% 1.11% 3.88 Underutilization * TOTAL MINORITY 0.04% 17.45% 0.25 Underutilization * Non-Minority Woman 11.37% 10.39% 109.42 Overutilization TOTAL MWBE 11.41% 27.84% 40.98 Underutilization * Non-MWBE 88.59% 72.16% 122.77 Overutilization 2020 African American 0.00% 7.34% 0.00 Underutilization * Asian American 0.00% 1.59% 0.00 Underutilization * Hispanic American 0.00% 6.86% 0.00 Underutilization * American Indian 0.00% 0.42% 0.00 Underutilization * Portuguese American 0.00% 1.11% 0.00 Underutilization * TOTAL MINORITY 0.00% 17.45% 0.00 Underutilization * Non-Minority Woman 1.86% 10.39% 17.89 Underutilization * TOTAL MWBE 1.86% 27.84% 6.67 Underutilization * Non-MWBE 98.14% 72.16% 136.00 Overutilization 2021 African American 0.00% 7.34% 0.00 Underutilization * Asian American 0.00% 1.59% 0.00 Underutilization * Hispanic American 0.00% 6.86% 0.00 Underutilization * American Indian 0.00% 0.42% 0.00 Underutilization * Portuguese American 0.00% 1.11% 0.00 Underutilization * TOTAL MINORITY 0.00% 17.45% 0.00 Underutilization * Non-Minority Woman 10.45% 10.39% 100.56 Overutilization TOTAL MWBE 10.45% 27.84% 37.52 Underutilization * Non-MWBE 89.55% 72.16% 124.10 Overutilization 2022 African American 0.00% 7.34% 0.00 Underutilization * Asian American 0.00% 1.59% 0.00 Underutilization * Hispanic American 0.00% 6.86% 0.00 Underutilization * American Indian 0.00% 0.42% 0.00 Underutilization * Portuguese American 0.00% 1.11% 0.00 Underutilization * TOTAL MINORITY 0.00% 17.45% 0.00 Underutilization * Non-Minority Woman 4.44% 10.39% 42.79 Underutilization * TOTAL MWBE 4.44% 27.84% 15.97 Underutilization * Non-MWBE 95.56% 72.16% 132.42 Overutilization TOTAL African American 0.36% 7.34% 4.91 Underutilization * p <.05 Asian American 0.00% 1.59% 0.00 Underutilization * p <.05 Hispanic American 0.00% 6.86% 0.00 Underutilization * p <.05 American Indian 0.00% 0.42% 0.00 Underutilization * p <.05 Portuguese American 0.01% 1.11% 0.80 Underutilization * p <.05 TOTAL MINORITY 0.37% 17.45% 2.11 Underutilization * p <.05 Non-Minority Woman 6.46% 10.39% 62.19 Underutilization * p <.05 TOTAL MWBE 6.83% 27.84% 24.53 Underutilization * p <.05 Non-MWBE 93.17% 72.16% 129.12 Overutilization Griffin & Strong, 2025

180 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA, 2025 DISPARITY STUDY Table F-13: Disparity Results, Relevant Market Area, Master Vendor List Business Ownership Classification by Fiscal Year, Professional Services Using Awards Dollars, FY 2018-2022, Less than $1,000,000 City of Somerville Disparity Study Fiscal Year Business Ownership Classification Percent of Dollars Percent of Available Firms Disparity Index Disparate Impact of Utilization Less than 80% Statistical Significance 2018 African American 0.00% 10.49% 0.00 Underutilization * Asian American 2.38% 6.48% 36.78 Underutilization * Hispanic American 0.00% 4.38% 0.00 Underutilization * American Indian 0.00% 0.12% 0.00 Underutilization * Portuguese American 0.00% 0.56% 0.00 Underutilization * TOTAL MINORITY 2.38% 22.22% 10.73 Underutilization * Non-Minority Woman 1.96% 22.72% 8.63 Underutilization * TOTAL MWBE 4.34% 44.94% 9.67 Underutilization * Non-MWBE 95.66% 55.06% 173.72 Overutilization 2019 African American 0.00% 10.49% 0.00 Underutilization * Asian American 3.16% 6.48% 48.79 Underutilization * Hispanic American 0.00% 4.38% 0.00 Underutilization * American Indian 0.00% 0.12% 0.00 Underutilization * Portuguese American 0.00% 0.56% 0.00 Underutilization * TOTAL MINORITY 3.16% 22.22% 14.23 Underutilization * Non-Minority Woman 1.16% 22.72% 5.11 Underutilization * TOTAL MWBE 4.32% 44.94% 9.62 Underutilization * Non-MWBE 95.68% 55.06% 173.76 Overutilization 2020 African American 0.00% 10.49% 0.00 Underutilization * Asian American 20.48% 6.48% 316.04 Overutilization Hispanic American 0.00% 4.38% 0.00 Underutilization * American Indian 0.00% 0.12% 0.00 Underutilization * Portuguese American 0.00% 0.56% 0.00 Underutilization * TOTAL MINORITY 20.48% 22.22% 92.18 Underutilization Non-Minority Woman 0.83% 22.72% 3.65 Underutilization * TOTAL MWBE 21.31% 44.94% 47.43 Underutilization * Non-MWBE 78.69% 55.06% 142.91 Overutilization 2021 African American 0.00% 10.49% 0.00 Underutilization * Asian American 25.31% 6.48% 390.46 Overutilization Hispanic American 16.22% 4.38% 370.15 Overutilization American Indian 0.00% 0.12% 0.00 Underutilization * Portuguese American 0.00% 0.56% 0.00 Underutilization * TOTAL MINORITY 41.53% 22.22% 186.89 Overutilization Non-Minority Woman 0.28% 22.72% 1.25 Underutilization * TOTAL MWBE 41.82% 44.94% 93.05 Underutilization Non-MWBE 58.18% 55.06% 105.67 Overutilization 2022 African American 0.00% 10.49% 0.00 Underutilization * Asian American 6.23% 6.48% 96.05 Underutilization Hispanic American 0.00% 4.38% 0.00 Underutilization * American Indian 0.00% 0.12% 0.00 Underutilization * Portuguese American 0.00% 0.56% 0.00 Underutilization * TOTAL MINORITY 6.23% 22.22% 28.02 Underutilization * Non-Minority Woman 0.91% 22.72% 4.01 Underutilization * TOTAL MWBE 7.14% 44.94% 15.88 Underutilization * Non-MWBE 92.86% 55.06% 168.65 Overutilization TOTAL African American 0.00% 10.49% 0.00 Underutilization * p <.05 Asian American 12.40% 6.48% 191.38 Overutilization Hispanic American 4.36% 4.38% 99.40 Underutilization Small Number American Indian 0.00% 0.12% 0.00 Underutilization * Small Number Portuguese American 0.00% 0.56% 0.00 Underutilization * p <.05 TOTAL MINORITY 16.76% 22.22% 75.42 Underutilization * p <.05 Non-Minority Woman 0.93% 22.72% 4.08 Underutilization * p <.05 TOTAL MWBE 17.69% 44.94% 39.36 Underutilization * p <.05 Non-MWBE 82.31% 55.06% 149.49 Overutilization Griffin & Strong, 2025

181 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA, 2025 DISPARITY STUDY Table F-14: Disparity Results, Relevant Market Area, Master Vendor List Business Ownership Classification by Fiscal Year, Other Services Using Awards Dollars, FY 2018-2022, Less than $1,000,000 City of Somerville Disparity Study Fiscal Year Business Ownership Classification Percent of Dollars Percent of Available Firms Disparity Index Disparate Impact of Utilization Less than 80% Statistical Significance 2018 African American 0.00% 7.86% 0.00 Underutilization * Asian American 0.00% 2.21% 0.00 Underutilization * Hispanic American 0.00% 3.43% 0.00 Underutilization * American Indian 0.00% 0.05% 0.00 Underutilization * Portuguese American 0.00% 0.63% 0.00 Underutilization * TOTAL MINORITY 0.00% 14.32% 0.00 Underutilization * Non-Minority Woman 1.65% 10.39% 15.91 Underutilization * TOTAL MWBE 1.65% 24.72% 6.69 Underutilization * Non-MWBE 98.35% 75.28% 130.64 Overutilization 2019 African American 0.00% 7.86% 0.00 Underutilization * Asian American 0.00% 2.21% 0.00 Underutilization * Hispanic American 4.60% 3.43% 134.04 Overutilization American Indian 0.00% 0.05% 0.00 Underutilization * Portuguese American 0.00% 0.63% 0.00 Underutilization * TOTAL MINORITY 4.60% 14.32% 32.14 Underutilization * Non-Minority Woman 0.41% 10.39% 3.94 Underutilization * TOTAL MWBE 5.01% 24.72% 20.28 Underutilization * Non-MWBE 94.99% 75.28% 126.17 Overutilization 2020 African American 0.00% 7.86% 0.00 Underutilization * Asian American 0.00% 2.21% 0.00 Underutilization * Hispanic American 0.03% 3.43% 0.98 Underutilization * American Indian 0.00% 0.05% 0.00 Underutilization * Portuguese American 0.00% 0.63% 0.00 Underutilization * TOTAL MINORITY 0.03% 14.32% 0.23 Underutilization * Non-Minority Woman 0.25% 10.39% 2.42 Underutilization * TOTAL MWBE 0.29% 24.72% 1.16 Underutilization * Non-MWBE 99.71% 75.28% 132.45 Overutilization 2021 African American 0.00% 7.86% 0.00 Underutilization * Asian American 0.15% 2.21% 6.86 Underutilization * Hispanic American 0.00% 3.43% 0.00 Underutilization * American Indian 0.00% 0.05% 0.00 Underutilization * Portuguese American 0.00% 0.63% 0.00 Underutilization * TOTAL MINORITY 0.15% 14.32% 1.06 Underutilization * Non-Minority Woman 2.54% 10.39% 24.41 Underutilization * TOTAL MWBE 2.69% 24.72% 10.88 Underutilization * Non-MWBE 97.31% 75.28% 129.26 Overutilization 2022 African American 0.03% 7.86% 0.37 Underutilization * Asian American 0.11% 2.21% 5.03 Underutilization * Hispanic American 0.10% 3.43% 2.82 Underutilization * American Indian 0.00% 0.05% 0.00 Underutilization * Portuguese American 0.00% 0.63% 0.00 Underutilization * TOTAL MINORITY 0.24% 14.32% 1.65 Underutilization * Non-Minority Woman 16.12% 10.39% 155.07 Overutilization TOTAL MWBE 16.35% 24.72% 66.16 Underutilization * Non-MWBE 83.65% 75.28% 111.11 Overutilization TOTAL African American 0.00% 7.86% 0.05 Underutilization * p <.05 Asian American 0.05% 2.21% 2.37 Underutilization * p <.05 Hispanic American 0.97% 3.43% 28.18 Underutilization * p <.05 American Indian 0.00% 0.05% 0.00 Underutilization * Small Number Portuguese American 0.00% 0.63% 0.00 Underutilization * p <.05 TOTAL MINORITY 1.02% 14.32% 7.15 Underutilization * p <.05 Non-Minority Woman 3.42% 10.39% 32.86 Underutilization * p <.05 TOTAL MWBE 4.44% 24.72% 17.96 Underutilization * p <.05 Non-MWBE 95.56% 75.28% 126.94 Overutilization Griffin & Strong, 2025

182 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA, 2025 DISPARITY STUDY Table F-15: Disparity Results, Relevant Market Area, Master Vendor List Business Ownership Classification by Fiscal Year, Goods Using Awards Dollars, FY 2018-2022, Less than $1,000,000 City of Somerville Disparity Study Fiscal Year Business Ownership Classification Percent of Dollars Percent of Available Firms Disparity Index Disparate Impact of Utilization Less than 80% Statistical Significance 2018 African American 0.00% 2.35% 0.00 Underutilization * Asian American 0.50% 1.97% 25.38 Underutilization * Hispanic American 0.00% 1.05% 0.00 Underutilization * American Indian 0.00% 0.05% 0.00 Underutilization * Portuguese American 0.01% 0.10% 10.18 Underutilization * TOTAL MINORITY 0.51% 5.66% 8.99 Underutilization * Non-Minority Woman 1.88% 6.52% 28.86 Underutilization * TOTAL MWBE 2.39% 12.18% 19.63 Underutilization * Non-MWBE 97.61% 87.82% 111.14 Overutilization 2019 African American 0.08% 2.35% 3.60 Underutilization * Asian American 0.81% 1.97% 41.33 Underutilization * Hispanic American 0.00% 1.05% 0.00 Underutilization * American Indian 0.00% 0.05% 0.00 Underutilization * Portuguese American 0.04% 0.10% 39.69 Underutilization * TOTAL MINORITY 0.93% 5.66% 16.53 Underutilization * Non-Minority Woman 8.59% 6.52% 131.81 Overutilization TOTAL MWBE 9.53% 12.18% 78.25 Underutilization * Non-MWBE 90.47% 87.82% 103.02 Overutilization 2020 African American 0.00% 2.35% 0.00 Underutilization * Asian American 0.93% 1.97% 47.57 Underutilization * Hispanic American 0.00% 1.05% 0.00 Underutilization * American Indian 0.00% 0.05% 0.00 Underutilization * Portuguese American 0.00% 0.10% 0.00 Underutilization * TOTAL MINORITY 0.93% 5.66% 16.53 Underutilization * Non-Minority Woman 17.07% 6.52% 261.89 Overutilization TOTAL MWBE 18.01% 12.18% 147.90 Overutilization Non-MWBE 81.99% 87.82% 93.36 Underutilization 2021 African American 0.00% 2.35% 0.00 Underutilization * Asian American 1.24% 1.97% 62.94 Underutilization * Hispanic American 0.00% 1.05% 0.00 Underutilization * American Indian 0.00% 0.05% 0.00 Underutilization * Portuguese American 0.00% 0.10% 0.00 Underutilization * TOTAL MINORITY 1.24% 5.66% 21.87 Underutilization * Non-Minority Woman 2.17% 6.52% 33.23 Underutilization * TOTAL MWBE 3.40% 12.18% 27.95 Underutilization * Non-MWBE 96.60% 87.82% 109.99 Overutilization 2022 African American 0.00% 2.35% 0.00 Underutilization * Asian American 3.95% 1.97% 201.05 Overutilization Hispanic American 0.00% 1.05% 0.00 Underutilization * American Indian 0.00% 0.05% 0.00 Underutilization * Portuguese American 0.00% 0.10% 0.00 Underutilization * TOTAL MINORITY 3.95% 5.66% 69.86 Underutilization * Non-Minority Woman 2.95% 6.52% 45.28 Underutilization * TOTAL MWBE 6.90% 12.18% 56.70 Underutilization * Non-MWBE 93.10% 87.82% 106.00 Overutilization TOTAL African American 0.02% 2.35% 0.73 Underutilization * p <.05 Asian American 1.17% 1.97% 59.29 Underutilization * p <.05 Hispanic American 0.00% 1.05% 0.00 Underutilization * p <.05 American Indian 0.00% 0.05% 0.00 Underutilization * Small Number Portuguese American 0.01% 0.10% 11.14 Underutilization * Small Number TOTAL MINORITY 1.19% 5.66% 21.09 Underutilization * p <.05 Non-Minority Woman 6.86% 6.52% 105.16 Overutilization Small Number TOTAL MWBE 8.05% 12.18% 66.10 Underutilization * p <.05 Non-MWBE 91.95% 87.82% 104.70 Overutilization Griffin & Strong, 2025

A P P E N D I X G E x p a n d e d R e g r e s s i o n A n a l y s i s C I T Y O F S O M E R V I L L E , M A 2 0 2 5 D I S P A R I T Y S T U D Y

184 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA, 2025 DISPARITY STUDY APPENDIX G: Expanded REGRESSION ANALYSIS The Tables in Appendix G (Tables 1 through 19) report additional regression results. The regression specifications and parameter estimates attempt to identify the possibly causal role that race, ethnicity, and gender have on private sector outcomes related to public contracting success, and public contracting disparities; after controlling for a variety of race-neutral capacity factors in the Relevant Market Area. The results of the G&S disparity analysis provide a framework to rationalize observed disparities in public contracting outcomes/success with the City of Somerville between MWBEs and Non-MWBEs. Our regression permits an assessment of the extent to which any observed disparities in public contracting outcomes between MWBEs and Non-MWBEs cannot be explained by differential capacities for public contracting success with the City of Somerville. Our regression specifications control for firm public contracting capacity by including measures such as the education level of the firm owner, the age and market tenure of the firm, the size of the firm with respect to the number of employees and revenues, firm bonding capacity, willingness and ability to do business with the City of Somerville, registration status, and firm financial standing. This inclusion of these control covariates in our regression specifications permits an assessment of public contracting success/failure conditional on MWBE and Non-MWBE public contracting capacity. The existence of public contracting success disparities between MWBEs and Non- MWBEs─ particularly when disaggregating by the racial/ethnic/gender status of owners, even after controlling for capacity suggests that relative to Non-MWBEs, MWBEs face barriers independent of their capacity—or their ability—in securing public contracts and subcontracts with the City of Somerville. Perhaps most indicative of racial/ethnic/gender conditioned disparities in public contracting outcomes in the Relevant Market Area, is our finding that relative to Non-MWBEs, firms owned by African Americans, Hispanic Americans, Asian Americans, an American Indians are more likely to have “never” been a prime contractor or subcontractor with the City of Somerville. This suggests that at any prime award disparities between Non-MWBEs and Certified Minority and Disadvantaged firms cannot be explained by lower prime bid submission rates. This indicative finding is underscored by our finding that relative to Non-MWBEs, the prime bid submission rates of firms classified as Minority and Women are no different. This suggests that at any prime award disparities between Non-MWBEs and MWBEs and Disadvantaged firms cannot be explained by lower prime bid submission rates. A. Statistical and Econometric Framework Methodologically, the G&S statistical and econometric analysis of possible MWBE public contracting disparities with the City of Somerville, MA utilizes both a standard Regression Model framework and a Categorical Regression Model (CRM) framework.404 As the covariates measuring public contracting activity/outcomes and and other respondent characteristics in Table 1 are categorical responses to questionaire items (e.g. public contracting bid ranges, yes, no), a CRM specifies the categories as latent variables with likelihood thresholds that are conditioned on other conditioning covariates. In the case where there are more than two categories and the succession of categories have a natural ranking, a CRM permits a determination as to how particular covariates condition the likelihood/probability of being in the highest 404 For overview of the CRM, See: Richard D. McKelvey and William Zavoina. 1975. “A Statistical Model for the Analysis of Ordinal Level Dependent Variables," Journal of Mathematical Sociology, 4: pp. 103 - 120.

185 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA, 2025 DISPARITY STUDY valued category relative to the lower-valued categories. In the case of just two categorical but not naturally ordered categories, the CRM reduces to a Binary Regression Model (BRM).405 We first use a relevant CRM/BRM to estimate the linear predictions of particular ordinal-ranked outcomes as a function of the presumably “race-neutral” capacity of the firm. The motivation here is to initially determine how particular market and public sector contracting outcomes are determined by factors other than the ethnicity/race/gender and MWBE classification status of the firm. The estimated linear predictions are then standardized and utilized in regression specification where the regressors are the binary ethnicity/race/gender and MWBE indicators for individuals. To control for omitted variables in our regression specifications that undermine a causal interpretation of estimated parameters, we estimate Fixed Effect regression specifications, that condition the unobservables on the firm’s primarly line of business. 406 The estimated coefficients inform the extent to which ethnicity/race/gender and MWBE status impact the likelihood of an outcome, on average, relative to Non-MWBEs.407 We determine statistical significance on the basis of the estimated coefficient’s probability value—or P- value. The P-value is the probability of obtaining an estimate of the coefficient by chance alone, assuming that the null hypothesis of the variable having a zero effect is true. As a convention, G&S rejects the null hypothesis of no effect, and concludes the estimated coefficient is statistically significant as long as P-value ≤ .05, which we highlight in bold for all parameter estimates. In all instances, the estimated standard errors are “robust” with respect to heteroskedasticity. We also report the R2 as a goodness-of-fit measure. 405 More formally, if the latent realization of an outcome is , ranging from - to , a structural and conditional specification for is = X + , where X is a vector of exogenous covariates, is a vector of coefficients measuring the effects of particular covariates on the realization of , and is a random error. For categorical and ordinal outcomes = 1 , = if , where the are thresholds for the particular realizations of = . Conditional on X the likelihood/probability that takes on a particular realization is ( = X) = ( - X ) - ( - X ), where is the cumulative density function of . The G&S methodology utilizes covariates that control and/or proxy for the education level of the firm owner, the age of the firm, the size of the firm with respect to the number of employees and revenues, firm bonding capacity, and firm financial standing. 406The primary line of business indicates one of 5 sectors in which the respondent’s firm operates in: Construction, Architecture & Engineering, Professional Services, Non-Professional Services/Other Services, and Goods. Sector membership is a firm/respondent characteristic that is a plausible source of unobserved heterogeneity, as each sector is distinct and the individual selection characteristics within each sector is likely stable. For an overview of Fixed Effects regression and their utility in enabling causal interpretations of parameter estimates, see: Matthias Breuer and Ed Dehaan, 2024. "Using and Interpreting Fixed Effects Models." Journal of Accounting Research 62(4): pp. 1183 - 1226. 407 In particular, let ypi be the predicted linear probability for a particular ordinal outcome estimate from a CRM or BRM, the regressand in the regression model is pi = [ypi – μy]/σy, where μy is the mean of ypi, and σy is the standard deviation of ypi. * iY   * iY * iY i  i  * iY i m J iY m 1 − m   * iY < m  i * iY m iY Pr iY m |  m    1 − m    

186 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA, 2025 DISPARITY STUDY Our regression strategy also reports on two different specifications of the outcome of interest. The first one includes a broad classification of non-white firms as measured by whether or not they are certified and/or deemed as MWBEs. Each category in this regression approach will have overlap of firms owned by particular racial/ethnic groups and Women. As this overlap might mask differences in outcomes for particular MBEs and Women, the second specification disaggregates the broad categories by specific racial/ethnic/gender groups. The exposition and discussion of the results are, in general, couched in terms of whether the outcome of interest suggests that broad MWBE and race/ethnicity/gender/status characteristics of a firm is a possible driver or not of public contracting and other relevant disparities with respect to Non-MWBEs in the Relevant Market Area. In particular, we do not necessarily exposit upon the statistical insignificance or significance of MWBE or racial/ethnic/gender status in a regression if it is not uniform across all the various categories, as the absence of such a uniformity suggests that for particular MWBEs, or on average, the outcome of interest is a driver of public contracting disparities in the Relevant Market Area, and can be at least partially explained by MWBE and/or racial/ethnic/gender status. B. G&S Survey of Business Owners Data The Study’s analysis is based on survey data compiled by G&S, and constitutes a sample of firms from the bidder and vendor lists provided by the City of Somerville. The G&S survey was a questionnaire that captured data on firm and individual owner characteristics in the Relevant Market Area. The questionaire was sent to certified firms, prequalified firms, awardees, and subcontractors. Table 1 reports, for the 191 survey responses captured, a statistical summary of the variables that are relevant to the G&S regression- based analysis of outcomes relevant to, and informative of, public procurment disparities in the Relevant Market Area. The variables marked with an asterisk are those utilitized as factors determining a firm’s race- neutral capacity to compete in both the private and public sector of the Relevant Market Area. All responses are relevant for the Study Period.

187 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA, 2025 DISPARITY STUDY Table 1: Statistical Summary of Variables Covariate Description Mean Standard Deviation Number of Observations Firm entered market within past five years Binary Variable: 1 = yes .160 .368 212 Number of times denied a commercial bank loan Ordinal Variable: 1 = 0 2 = 1 – 10 3 = 11 – 25 4 = 26 – 50 5 = 51 – 100 6 = Over 100 .745 .577 212 Number of prime bids submitted on the Somerville, MA projects Ordinal Variable: 1 = 0 2 = 1 – 10 3 = 11 – 25 4 = 26 – 50 5 = 51 – 100 6 = Over 100 1.25 .652 212 Number of Somerville, MA prime contracts awarded since 2017 Ordinal Variable: 1 = 0 2 = 1 – 10 3 = 11 – 25 4 = 26 – 50 5 = 51 – 100 6 = Over 100 1.137 .58 212 Number of Somerville, MA subcontracts awarded since 2017 Ordinal Variable: 1 = 0 2 = 1 – 10 3 = 11 – 25 4 = 26 – 50 5 = 51 – 100 6 = Over 100 1.033 .481 212 Neither Prime or Subcontract awarded since 2017 Binary Variable: 1 = Yes .665 .473 212 Firm has experienced private sector discrimination Binary Variable: 1 = Yes .665 .473 212 Firm has experienced discrimination at Somerville, MA Binary Variable 1 = Yes .538 .5 212 Firm owner agrees informal relationships with the Somerville, MA is a Barrier to securing contracts Binary Variable 1 = Yes .325 .47 212 Owner has more than 20 years of experience Binary Variable 1 = Yes .717 .452 212 Firm has more than 10 employees* Binary Variable 1 = Yes .363 .482 212 Firm owner has a baccalaureate/post-graduate degree* Binary Variable: 1 =Yes .415 .494 212 Firm gross revenue greater than $1,500,000* Binary Variable: 1 = Yes .019 .136 212

188 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA, 2025 DISPARITY STUDY Firm bonding limit greater than $2,500,000* Binary Variable: 1 = Yes .774 .42 212 Financing is a Barrier to Submitting* Bids and Securing Contracts From Somerville MA Binary Variable: 1 = Yes .943 .232 212 Performance Bonds are a Barrier to Submitting* Bids and Securing Contracts From Somerville MA Binary Variable: 1 = Yes .547 .499 212 Firm is in the construction sector Binary Variable: 1 = Yes .071 .257 212 Firm is registered with Somerville MA* Binary Variable: 1 = Yes .042 .202 212 Firm is a certified Minority Business Enterprise Binary Variable: 1 = Yes .047 .213 212 Firm is a certified Woman Business enterprise Binary Variable: 1 = Yes .429 .363 212 Firm is a certified Disabled Business Enterprise Binary Variable: 1 = Yes .071 .257 212 Firm is a certified LGBTQ+ Business Enterprise Binary Variable: 1 = Yes .042 .272 212 Firm is a certified Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Binary Variable: 1 = Yes .170 .136 212 Firm is a certified Veteran owned Business Enterprise Binary Variable: 1 = Yes .047 .118 212 Majority Firm Owner is African American Binary Variable: 1 = Yes .156 .202 212 Majority Firm Owner is Hispanic American Binary Variable: 1 = Yes .071 .5 212 Majority Firm Owner is Asian American Binary Variable: 1 = Yes .081 .577 212 Majority Firm Owner is American Indian Binary Variable: 1 = Yes .019 .58 212 Majority Firm Owner is Biracial/multiracial Binary Variable: 1 =Yes .014 .473 212 Majority Firm Owner is Other Race Binary Variable: 1 = Yes .042 .473 212 Majority Firm Owner is Portuguese American Binary Variable: 1 = Yes .019 .5 212 Majority Firm Owner is a Woman Binary Variable: 1 = Yes .528 .47 212 Firms sometimes solicit subcontract quotes from MWBEs, but don’t use them Binary Variable: 1 = Yes .212 .410 212 *Covariate utilized as a proxy for firm capacity Source: Griffin & Strong, 2025

189 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA, 2025 DISPARITY STUDY C. MWBE Status and Firm Entry in the Relevant Market Area To determine if MWBE status is a barrier to the formation of new businesses in the Relevant Market Area, Tables 2 and 3 report, for each of the distinct MWBEs and owner self-reported race/ethnicity in the G&S sample, the estimated parameters of an Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) Regression with the standardized linear probability of being a new firm as the dependent variable. The statistically significant parameter estimates in Tables 2 suggest that relative to Non-MWBE owned firms, firms classified/certified as Minority owned and Women owned, are more likely to be new firms in the Relevant Market Area. When disaggregated by race/gender/ethnicity status, the statistical significance for the estimated coefficients in Table 3 suggest that firms owned by, Asian Americans, Bi/Multiracials, and Women are relatively more likely to be new firms. This suggests that any public contracting disparities between Non-MWBEs and firms owned by these type of MWBEs can possibly be explained by differential rates of market experience. Table 2 Fixed Effects Regression Parameter Estimates-Firm Entry: Firm Certification Type and New Firm Entry Probabilities in the Relevant Market Area Coefficient P-Value Regressand: Standardized linear prediction that firm is a new entrant to market Firm is a Certified Minority Business Enterprise: (Binary) 0.4293 0.0000 Firm is a Certified Woman Enterprise: (Binary) 0.3161 0.0027 Firm is a Certified Disabled Firm: (Binary) 0.0789 0.8095 Firm is a Certified LGBTQ+ Firm: (Binary) 0.1493 0.3994 Firm is a Certified Disadvantaged Firm: (Binary) 0.0421 0.7135 Firm is a Certified Veteran owned Firm: (Binary) 0.0396 0.8939 Constant -0.3041 0.0190 Number of Observations 208 R2 0.0730 Griffin & Strong, 2025

190 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA, 2025 DISPARITY STUDY Table 3 Fixed Effects Regression Parameter Estimates-Firm Entry: Firm Owner Race/Ethnicity/Gender and New Firm Entry Probabilities in the Relevant Market Area Coefficient P-Value Regressand: Standardized linear prediction that firm is a new entrant to market Firm is African American owned: (Binary) 0.5841 0.0000 Firm is Hispanic American owned: (Binary) 0.1063 0.7477 Firm is Asian American owned: (Binary) 0.6228 0.0104 Firm is American Indian owned: (Binary) -0.0778 0.6046 Firm is Bi/Multiracial owned: (Binary) 1.0978 0.0000 Firm is Other Race owned: (Binary) 0.0034 0.9724 Firm is Portuguese American owned: (Binary) 0.6729 0.0706 Firm is Woman owned: (Binary) 0.2905 0.0000 Constant -0.3309 0.0031 Number of Observations 208 R2 0.1062 Griffin & Strong, 2025 D. MWBE Status and Number of Prime Bid Submissions In the Relevant Market Area One reason disparities in public contracting outcomes between MWBEs and Non-MWBEs could exist is that relative to Non-MWBEs, MWBEs may be less interested in, and/or less likely to submit bids for public contracts. To determine if this is the case in the Relevant Market Area, Tables 4 and 5 report regression parameter estimates with the linear prediction of number of prime bid submissions as the dependent variable. Relative to Non-MWBE firms, the parameter estimates in Table 4 suggest firms there are not differences between Non-MWBEs and Classified/Certified MWBEs in the Relevant Market Area. When disaggregating by race/ethnicity/gender/ status, the parameter estimates in Table 5 indicate that firms owned by Asian Americans, are less likely to submit prime bids relative to Non-MWBEs. This suggests that any disparities in public procurement outcomes between firms owned by Asian Americans and Non-MWBEs in the Relevant Market Area can possibly be explained by their relatively lower prime bid submissions rates.

191 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA, 2025 DISPARITY STUDY Table 4 Fixed Effects Regression Parameter Estimates-Prime Submissions: Firm Certification Type and Number of Prime Bid Submissions In the Relevant Market Area Coefficient P-value Regressand: Standardized linear prediction of number of prime bid submissions Firm is a Certified Minority business enterprise: (Binary) -0.3454 0.0621 Firm is a Certified woman enterprise: (Binary) -0.0278 0.5327 Firm is a Certified Disabled Firm: (Binary) 0.3578 0.2423 Firm is a Certified LGBTQ+ Firm: (Binary) -0.1796 0.0659 Firm is a Certified Disadvantaged Firm: (Binary) 0.0214 0.8917 Firm is a Certified Veteran owned Firm: (Binary) -0.6281 0.1749 Constant 0.1375 0.3584 Number of Observations 212 R2 0.0433 Griffin & Strong, 2025 Table 5 Fixed Effects Regression Parameter Estimates -Prime Submissions: Firm Owner Race/Ethnicity/Gender and Number of Prime Bid Submissions In the Relevant Market Area Coefficient P-value Regressand: Standardized linear prediction of number of prime bid submissions Firm is African American owned: (Binary) -0.1905 0.2468 Firm is Hispanic American owned: (Binary) -0.1756 0.5840 Firm is Asian American owned: (Binary) -0.5409 0.0413 Firm is American Indian owned: (Binary) -0.2111 0.6997 Firm is Bi/Multiracial owned: (Binary) -0.1870 0.4182 Firm is Other Race owned: (Binary) -0.0336 0.7583 Firm is Portuguese American owned: (Binary) -0.5097 0.1436 Firm is Woman owned: (Binary) -0.0747 0.4294 Constant 0.1426 0.1352 Number of Observations 212 R2 0.0290 Griffin & Strong, 2025 E. MWBE Status and Number of Prime Contracts Awarded In the Relevant Market Area As the submission of prime bids is an input to prime bid success, notwithstanding any disparities in prime bid submission rates between MWBEs and Non-MWBEs, are there disparities in public contracting success conditional upon unobserved submission rates? To explore this in the case in the Relevant Market Area, Tables 6 and 7 report regression parameter estimates where the dependent variable is the linear prediction of number of prime contracts awarded.

192 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA, 2025 DISPARITY STUDY Relative to Non-MWBEs, the parameter estimates in Tables 6 suggest that firms classified/certified as Minority owned and Women owned are less likely to win prime contracts in the Relevant Market Area. When disaggregating by the race/ethnicity/gender status of firm owners in Table 7, the estimated parameters suggest that relative to Non-MWBEs, firms owned by African Americans, Hispanic Americans, Asian Americans, Bi/multiracials, Portuguese Americans, and Women are less likely to win prime contract awards from the City of Somerville. This suggests that, at least for these type of MWBEs, there are prime contracting award disparities between them and Non-MWBEs in Somerville. Table 6 Fixed Effects Regression Parameter Estimates -Prime Awards: Firm Certification Type and Number of Prime Contracts Awarded In the Relevant Market Area Coefficient P-value Regressand: Standardized linear prediction of number of prime contracts awarded Firm is a Certified Minority business enterprise: (Binary) -0.5190 0.0005 Firm is a Certified Woman Enterprise: (Binary) -0.1322 0.0483 Firm is a Certified Disabled Firm: (Binary) 0.3964 0.4208 Firm is a Certified LGBTQ+ Firm: (Binary) -0.1338 0.4721 Firm is a Certified Disadvantaged Firm: (Binary) 0.0261 0.8974 Firm is a Certified Veteran owned Firm: (Binary) -0.5339 0.3593 Constant 0.2314 0.1159 Number of Observations 212 R2 0.0765 Griffin & Strong, 2025 Table 7 Fixed Effects Regression Parameter Estimates Prime Awards: Firm Owner Race/Ethnicity/Gender and Number of Prime Contracts Awarded In the Relevant Market Area Coefficient P-value Regressand: Standardized linear prediction of number of prime contracts awarded Firm is African American owned: (Binary) -0.3318 0.0437 Firm is Hispanic American owned: (Binary) -0.3979 0.0234 Firm is Asian American owned: (Binary) -0.6284 0.0081 Firm is American Indian owned: (Binary) -0.1616 0.7271 Firm is Bi/Multiracial owned: (Binary) -0.4017 0.0093 Firm is Other Race owned: (Binary) -0.0293 0.6632 Firm is Portuguese American owned: (Binary) -0.6196 0.0744 Firm is Woman owned: (Binary) -0.1697 0.0125 Constant 0.2415 0.0095 Number of Observations 212 R2 0.0551 Griffin & Strong, 2025

193 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA, 2025 DISPARITY STUDY F. MWBE Status and Number of Subcontracts Awarded In the Relevant Market Area To the extent that submitting and winning public contract bids requires experience, which can also be gained through subcontracting with lead prime firms with Somerville contracts, MWBEs can potentially become more frequent and successful prime contract bidders by acquiring experience as subcontractors. As such, the low-frequency of prime bid submission and lower likelihood of being a prime contractor by MWBEs need not be a concern if they are gaining valuable subcontracting experience that will translate into high frequency contract bids and success later. To explore if this is the case in the Relevant Market Area, Tables 8 and 9 report regression parameter estimates where the dependent variable is the linear prediction of number of subcontracts awarded. Relative to Non-MWBEs, the parameter estimates in Tables 8 suggest that firms, broadly classified/certified as Minority owned and Woman owned are less likely to win subcontracts with the City of Somerville. When disaggregating by the race/ethnicity/gender status of firm owners in Table 9, the estimated parameters suggest that relative to Non-MWBEs, firms owned by Hispanic Americans, Asian Americans, Bi/multiracials, and Women are less likely to win a subcontract award from the City of Somerville. This suggests that at least for these type of MWBEs, any disparities between them and Non- MWBEs in public contracting awards can be explained, at least in part, by differential experiences acquired through subcontracting. Table 8 Fixed Effects Regression Parameter Estimates-Sub Awards: Firm Certification Type and Number of Subcontracts Awarded In the Relevant Market Area Coefficient P-value Regressand: Standardized linear prediction of number of subcontracts awarded Firm is a Certified Minority Business Enterprise: (Binary) -0.4285 0.0000 Firm is a Certified Woman Enterprise: (Binary) -0.1546 0.0298 Firm is a Certified Disabled Firm: (Binary) 0.3883 0.4289 Firm is a Certified LGBTQ+ Firm: (Binary) -0.1859 0.6032 Firm is a Certified Disadvantaged Firm: (Binary) 0.0904 0.3963 Firm is a Certified Veteran owned Firm: (Binary) -0.5039 0.0017 Constant 0.2007 0.3461 Number of Observations 212 R2 0.0602 Griffin & Strong, 2025

194 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA, 2025 DISPARITY STUDY Table 9 Fixed Effects Regression Parameter Estimates-Sub Awards: Firm Owner Race/Ethnicity/Gender and Number of Subcontracts Awarded In the Relevant Market Area Coefficient P-value Regressand: Standardized linear prediction of number of subcontracts awarded Firm is African American owned: (Binary) -0.1218 0.3807 Firm is Hispanic American owned: (Binary) -0.3633 0.0122 Firm is Asian American owned: (Binary) -0.5555 0.0284 Firm is American Indian owned: (Binary) -0.2723 0.6973 Firm is Bi/Multiracial owned: (Binary) -1.0117 0.0000 Firm is Other Race owned: (Binary) 0.2966 0.5866 Firm is Portuguese American owned: (Binary) -1.0388 0.0506 Firm is Woman owned: (Binary) -0.1561 0.0301 Constant 0.1982 0.2244 Number of Observations 212 R2 0.0712 Griffin & Strong, 2025 G. MWBE Status and No Prime or Subcontract Awarded in Relevant Market Area As the results in Tables 8 and 9 reflect only the effect of MWBE status on the number of Somerville contracts and subcontracts, it may obscure the effects of, and the distribution of, zero outcomes⸻never having secured a prime contract and subcontract with the City of Somerville. Tables 10 and 11 report Logit parameter estimates where the dependent variable is whether the firm “never” won since 2017 a prime contract or subcontract from the City of Somerville. The absence of statistical significance for the estimated parameters in Table 10 suggest that relative to Non-MWBEs, firm classified/certified as Minority owned have a higher likelihood of never wining a prime contract of subcontract. Disaggregating by race/ethnicity/gender status, the results in Table 11 suggest that firms owned by Hispanic Americans, Asian Americans, and Bi/multiracials are more likely to have “never” been a prime contractor or subcontractor with the City of Somerville. To the extent that success in public contracting is proportional to having prior prime contracts or subcontracts, this suggests that for these type of MWBEs, any contracting disparities between and Non-MWBEs can possibly be explained by their relative disadvantage in having secured prior prime contracts or subcontracts from the City of Somerville.

195 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA, 2025 DISPARITY STUDY Table 10 Fixed Effects Regression Parameter Estimates: Firm Certification Type and No Prime or Subcontracts Awarded In the Relevant Market Area Coefficient P-value Regressand: Standardized linear prediction of number of no prime or subcontracts awarded Firm is a Certified Minority Business enterprise: (Binary) 0.2779 0.0119 Firm is a Certified Woman Enterprise: (Binary) 0.0047 0.8722 Firm is a Certified Disabled Firm: (Binary) -0.2990 0.2298 Firm is a Certified LGBTQ+ Firm: (Binary) 0.0787 0.6799 Firm is a Certified Disadvantaged Firm: (Binary) 0.0678 0.6510 Firm is a Certified Veteran owned Firm: (Binary) 0.1967 0.1451 Constant 0.4016 0.0000 Number of Observations 212 R2 0.0671 Griffin & Strong, 2025 Table 11 Fixed Effects Regression Parameter Estimates: Firm Owner Race/Ethnicity/Gender and No Prime or Subcontracts Awarded In the Relevant Market Area Coefficient P-value Regressand: Standardized linear prediction of number of no prime or subcontracts awarded Firm is African American owned: (Binary) 0.0926 0.3078 Firm is Hispanic American owned: (Binary) 0.2696 0.0013 Firm is Asian American owned: (Binary) 0.3488 0.0052 Firm is American Indian owned: (Binary) 0.1091 0.6276 Firm is Bi/Multiracial owned: (Binary) 0.4213 0.0023 Firm is Other Race owned: (Binary) 0.1894 0.3428 Firm is Portuguese American owned: (Binary) 0.3845 0.3053 Firm is Woman owned: (Binary) 0.0572 0.2691 Constant 0.3860 0.0000 Number of Observations 212 R2 0.0494 Griffin & Strong, 2025 H. MWBE Status and Perceived Discrimination in the Somerville MA Private Sector Disparate contracting and subcontracting outcomes between MWBEs and Non-MWBEs could reflect, at least in part, the effects of discrimination against them by private sector firms, which discourages their entry into the market, and/or undermines their capacity to compete for public sector projects. In Tables 12 and 13, we report OLS parameter estimates of the the effects of MWBE status on the standardized probability having experienced discrimination─in particular the perception of having experienced discrimination in the private sector of the Relevant Market Area

196 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA, 2025 DISPARITY STUDY If perceptions of discrimination correlate positively with actual discrimination in the private sector, the estimated parameters in Table 12 suggest that there are no differences between MWBES and Non-MWBEs with respect to private sector discrimination. When disaggregated by the race/ethnicity/gender status of firm owners, the estimated parameters in Table 13 suggest there are no differences between Non-MWBEs and MWBES with respect to private sector discrimination. This suggests that, at least in the Relevant Market Area, private sector discrimination that undermines capacity to compete for public procurement awards, can’t explain, public contracting disparities MWBEs and Non-MWBEs Table 12 Fixed Effects Regression Parameter Estimates-Private Sector Discrimination Firm Certification Type and Perceived Discrimination in the Somerville MA Private Sector Coefficient P-value Regressand: Standardized linear prediction of experiencing perceived discrimination in the private sector Firm is a Certified Minority business enterprise: (Binary) 0.0802 0.5956 Firm is a Certified woman enterprise: (Binary) -0.1242 0.0966 Firm is a Certified Disabled Firm: (Binary) -0.2464 0.1233 Firm is a Certified LGBTQ+ Firm: (Binary) 0.0865 0.6927 Firm is a Certified Disadvantaged Firm: (Binary) 0.0698 0.7224 Firm is a Certified Veteran owned Firm: (Binary) 0.4498 0.2324 Constant 0.0068 0.9557 Number of Observations 212 R2 0.0144 Griffin & Strong, 2025 Table 13 Fixed Effects Regression Parameter Estimates-Private Sector Discrimination Firm Owner Race/Ethnicity/Gender and Perceived Discrimination in the Somerville MA Private Sector Coefficient P-value Regressand: Standardized linear prediction of experiencing perceived discrimination in the private sector Firm is African American owned: (Binary) 0.0355 0.8640 Firm is Hispanic American owned: (Binary) -0.0544 0.8532 Firm is Asian American owned: (Binary) 0.2234 0.3030 Firm is American Indian owned: (Binary) 0.0153 0.9407 Firm is Bi/Multiracial owned: (Binary) -0.1511 0.6081 Firm is Other Race owned: (Binary) 0.2256 0.4572 Firm is Portuguese American owned: (Binary) 0.0599 0.7840 Firm is Woman owned: (Binary) -0.0659 0.5838 Constant 0.0064 0.9411 Number of Observations 212 R2 0.0069 Griffin & Strong, 2025

197 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA, 2025 DISPARITY STUDY I. MWBE Status and Perceived Discrimination in the City of Somerville Disparate contracting and subcontracting outcomes between MWBEs and Non-MWBEs could reflect, at least in part, the effects of discrimination against them by the City of Somerville, which conditions their entry into the market, and opportunities for success in the Relevant Market Area.408 In Tables 14 and 15, G&S reports OLS parameter estimates of the the effects of MWBE status on the standardized probability of having experienced discrimination─in particular the perception of having experienced discrimination in the Relevant Market Area. If perceptions of discrimination correlate positively with actual discrimination in the Relevant Market Area, the estimated parameters in Table 14 suggest that suggest that for firms classified/certified as Minority owned or Woman owned, there is no experience of discrimination relative to Non-MWBEs in the City of Somerville. When disaggregated by the race/ethnicity/gender status of firm owners, the statistical significance of the estimated parameters in Table 14 suggest that relative to Non-MWBEs, firms owned by African Americans, American Indians, Bi/multiracials, and Portuguese Americans are more likely to experience discrimination in the City of Somerville. To the extent that discrimination in the City of Somerville can undermine the capacity of MWBEs to compete for public sector procurement, this suggests that discrimination in the City of Somerville can explain, at least in part, public contracting disparities between Non-MWBEs and these type of MWBEs. Table 14 Fixed Effects Regression Parameter Estimates-Somerville MA Discrimination Firm Certification Type and Perceived Discrimination in the City of Somerville Coefficient P-value Regressand: Standardized linear prediction of experiencing perceived discrimination at Somerville MA Firm is a Certified Minority Business Enterprise: (Binary) -0.2698 0.0484 Firm is a Certified Woman Enterprise: (Binary) -0.2932 0.0364 Firm is a Certified Disabled Firm: (Binary) -0.0756 0.8500 Firm is a Certified LGBTQ+ Firm: (Binary) -0.0579 0.8964 Firm is a Certified Disadvantaged Firm: (Binary) 0.1013 0.3615 Firm is a Certified Veteran owned Firm: (Binary) 0.3808 0.3403 Constant 0.1901 0.2687 Number of Observations 212 R2 0.0418 Griffin & Strong, 2025 408 For the effects that discrimination can have upon the entry and performance of Minority owned firms. See: Borjas, George J., and Stephen G. Bronars. 1989."Consumer Discrimination and Self-employment." Journal of Political Economy, 97: pp. 581-605.

198 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA, 2025 DISPARITY STUDY Table 15 Fixed Effects Regression Parameter Estimates-Somerville MA Discrimination Firm Owner Race/Ethnicity/Gender and Perceived Discrimination in the City of Somerville Coefficient P-value Regressand: Standardized linear prediction of experiencing perceived discrimination at Somerville MA Firm is African American owned: (Binary) -0.2532 0.0331 Firm is Hispanic American owned: (Binary) -0.2496 0.3988 Firm is Asian American owned: (Binary) -0.2709 0.1535 Firm is American Indian owned: (Binary) -0.3356 0.0000 Firm is Bi/Multiracial owned: (Binary) -0.5259 0.0542 Firm is Other Race owned: (Binary) 0.0241 0.9634 Firm is Portuguese American- owned: (Binary) -0.3549 0.0049 Firm is Woman owned: (Binary) -0.2279 0.0899 Constant 0.2187 0.0676 Number of Observations 212 R2 0.0311 Griffin & Strong, 2025 J. MWBE Status and Formal/Informal Contracting Networks In the Relevant Market Area Similar to discrimination in Somerville, the existence of formal/informal public contracting networks that confer advantages to insiders in securing public contracts and subcontracts, and exclude MWBEs, could possibly have an adverse effect on MWBEs ability to secure public contracts and subcontracts with the City of Somerville.409 To explore the role of such formal/informal networks, Tables 16 and 17 report OLS parameter estimates where the dependent variable is the standardized linear probability that the firm owner agrees that a lack of a relationship with the City of Somerville is a barrier to winning contracts. Relative to Non-MWBEs, the parameter estimates in Table 16 suggest that firms certified/classified as Minority owned are more likely to percieve that informal relationships matter for contracting success with the City of Somerville. When disaggregated by the race/ethnicity/gender status of firm owners, the estimated parameters in Table 17 suggest thatrelative to Non-MWBEs, firms owned by African Americans, Bi/multi-racials, Other Race, and Women are more likely to agree informal networks are important for public contracting success with the City of Somerville. This suggests that, at least for these type of MWBEs, contracting disparities between them and Non-MWBEs can explained, at least in part, by their exclusion from the City of Somerville public contracting networks that reduces their ability to secure prime contracts and subcontracts. 409 For evidence that access to informal networks can increase the likelihood of success in securing public contracting See: Sedita, Silvia Rita, and Roberta Apa. 2015. "The Impact of Inter-organizational Relationships on Contractors' Success in Winning Public Procurement Projects: The Case of the Construction Industry in the Veneto Region." International Journal of Project Management, 33: pp. 1548- 1562.

199 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA, 2025 DISPARITY STUDY Table 16 Fixed Effects Regression Parameter Estimates-City Informal Contracting Networks Firm Certification Type and Formal/Informal City Relationships In the Relevant Market Area Coefficient P-value Regressand: Standardized linear prediction of agreeing that formal/ informal City Relationships are Barriers to securing contracts Firm is a Certified Minority Business Enterprise: (Binary) 0.4754 0.0000 Firm is a Certified Woman Enterprise: (Binary) 0.2781 0.0502 Firm is a Certified Disabled Firm: (Binary) -0.0700 0.8686 Firm is a Certified LGBTQ+ Firm: (Binary) 0.0929 0.8133 Firm is a Certified Disadvantaged Firm: (Binary) 0.1923 0.3178 Firm is a Certified Veteran owned Firm: (Binary) -0.1680 0.6775 Constant -0.3045 0.0164 Number of Observations 212 R2 0.0898 Griffin & Strong, 2025 Table 17 Fixed Effects Regression Parameter Estimates-City Informal Contracting Networks Firm Owner Race/Ethnicity/Gender and Formal/Informal City Relationships In the Relevant Market Area Coefficient P-value Regressand: Standardized linear prediction of agreeing that formal/ informal City Relationships are Barriers to securing contracts Firm is African American owned: (Binary) 0.5533 0.0001 Firm is Hispanic American owned: (Binary) 0.3298 0.3333 Firm is Asian American owned: (Binary) 0.4089 0.0424 Firm is American Indian owned: (Binary) -0.2362 0.0197 Firm is Bi/Multiracial owned: (Binary) 0.4353 0.0000 Firm is Other Race owned: (Binary) 0.2996 0.0000 Firm is Portuguese American owned: (Binary) 0.2307 0.5343 Firm is Woman owned: (Binary) 0.3156 0.0018 Constant -0.3278 0.0091 Number of Observations 212 R2 0.0801 Griffin & Strong, 2025

200 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA, 2025 DISPARITY STUDY K. Non-Minority Prime Contractor Use of MWBEs in the Relevant Market Area To the extent that the City of Somerville requires prime contractors to utilize MWBEs as subcontractors, a counterfactual worth considering is how effective such a requirement is. In particular, in the absence of such a policy, MWBE subcontractors in Relevant Market Area could fare worse, as Lovaton et al (2012) found in the case of New Jersey’s implementation of a race-neutral public procurement program.410 To explore this, Tables 18 and 19 report OLS parameter estimates where the dependent variable is the standardized linear probability that the firm owner agrees that non-Minority prime contractors often solicit MWBEs but don’t use them. The statistical significance of the estimated parameters in Table 18 suggest that that relative to Non- MWBEs, firms certified as MBE are more likely to agree that Non-MWBE prime contractor firms often solicit, but do no use MWBEs in the City of Somerville. When disaggregated by the race/ethnicity/gender status of firm owners, the estimated parameters in Table 19 suggest that relative to Non-MWBEs, firms owned by African Americans and Women are more likely to agree that Non-MWBE often solicit, but do no use MWBEs in the City of Somerville. This suggests that, at least for these type of MWBEs, contracting disparities between them and Non-MWBEs can explained, at least in part, by the lack of enforcing MWBE participation requirements on public contracting awards to Non-MWBEs in the City of Somerville. Table 18 Fixed Effects Regression Parameter Estimates: Firm Certification Type and Solicitation/Use of MWBEs By Non-Minority Prime Contractors In the Relevant Market Area Coefficient P-value Regressand: Standardized linear prediction of agreeing that non-Minority prime contractors solicit, but don’t use MWBEs Firm is a Certified Minority Business Enterprise: (Binary) 0.4513 0.0000 Firm is a Certified Woman Enterprise: (Binary) 0.2963 0.0946 Firm is a Certified Disabled Firm: (Binary) -0.1011 0.8458 Firm is a Certified LGBTQ+ Firm: (Binary) 0.1176 0.6633 Firm is a Certified Disadvantaged Firm: (Binary) 0.0090 0.9502 Firm is a Certified Veteran owned Firm: (Binary) 0.1988 0.7174 Constant -0.2916 0.0089 Number of Observations 208 R2 0.0691 Griffin & Strong, 2025 410 See: Lovaton Davila, R., Ha, Inhyuck S., and Myers, Samuel L, 2012. Affirmative Action Retrenchment in Public Procurement and Contracting. Applied Economics Letters, 19(18), pp.1857-1860.

201 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA, 2025 DISPARITY STUDY Table 19 Fixed Effects Regression Parameter Estimates: Firm Owner Race/Ethnicity/Gender and Solicitation/Use of MWBEs By Non-Minority Prime Contractors in the Relevant Market Area Coefficient P-value Regressand: Standardized linear prediction of agreeing that non-Minority prime contractors solicit, but don’t use MWBEs Firm is African American owned: (Binary) 0.5298 0.0016 Firm is Hispanic American owned: (Binary) 0.2670 0.1801 Firm is Asian American owned: (Binary) 0.4212 0.0957 Firm is American Indian owned: (Binary) -0.0745 0.8314 Firm is Bi/Multiracial owned: (Binary) 0.0675 0.2730 Firm is Other Race owned: (Binary) -0.0931 0.1519 Firm is Portuguese American owned: (Binary) 0.2521 0.3217 Firm is Woman owned: (Binary) 0.3032 0.0152 Constant -0.2978 0.0061 Number of Observations 208 R2 0.0707 Griffin & Strong, 2025

A P P E N D I X H S u r v e y o f B u s i n e s s O w n e r s C I T Y O F S O M E R V I L L E , M A 2 0 2 5 D I S P A R I T Y S T U D Y

203 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA 2025 DISPARITY STUDY APPENDIX H: Survey of Business Owners Somerville and Brookline Joint Survey of Business Owners A brief note on how tables are calculated Duplicate responses have been removed. Duplicate responses were removed based on businesses having either the same email address or same business name. The total count of responses for each question includes only those participants who responded to that question. Participants who skipped or were not given a question are not included. Table 1. Is your company a not-for-profit organization or a government entity? Owners' Minority Status Responses African American American Indian Asian American Brazilian American Caucasian Hispanic American Multi- Racial or Bi-Racial Publicly Traded Company Woman Other Total Yes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % No 33 4 17 4 61 15 3 1 66 8 212 100 % 100 % 100 % 100 % 100 % 100 % 100 % 100 % 100 % 100 % 100 % Total 33 4 17 4 61 15 3 1 66 8 212

204 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA 2025 DISPARITY STUDY Table 2. Do you believe your firm is ready, willing, and able to do business as a prime contractor with: [City of Somerville] Owners' Minority Status Responses African American American Indian Asian American Brazilian American Caucasian Hispanic American Multi- Racial or Bi-Racial Publicly Traded Company Woman Other Total Yes 26 4 17 3 54 13 3 1 58 8 187 78.8 % 100 % 100 % 75 % 88.5 % 86.7 % 100 % 100 % 87.9 % 100 % 88.2 % No 7 0 0 1 7 2 0 0 8 0 25 21.2 % 0 % 0 % 25 % 11.5 % 13.3 % 0 % 0 % 12.1 % 0 % 11.8 % Total 33 4 17 4 61 15 3 1 66 8 212 Table 3. Do you believe your firm is ready, willing, and able to do business as a subcontractor with: [City of Somerville] Owners' Minority Status Responses African American American Indian Asian American Brazilian American Caucasian Hispanic American Multi- Racial or Bi-Racial Publicly Traded Company Woman Other Total Yes 30 2 13 4 37 10 3 0 45 7 151 90.9 % 50 % 76.5 % 100 % 60.7 % 66.7 % 100 % 0 % 68.2 % 87.5 % 71.2 % No 3 2 4 0 24 5 0 1 21 1 61 9.1 % 50 % 23.5 % 0 % 39.3 % 33.3 % 0 % 100 % 31.8 % 12.5 % 28.8 % Total 33 4 17 4 61 15 3 1 66 8 212

205 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA 2025 DISPARITY STUDY Table 4. For participants who responded No to both questions above and provided an explanation why, responses fell in the following categories. Owners' Minority Status Responses African American American Indian Asian American Brazilian American Caucasian Hispanic American Multi-Racial or Bi-Racial Publicly Traded Company Woman Other Total Do not bid on line of business 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 16.7 % 0 % 7.1 % Do not do business with entity 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 25 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 16.7 % 0 % 14.3 % Don't work as a subcontract or 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 16.7 % 0 % 7.1 % Geographic Service Area 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % Nature of Business Operations 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 4 50 % 0 % 100 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 33.3 % 0 % 28.6 % No need 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 25 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 7.1 % Not interested in seeking work with them 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 25 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 7.1 % Only work as prime contractor 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 25 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 7.1 % Only work as subcontract or 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % Service serves a different market 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 16.7 % 100 % 14.3 % Not Applicable 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 50 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 7.1 % Total 2 0 1 0 4 0 0 0 6 1 14

206 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA 2025 DISPARITY STUDY Table 5. Which one of the following is your company’s primary line of business? Owners' Minority Status Responses African American American Indian Asian American Brazilian American Caucasian Hispanic American Multi- Racial or Bi-Racial Publicly Traded Company Woman Other Total Constructi on 6 0 5 2 11 2 1 0 11 0 38 18.2 % 0 % 29.4 % 50 % 18 % 13.3 % 33.3 % 0 % 16.7 % 0 % 17.9 % Architectu re & Engineerin g 1 0 3 0 3 4 0 0 12 0 23 3 % 0 % 17.6 % 0 % 4.9 % 26.7 % 0 % 0 % 18.2 % 0 % 10.8 % Profession al Services 15 3 6 1 18 4 2 0 27 6 82 45.5 % 75 % 35.3 % 25 % 29.5 % 26.7 % 66.7 % 0 % 40.9 % 75 % 38.7 % Non- Profession al Services (Other Services) (e.g. Janitorial 4 1 0 1 8 2 0 0 2 0 18 12.1 % 25 % 0 % 25 % 13.1 % 13.3 % 0 % 0 % 3 % 0 % 8.5 % Goods (Commodit y) 7 0 3 0 21 3 0 1 14 2 51 21.2 % 0 % 17.6 % 0 % 34.4 % 20 % 0 % 100 % 21.2 % 25 % 24.1 % Total 33 4 17 4 61 15 3 1 66 8 212

207 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA 2025 DISPARITY STUDY Table 6. How long has your company been in operation? Owners' Minority Status Responses African American American Indian Asian American Brazilian American Caucasian Hispanic American Multi- Racial or Bi-Racial Publicly Traded Company Woman Other Total Under 1 year 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 1.5 % 0 % 0.5 % 1-5 years 12 0 3 1 3 3 2 0 9 1 34 36.4 % 0 % 17.6 % 25 % 4.9 % 20 % 66.7 % 0 % 13.6 % 12.5 % 16 % 6-10 years 4 0 2 1 6 3 0 0 9 3 28 12.1 % 0 % 11.8 % 25 % 9.8 % 20 % 0 % 0 % 13.6 % 37.5 % 13.2 % 11-15 years 7 1 5 2 3 3 1 0 6 1 29 21.2 % 25 % 29.4 % 50 % 4.9 % 20 % 33.3 % 0 % 9.1 % 12.5 % 13.7 % 16-20 years 1 0 1 0 6 2 0 0 8 1 19 3 % 0 % 5.9 % 0 % 9.8 % 13.3 % 0 % 0 % 12.1 % 12.5 % 9 % Over 20 years 9 3 6 0 43 4 0 1 33 2 101 27.3 % 75 % 35.3 % 0 % 70.5 % 26.7 % 0 % 100 % 50 % 25 % 47.6 % Total 33 4 17 4 61 15 3 1 66 8 212

208 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA 2025 DISPARITY STUDY Table 7. Is at least 51% percent of your company owned and controlled by a woman or women? Owners' Minority Status Responses African American American Indian Asian American Brazilian American Caucasian Hispanic American Multi- Racial or Bi-Racial Publicly Traded Company Woman Other Total Yes 18 1 12 1 0 7 1 0 66 6 112 54.5 % 25 % 70.6 % 25 % 0 % 46.7 % 33.3 % 0 % 100 % 75 % 52.8 % No 15 3 5 3 61 8 2 1 0 2 100 45.5 % 75 % 29.4 % 75 % 100 % 53.3 % 66.7 % 100 % 0 % 25 % 47.2 % Total 33 4 17 4 61 15 3 1 66 8 212

209 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA 2025 DISPARITY STUDY Table 8. Which of the following categories would you consider to be the race or ethnic origin that the person or persons that own at least 51% of the company identify as? Would you say: Owners' Minority Status Responses African American American Indian Asian American Brazilian American Caucasian Hispanic American Multi- Racial or Bi-Racial Publicly Traded Company Woman Other Total African American 33 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 33 100 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 15.6 % Asian American 0 0 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 0 % 0 % 100 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 8 % Hispanic American 0 0 0 0 0 15 0 0 0 0 15 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 100 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 7.1 % American Indian 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 % 100 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 1.9 % Cape Verdean 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % Portuguese 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % Brazilian 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 % 0 % 0 % 100 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 1.9 % Multi- Racial or Bi-Racial 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 3 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 100 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 1.4 %

210 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA 2025 DISPARITY STUDY Table 8. Which of the following categories would you consider to be the race or ethnic origin that the person or persons that own at least 51% of the company identify as? Would you say: Owners' Minority Status Responses African American American Indian Asian American Brazilian American Caucasian Hispanic American Multi- Racial or Bi-Racial Publicly Traded Company Woman Other Total Caucasian 0 0 0 0 60 0 0 0 66 0 126 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 98.4 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 100 % 0 % 59.4 % Publicly Traded Company 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 100 % 0 % 0 % 0.5 % Other (specify): 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 8 9 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 1.6 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 100 % 4.2 % Total 33 4 17 4 61 15 3 1 66 8 212

211 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA 2025 DISPARITY STUDY Table 9. What is your current single project bonding limit since 2017? Owners' Minority Status Responses African American American Indian Asian American Brazilian American Caucasian Hispanic American Multi- Racial or Bi-Racial Publicly Traded Company Woman Other Total $24,999 or less 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 4 0 6 3 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 33.3 % 0 % 6.1 % 0 % 2.8 % $25,000 - $50,000 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 3 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 1.6 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 3 % 0 % 1.4 % $50,001 - $100,000 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 3 3 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 1.6 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 1.5 % 0 % 1.4 % $100,001 - $250,000 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 4 9.1 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 1.5 % 0 % 1.9 % $250,001 - $500,000 0 0 0 0 2 1 1 0 3 1 8 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 3.3 % 6.7 % 33.3 % 0 % 4.5 % 12.5 % 3.8 % $500,001 - $750,000 0 0 2 1 3 0 0 0 1 0 7 0 % 0 % 11.8 % 25 % 4.9 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 1.5 % 0 % 3.3 % $750,001 - $1,000,000 3 0 1 1 3 0 0 0 5 1 14 9.1 % 0 % 5.9 % 25 % 4.9 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 7.6 % 12.5 % 6.6 % $1,000,001 - $2,500,000 3 0 2 0 3 2 0 0 2 0 12 9.1 % 0 % 11.8 % 0 % 4.9 % 13.3 % 0 % 0 % 3 % 0 % 5.7 %

212 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA 2025 DISPARITY STUDY Table 9. What is your current single project bonding limit since 2017? Owners' Minority Status Responses African American American Indian Asian American Brazilian American Caucasian Hispanic American Multi- Racial or Bi-Racial Publicly Traded Company Woman Other Total $2,500,001 - $5,000,000 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 4 3 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 1.6 % 6.7 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 12.5 % 1.9 % $5,000,001 to $10,000,00 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 3 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 1.6 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 3 % 0 % 1.4 % Over $10 million 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 1.6 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0.5 % Do Not Know 6 1 4 1 7 2 0 0 3 2 26 18.2 % 25 % 23.5 % 25 % 11.5 % 13.3 % 0 % 0 % 4.5 % 25 % 12.3 % Not Applicable 15 3 8 1 38 9 1 1 42 3 121 45.5 % 75 % 47.1 % 25 % 62.3 % 60 % 33.3 % 100 % 63.6 % 37.5 % 57.1 % Total 33 4 17 4 61 15 3 1 66 8 212

213 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA 2025 DISPARITY STUDY Table 10. What is the largest single contract your company has been awarded since 2017? Owners' Minority Status Responses African American American Indian Asian American Brazilian American Caucasian Hispanic American Multi- Racial or Bi-Racial Publicly Traded Company Woman Other Total $24,999 or less 1 0 1 0 9 0 1 0 6 2 20 3 % 0 % 5.9 % 0 % 14.8 % 0 % 33.3 % 0 % 9.1 % 25 % 9.4 % $25,000 - $50,000 4 0 3 0 1 1 1 0 6 0 16 12.1 % 0 % 17.6 % 0 % 1.6 % 6.7 % 33.3 % 0 % 9.1 % 0 % 7.5 % $50,001 - $100,000 5 0 1 0 5 1 0 0 10 0 22 15.2 % 0 % 5.9 % 0 % 8.2 % 6.7 % 0 % 0 % 15.2 % 0 % 10.4 % $100,001 - $250,000 4 1 1 0 5 3 0 0 4 2 20 12.1 % 25 % 5.9 % 0 % 8.2 % 20 % 0 % 0 % 6.1 % 25 % 9.4 % $250,001 - $500,000 0 0 3 1 7 2 1 0 5 2 21 0 % 0 % 17.6 % 25 % 11.5 % 13.3 % 33.3 % 0 % 7.6 % 25 % 9.9 % $500,001 - $750,000 1 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 6 0 10 3 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 3.3 % 6.7 % 0 % 0 % 9.1 % 0 % 4.7 % $750,001 - $1,000,000 2 0 1 2 5 0 0 0 6 0 16 6.1 % 0 % 5.9 % 50 % 8.2 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 9.1 % 0 % 7.5 % $1,000,001 - $2,500,000 4 0 2 1 6 1 0 0 6 1 21 12.1 % 0 % 11.8 % 25 % 9.8 % 6.7 % 0 % 0 % 9.1 % 12.5 % 9.9 %

214 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA 2025 DISPARITY STUDY Table 10. What is the largest single contract your company has been awarded since 2017? Owners' Minority Status Responses African American American Indian Asian American Brazilian American Caucasian Hispanic American Multi- Racial or Bi-Racial Publicly Traded Company Woman Other Total $2,500,001 - $5,000,000 1 0 2 0 3 0 0 1 4 0 11 3 % 0 % 11.8 % 0 % 4.9 % 0 % 0 % 100 % 6.1 % 0 % 5.2 % $5,000,001 to $10,000,00 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 3 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 1.6 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0.9 % Over $10 million 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 6.7 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0.5 % Do Not Know 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 4 0 6 0 % 25 % 0 % 0 % 1.6 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 6.1 % 0 % 2.8 % Not Applicable 10 2 3 0 16 5 0 0 9 1 46 30.3 % 50 % 17.6 % 0 % 26.2 % 33.3 % 0 % 0 % 13.6 % 12.5 % 21.7 % Total 33 4 17 4 61 15 3 1 66 8 212

215 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA 2025 DISPARITY STUDY Table 11. Indicate what you have performed as on any government or private contract since 2017. Owners' Minority Status Responses African American American Indian Asian American Brazilian American Caucasian Hispanic American Multi- Racial or Bi-Racial Publicly Traded Company Woman Other Total Prime Contractor and Subcontrac tor 10 2 5 1 22 6 2 0 28 3 79 30.3 % 50 % 29.4 % 25 % 36.1 % 40 % 66.7 % 0 % 42.4 % 37.5 % 37.3 % Prime Contractor 5 2 6 0 26 3 0 1 22 4 69 15.2 % 50 % 35.3 % 0 % 42.6 % 20 % 0 % 100 % 33.3 % 50 % 32.5 % Subcontrac tor 6 0 2 3 6 2 0 0 10 0 29 18.2 % 0 % 11.8 % 75 % 9.8 % 13.3 % 0 % 0 % 15.2 % 0 % 13.7 % Neither 12 0 4 0 7 4 1 0 6 1 35 36.4 % 0 % 23.5 % 0 % 11.5 % 26.7 % 33.3 % 0 % 9.1 % 12.5 % 16.5 % Total 33 4 17 4 61 15 3 1 66 8 212

216 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA 2025 DISPARITY STUDY Table 12. On average, how many employees and regular independent contractors does your company keep on the payroll, including full-time and part-time staff? (Number of Employees) Owners' Minority Status Responses African American American Indian Asian American Brazilian American Caucasian Hispanic American Multi- Racial or Bi-Racial Publicly Traded Company Woman Other Total None 1 0 1 0 5 0 0 0 6 1 14 3 % 0 % 5.9 % 0 % 8.2 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 9.1 % 12.5 % 6.6 % 1-10 21 3 13 4 26 8 3 0 39 4 121 63.6 % 75 % 76.5 % 100 % 42.6 % 53.3 % 100 % 0 % 59.1 % 50 % 57.1 % 11-30 9 0 2 0 13 2 0 0 12 2 40 27.3 % 0 % 11.8 % 0 % 21.3 % 13.3 % 0 % 0 % 18.2 % 25 % 18.9 % 31-50 1 1 1 0 10 3 0 0 4 0 20 3 % 25 % 5.9 % 0 % 16.4 % 20 % 0 % 0 % 6.1 % 0 % 9.4 % 51-75 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 3 0 6 3 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 3.3 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 4.5 % 0 % 2.8 % 76-100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 101-300 0 0 0 0 3 1 0 0 2 1 7 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 4.9 % 6.7 % 0 % 0 % 3 % 12.5 % 3.3 % Over 300 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 1 0 0 4 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 3.3 % 6.7 % 0 % 100 % 0 % 0 % 1.9 %

217 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA 2025 DISPARITY STUDY Table 12. On average, how many employees and regular independent contractors does your company keep on the payroll, including full-time and part-time staff? (Number of Employees) Owners' Minority Status Responses African American American Indian Asian American Brazilian American Caucasian Hispanic American Multi- Racial or Bi-Racial Publicly Traded Company Woman Other Total Total 33 4 17 4 61 15 3 1 66 8 212

218 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA 2025 DISPARITY STUDY Table 13. What is the highest level of education completed by any owner of your company? Would you say: Owners' Minority Status Responses African American American Indian Asian American Brazilian American Caucasian Hispanic American Multi- Racial or Bi-Racial Publicly Traded Company Woman Other Total Some High School 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % High School graduate 0 0 0 0 3 1 1 0 1 0 6 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 4.9 % 6.7 % 33.3 % 0 % 1.5 % 0 % 2.8 % Some College 2 0 1 3 3 1 1 0 4 0 15 6.1 % 0 % 5.9 % 75 % 4.9 % 6.7 % 33.3 % 0 % 6.1 % 0 % 7.1 % College Graduate 15 0 4 1 27 7 1 1 28 4 88 45.5 % 0 % 23.5 % 25 % 44.3 % 46.7 % 33.3 % 100 % 42.4 % 50 % 41.5 % Post Graduate Degree 12 4 9 0 24 5 0 0 28 4 86 36.4 % 100 % 52.9 % 0 % 39.3 % 33.3 % 0 % 0 % 42.4 % 50 % 40.6 % Trade or Technical Certificate 4 0 3 0 4 1 0 0 4 0 16 12.1 % 0 % 17.6 % 0 % 6.6 % 6.7 % 0 % 0 % 6.1 % 0 % 7.5 % Do Not Know 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 1.5 % 0 % 0.5 % Total 33 4 17 4 61 15 3 1 66 8 212

219 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA 2025 DISPARITY STUDY Table 14. What is the greatest number of years of experience that any owners in your company’s line of business have? Owners' Minority Status Responses African American American Indian Asian American Brazilian American Caucasian Hispanic American Multi- Racial or Bi-Racial Publicly Traded Company Woman Other Total None 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 1-5 2 0 3 1 3 0 1 0 3 0 13 6.1 % 0 % 17.6 % 25 % 4.9 % 0 % 33.3 % 0 % 4.5 % 0 % 6.1 % 6-10 2 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 4 6.1 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 1.6 % 0 % 33.3 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 1.9 % 11-15 5 1 3 0 2 1 1 0 3 0 16 15.2 % 25 % 17.6 % 0 % 3.3 % 6.7 % 33.3 % 0 % 4.5 % 0 % 7.5 % 16-20 4 0 4 1 3 4 0 0 9 2 27 12.1 % 0 % 23.5 % 25 % 4.9 % 26.7 % 0 % 0 % 13.6 % 25 % 12.7 % More than 20 20 3 7 2 52 10 0 1 51 6 152 60.6 % 75 % 41.2 % 50 % 85.2 % 66.7 % 0 % 100 % 77.3 % 75 % 71.7 % Total 33 4 17 4 61 15 3 1 66 8 212

220 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA 2025 DISPARITY STUDY Table 15. Which of the following categories best approximates your company’s gross revenues for Fiscal year 2018 (July 1, 2017 - June 30, 2018) for City of Somerville? Your best estimate will suffice. Owners' Minority Status Responses African American American Indian Asian American Brazilian American Caucasian Hispanic American Multi- Racial or Bi-Racial Publicly Traded Company Woman Other Total $100,000 or less 18 4 10 2 37 7 1 1 40 5 125 54.5 % 100 % 58.8 % 50 % 60.7 % 46.7 % 33.3 % 100 % 60.6 % 62.5 % 59 % $100,001 - $250,000 3 0 2 0 1 2 0 0 1 0 9 9.1 % 0 % 11.8 % 0 % 1.6 % 13.3 % 0 % 0 % 1.5 % 0 % 4.2 % $250,001 - $500,000 1 0 1 0 3 0 1 0 2 0 8 3 % 0 % 5.9 % 0 % 4.9 % 0 % 33.3 % 0 % 3 % 0 % 3.8 % $500,001 - $750,000 1 0 1 0 2 1 0 0 3 0 8 3 % 0 % 5.9 % 0 % 3.3 % 6.7 % 0 % 0 % 4.5 % 0 % 3.8 % $750,000 - $1,000,000 0 0 0 0 6 1 0 0 7 1 15 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 9.8 % 6.7 % 0 % 0 % 10.6 % 12.5 % 7.1 % $1,000,001 - $1,320,000 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 % 0 % 5.9 % 0 % 0 % 6.7 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0.9 % $1,320,001 - $1,500,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % $1,500,001 - $5,000,000 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 4 3 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 3.3 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 1.5 % 0 % 1.9 %

221 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA 2025 DISPARITY STUDY Table 15. Which of the following categories best approximates your company’s gross revenues for Fiscal year 2018 (July 1, 2017 - June 30, 2018) for City of Somerville? Your best estimate will suffice. Owners' Minority Status Responses African American American Indian Asian American Brazilian American Caucasian Hispanic American Multi- Racial or Bi-Racial Publicly Traded Company Woman Other Total $5,000,001 - $10,000,00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % $10,000,00 1 - $15,000,00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % $15,000,00 1- $20,000,00 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 6.7 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0.5 % $20,000,00 1- $39,500,00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % Over $39,500,00 0 million 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % Do Not Know 4 0 1 2 8 2 0 0 7 1 25 12.1 % 0 % 5.9 % 50 % 13.1 % 13.3 % 0 % 0 % 10.6 % 12.5 % 11.8 % 5 0 1 0 2 0 1 0 5 1 15

222 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA 2025 DISPARITY STUDY Table 15. Which of the following categories best approximates your company’s gross revenues for Fiscal year 2018 (July 1, 2017 - June 30, 2018) for City of Somerville? Your best estimate will suffice. Owners' Minority Status Responses African American American Indian Asian American Brazilian American Caucasian Hispanic American Multi- Racial or Bi-Racial Publicly Traded Company Woman Other Total Company Out of Business 15.2 % 0 % 5.9 % 0 % 3.3 % 0 % 33.3 % 0 % 7.6 % 12.5 % 7.1 % Total 33 4 17 4 61 15 3 1 66 8 212

223 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA 2025 DISPARITY STUDY Table 16. Which of the following categories best approximates your company’s gross revenues for Fiscal year 2022 (July 1, 2021 - June 30, 2022) for City of Somerville? Your best estimate will suffice. Owners' Minority Status Responses African American American Indian Asian American Brazilian American Caucasian Hispanic American Multi- Racial or Bi-Racial Publicly Traded Company Woman Other Total $100,000 or less 12 4 11 2 38 8 2 1 44 4 126 36.4 % 100 % 64.7 % 50 % 62.3 % 53.3 % 66.7 % 100 % 66.7 % 50 % 59.4 % $100,001 - $250,000 6 0 2 0 2 2 0 0 4 1 17 18.2 % 0 % 11.8 % 0 % 3.3 % 13.3 % 0 % 0 % 6.1 % 12.5 % 8 % $250,001 - $500,000 1 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 4 0 9 3 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 3.3 % 13.3 % 0 % 0 % 6.1 % 0 % 4.2 % $500,001 - $750,000 5 0 2 0 4 0 0 0 1 0 12 15.2 % 0 % 11.8 % 0 % 6.6 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 1.5 % 0 % 5.7 % $750,000 - $1,000,000 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 5 0 9 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 6.6 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 7.6 % 0 % 4.2 % $1,000,001 - $1,320,000 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 1.6 % 6.7 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0.9 % $1,320,001 - $1,500,000 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 % 0 % 5.9 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0.5 % $1,500,001 - $5,000,000 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 3 3 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 1.6 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 12.5 % 1.4 %

224 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA 2025 DISPARITY STUDY Table 16. Which of the following categories best approximates your company’s gross revenues for Fiscal year 2022 (July 1, 2021 - June 30, 2022) for City of Somerville? Your best estimate will suffice. Owners' Minority Status Responses African American American Indian Asian American Brazilian American Caucasian Hispanic American Multi- Racial or Bi-Racial Publicly Traded Company Woman Other Total $5,000,001 - $10,000,00 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 1.6 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0.5 % $10,000,00 1 - $15,000,00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % $15,000,00 1- $20,000,00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % $20,000,00 1- $39,500,00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % Over $39,500,00 0 million 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % Do Not Know 7 0 1 2 7 2 1 0 7 2 29 21.2 % 0 % 5.9 % 50 % 11.5 % 13.3 % 33.3 % 0 % 10.6 % 25 % 13.7 % 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 3

225 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA 2025 DISPARITY STUDY Table 16. Which of the following categories best approximates your company’s gross revenues for Fiscal year 2022 (July 1, 2021 - June 30, 2022) for City of Somerville? Your best estimate will suffice. Owners' Minority Status Responses African American American Indian Asian American Brazilian American Caucasian Hispanic American Multi- Racial or Bi-Racial Publicly Traded Company Woman Other Total Company Out of Business 3 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 1.6 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 1.5 % 0 % 1.4 % Total 33 4 17 4 61 15 3 1 66 8 212 Table 17. Is your company registered to do business with: [City of Somerville] Owners' Minority Status Responses African American American Indian Asian American Brazilian American Caucasian Hispanic American Multi- Racial or Bi-Racial Publicly Traded Company Woman Other Total Yes 16 2 7 2 40 5 2 0 40 2 116 48.5 % 50 % 41.2 % 50 % 65.6 % 33.3 % 66.7 % 0 % 60.6 % 25 % 54.7 % No 17 2 10 2 21 10 1 1 26 6 96 51.5 % 50 % 58.8 % 50 % 34.4 % 66.7 % 33.3 % 100 % 39.4 % 75 % 45.3 % Total 33 4 17 4 61 15 3 1 66 8 212

226 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA 2025 DISPARITY STUDY Table 18. If you answered "No" to the previous question, why is your company not registered with: [Do not know how to register?] [City of Somerville] Owners' Minority Status Responses African American American Indian Asian American Brazilian American Caucasian Hispanic American Multi- Racial or Bi-Racial Publicly Traded Company Woman Other Total Not Selected 6 2 5 1 15 5 1 1 16 2 54 35.3 % 100 % 50 % 50 % 71.4 % 50 % 100 % 100 % 61.5 % 33.3 % 56.2 % Selected 11 0 5 1 6 5 0 0 10 4 42 64.7 % 0 % 50 % 50 % 28.6 % 50 % 0 % 0 % 38.5 % 66.7 % 43.8 % Total 17 2 10 2 21 10 1 1 26 6 96 Table 19. Did not know there was a registry? [City of Somerville] Owners' Minority Status Responses African American American Indian Asian American Brazilian American Caucasian Hispanic American Multi- Racial or Bi-Racial Publicly Traded Company Woman Other Total Not Selected 5 2 3 0 14 5 0 1 13 3 46 29.4 % 100 % 30 % 0 % 66.7 % 50 % 0 % 100 % 50 % 50 % 47.9 % Selected 12 0 7 2 7 5 1 0 13 3 50 70.6 % 0 % 70 % 100 % 33.3 % 50 % 100 % 0 % 50 % 50 % 52.1 % Total 17 2 10 2 21 10 1 1 26 6 96

227 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA 2025 DISPARITY STUDY Table 20. Do not see any benefit in registering? [City of Somerville] Owners' Minority Status Responses African American American Indian Asian American Brazilian American Caucasian Hispanic American Multi- Racial or Bi-Racial Publicly Traded Company Woman Other Total Not Selected 16 2 9 2 19 8 1 1 17 6 81 94.1 % 100 % 90 % 100 % 90.5 % 80 % 100 % 100 % 65.4 % 100 % 84.4 % Selected 1 0 1 0 2 2 0 0 9 0 15 5.9 % 0 % 10 % 0 % 9.5 % 20 % 0 % 0 % 34.6 % 0 % 15.6 % Total 17 2 10 2 21 10 1 1 26 6 96 Table 21. Do not want to do business with government? [City of Somerville] Owners' Minority Status Responses African American American Indian Asian American Brazilian American Caucasian Hispanic American Multi- Racial or Bi-Racial Publicly Traded Company Woman Other Total Not Selected 17 2 10 2 21 6 1 1 25 6 91 100 % 100 % 100 % 100 % 100 % 60 % 100 % 100 % 96.2 % 100 % 94.8 % Selected 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 1 0 5 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 40 % 0 % 0 % 3.8 % 0 % 5.2 % Total 17 2 10 2 21 10 1 1 26 6 96

228 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA 2025 DISPARITY STUDY Table 22. Do not want to do business in Massachusetts? [City of Somerville] Owners' Minority Status Responses African American American Indian Asian American Brazilian American Caucasian Hispanic American Multi- Racial or Bi-Racial Publicly Traded Company Woman Other Total Not Selected 16 2 10 2 20 9 1 1 26 6 93 94.1 % 100 % 100 % 100 % 95.2 % 90 % 100 % 100 % 100 % 100 % 96.9 % Selected 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 3 5.9 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 4.8 % 10 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 3.1 % Total 17 2 10 2 21 10 1 1 26 6 96 Table 23. Do not see opportunities in my field of work? [City of Somerville] Owners' Minority Status Responses African American American Indian Asian American Brazilian American Caucasian Hispanic American Multi- Racial or Bi-Racial Publicly Traded Company Woman Other Total Not Selected 16 1 7 2 17 9 1 1 22 5 81 94.1 % 50 % 70 % 100 % 81 % 90 % 100 % 100 % 84.6 % 83.3 % 84.4 % Selected 1 1 3 0 4 1 0 0 4 1 15 5.9 % 50 % 30 % 0 % 19 % 10 % 0 % 0 % 15.4 % 16.7 % 15.6 % Total 17 2 10 2 21 10 1 1 26 6 96

229 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA 2025 DISPARITY STUDY Table 24. Do not believe firm would be awarded contract? [City of Somerville] Owners' Minority Status Responses African American American Indian Asian American Brazilian American Caucasian Hispanic American Multi- Racial or Bi-Racial Publicly Traded Company Woman Other Total Not Selected 13 2 8 1 18 8 1 1 23 6 81 76.5 % 100 % 80 % 50 % 85.7 % 80 % 100 % 100 % 88.5 % 100 % 84.4 % Selected 4 0 2 1 3 2 0 0 3 0 15 23.5 % 0 % 20 % 50 % 14.3 % 20 % 0 % 0 % 11.5 % 0 % 15.6 % Total 17 2 10 2 21 10 1 1 26 6 96 Table 25. Other (fill in blank) [City of Somerville] Owners' Minority Status Responses African American American Indian Asian American Brazilian American Caucasian Hispanic American Multi- Racial or Bi-Racial Publicly Traded Company Woman Other Total Not Selected 15 1 8 2 11 10 1 0 22 5 75 88.2 % 50 % 80 % 100 % 52.4 % 100 % 100 % 0 % 84.6 % 83.3 % 78.1 % Selected 2 1 2 0 10 0 0 1 4 1 21 11.8 % 50 % 20 % 0 % 47.6 % 0 % 0 % 100 % 15.4 % 16.7 % 21.9 % Total 17 2 10 2 21 10 1 1 26 6 96

230 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA 2025 DISPARITY STUDY Table 26. For participants who selected 'Other', responses fell in the following categories. [City of Somerville] Owners' Minority Status Responses African American American Indian Asian American Brazilian American Caucasian Hispanic American Multi- Racial or Bi-Racial Publicly Traded Company Woman Other Total Antiquated selection process. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % Do not conduct business with this entity. 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 20 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 9.5 % Do not see opportuniti es in my field of work? 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 3 50 % 0 % 50 % 0 % 10 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 14.3 % Favoritism and relationshi p based contracting 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % Have not registered 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 % 0 % 50 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 25 % 0 % 9.5 % Lack of communic ation 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 10 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 4.8 % 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1

231 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA 2025 DISPARITY STUDY Table 26. For participants who selected 'Other', responses fell in the following categories. [City of Somerville] Owners' Minority Status Responses African American American Indian Asian American Brazilian American Caucasian Hispanic American Multi- Racial or Bi-Racial Publicly Traded Company Woman Other Total Lack of personnel 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 10 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 4.8 % Never considered it 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 25 % 0 % 4.8 % Unaware of certificatio n requireme nts. 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 10 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 4.8 % Unsure of registratio n status 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 3 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 10 % 0 % 0 % 100 % 0 % 100 % 14.3 % Working on it 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 % 100 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 4.8 % Not needed 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 20 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 9.5 % Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 25 % 0 % 4.8 % 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 3

232 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA 2025 DISPARITY STUDY Table 26. For participants who selected 'Other', responses fell in the following categories. [City of Somerville] Owners' Minority Status Responses African American American Indian Asian American Brazilian American Caucasian Hispanic American Multi- Racial or Bi-Racial Publicly Traded Company Woman Other Total Not Applicable 50 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 10 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 25 % 0 % 14.3 % Total 2 1 2 0 10 0 0 1 4 1 21 Table 27. Is your company registered with any other government entity (including but not limited to): State of Massachusetts, Middlesex County Government, Norfolk County Government, Massachusetts DOT, etc.? Owners' Minority Status Responses African American American Indian Asian American Brazilian American Caucasian Hispanic American Multi- Racial or Bi-Racial Publicly Traded Company Woman Other Total Yes 29 4 15 3 51 14 3 1 49 6 175 87.9 % 100 % 88.2 % 75 % 83.6 % 93.3 % 100 % 100 % 74.2 % 75 % 82.5 % No 4 0 2 1 10 1 0 0 17 2 37 12.1 % 0 % 11.8 % 25 % 16.4 % 6.7 % 0 % 0 % 25.8 % 25 % 17.5 % Total 33 4 17 4 61 15 3 1 66 8 212

233 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA 2025 DISPARITY STUDY Table 28. From 2017 - Present, how many times has your company submitted bids or proposals for projects as prime contractor on: [The City of Somerville Projects] Owners' Minority Status Responses African American American Indian Asian American Brazilian American Caucasian Hispanic American Multi- Racial or Bi-Racial Publicly Traded Company Woman Other Total None 24 4 13 2 37 13 1 1 40 6 141 72.7 % 100 % 76.5 % 50 % 60.7 % 86.7 % 33.3 % 100 % 60.6 % 75 % 66.5 % 1-10 6 0 3 2 20 1 1 0 19 1 53 18.2 % 0 % 17.6 % 50 % 32.8 % 6.7 % 33.3 % 0 % 28.8 % 12.5 % 25 % 11-25 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 3 3 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 3 % 0 % 1.4 % 26-50 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 33.3 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0.5 % 51-100 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 6.7 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0.5 % Over 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % Do Not Know/NA 2 0 1 0 4 0 0 0 5 1 13 6.1 % 0 % 5.9 % 0 % 6.6 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 7.6 % 12.5 % 6.1 % Total 33 4 17 4 61 15 3 1 66 8 212

234 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA 2025 DISPARITY STUDY Table 29. Private Sector Projects Owners' Minority Status Responses African American American Indian Asian American Brazilian American Caucasian Hispanic American Multi- Racial or Bi-Racial Publicly Traded Company Woman Other Total None 16 3 11 2 28 9 1 0 25 4 99 48.5 % 75 % 64.7 % 50 % 45.9 % 60 % 33.3 % 0 % 37.9 % 50 % 46.7 % 1-10 11 1 4 2 19 4 2 0 20 1 64 33.3 % 25 % 23.5 % 50 % 31.1 % 26.7 % 66.7 % 0 % 30.3 % 12.5 % 30.2 % 11-25 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 5 0 7 3 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 1.6 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 7.6 % 0 % 3.3 % 26-50 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 3 0 7 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 3.3 % 13.3 % 0 % 0 % 4.5 % 0 % 3.3 % 51-100 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 3 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 1.6 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0.9 % Over 100 2 0 1 0 6 0 0 0 6 2 17 6.1 % 0 % 5.9 % 0 % 9.8 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 9.1 % 25 % 8 % Do Not Know/NA 2 0 1 0 4 0 0 1 7 1 16 6.1 % 0 % 5.9 % 0 % 6.6 % 0 % 0 % 100 % 10.6 % 12.5 % 7.5 % Total 33 4 17 4 61 15 3 1 66 8 212

235 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA 2025 DISPARITY STUDY Table 30. Other Public Sector (non-City of Somerville, Town of Brookline) Projects Owners' Minority Status Responses African American American Indian Asian American Brazilian American Caucasian Hispanic American Multi- Racial or Bi-Racial Publicly Traded Company Woman Other Total None 19 3 9 3 26 10 3 0 30 2 105 57.6 % 75 % 52.9 % 75 % 42.6 % 66.7 % 100 % 0 % 45.5 % 25 % 49.5 % 1-10 5 1 5 1 23 3 0 0 20 3 61 15.2 % 25 % 29.4 % 25 % 37.7 % 20 % 0 % 0 % 30.3 % 37.5 % 28.8 % 11-25 4 0 2 0 3 1 0 0 2 1 13 12.1 % 0 % 11.8 % 0 % 4.9 % 6.7 % 0 % 0 % 3 % 12.5 % 6.1 % 26-50 1 0 0 0 3 1 0 0 3 0 8 3 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 4.9 % 6.7 % 0 % 0 % 4.5 % 0 % 3.8 % 51-100 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 3 3 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 3 % 0 % 1.4 % Over 100 1 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 2 1 7 3 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 4.9 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 3 % 12.5 % 3.3 % Do Not Know/NA 2 0 1 0 3 0 0 1 7 1 15 6.1 % 0 % 5.9 % 0 % 4.9 % 0 % 0 % 100 % 10.6 % 12.5 % 7.1 % Total 33 4 17 4 61 15 3 1 66 8 212

236 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA 2025 DISPARITY STUDY Table 31. From 2017 - Present, how many times has your company been awarded contracts to perform as a prime contractor: [The City of Somerville Projects] Owners' Minority Status Responses African American American Indian Asian American Brazilian American Caucasian Hispanic American Multi- Racial or Bi-Racial Publicly Traded Company Woman Other Total None 26 4 13 4 36 15 2 1 45 5 151 78.8 % 100 % 76.5 % 100 % 59 % 100 % 66.7 % 100 % 68.2 % 62.5 % 71.2 % 1-10 3 0 2 0 20 0 1 0 14 0 40 9.1 % 0 % 11.8 % 0 % 32.8 % 0 % 33.3 % 0 % 21.2 % 0 % 18.9 % 11-25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 3 % 0 % 0.9 % 26-50 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 % 0 % 5.9 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0.5 % 51-100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % Over 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % Do Not Know/NA 4 0 1 0 5 0 0 0 5 3 18 12.1 % 0 % 5.9 % 0 % 8.2 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 7.6 % 37.5 % 8.5 % Total 33 4 17 4 61 15 3 1 66 8 212

237 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA 2025 DISPARITY STUDY Table 32. Private Sector Projects Owners' Minority Status Responses African American American Indian Asian American Brazilian American Caucasian Hispanic American Multi- Racial or Bi-Racial Publicly Traded Company Woman Other Total None 17 3 12 3 32 10 2 1 28 3 111 51.5 % 75 % 70.6 % 75 % 52.5 % 66.7 % 66.7 % 100 % 42.4 % 37.5 % 52.4 % 1-10 9 1 3 1 16 3 1 0 19 1 54 27.3 % 25 % 17.6 % 25 % 26.2 % 20 % 33.3 % 0 % 28.8 % 12.5 % 25.5 % 11-25 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 6 0 7 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 1.6 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 9.1 % 0 % 3.3 % 26-50 1 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 1 1 6 3 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 3.3 % 6.7 % 0 % 0 % 1.5 % 12.5 % 2.8 % 51-100 2 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 7 6.1 % 0 % 5.9 % 0 % 1.6 % 6.7 % 0 % 0 % 1.5 % 12.5 % 3.3 % Over 100 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 6 0 11 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 8.2 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 9.1 % 0 % 5.2 % Do Not Know/NA 4 0 1 0 4 0 0 0 5 2 16 12.1 % 0 % 5.9 % 0 % 6.6 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 7.6 % 25 % 7.5 % Total 33 4 17 4 61 15 3 1 66 8 212

238 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA 2025 DISPARITY STUDY Table 33. Other Public Sector (non-City of Somerville, Town of Brookline) Projects Owners' Minority Status Responses African American American Indian Asian American Brazilian American Caucasian Hispanic American Multi- Racial or Bi-Racial Publicly Traded Company Woman Other Total None 21 3 11 3 29 11 3 1 33 1 116 63.6 % 75 % 64.7 % 75 % 47.5 % 73.3 % 100 % 100 % 50 % 12.5 % 54.7 % 1-10 5 1 5 1 21 2 0 0 18 3 56 15.2 % 25 % 29.4 % 25 % 34.4 % 13.3 % 0 % 0 % 27.3 % 37.5 % 26.4 % 11-25 2 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 8 0 12 6.1 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 1.6 % 6.7 % 0 % 0 % 12.1 % 0 % 5.7 % 26-50 1 0 0 0 4 1 0 0 1 2 9 3 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 6.6 % 6.7 % 0 % 0 % 1.5 % 25 % 4.2 % 51-100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % Over 100 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 3 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 3.3 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 1.5 % 0 % 1.4 % Do Not Know/NA 4 0 1 0 4 0 0 0 5 2 16 12.1 % 0 % 5.9 % 0 % 6.6 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 7.6 % 25 % 7.5 % Total 33 4 17 4 61 15 3 1 66 8 212

239 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA 2025 DISPARITY STUDY Table 34. From 2017 - Present, how many times has your company submitted bids or proposals for projects as a subcontractor on: [The City of Somerville Projects] Owners' Minority Status Responses African American American Indian Asian American Brazilian American Caucasian Hispanic American Multi- Racial or Bi-Racial Publicly Traded Company Woman Other Total None 24 4 14 1 54 12 1 1 48 6 165 72.7 % 100 % 82.4 % 25 % 88.5 % 80 % 33.3 % 100 % 72.7 % 75 % 77.8 % 1-10 4 0 2 3 3 3 2 0 11 0 28 12.1 % 0 % 11.8 % 75 % 4.9 % 20 % 66.7 % 0 % 16.7 % 0 % 13.2 % 11-25 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 4 6.1 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 1.6 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 1.5 % 0 % 1.9 % 26-50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 51-100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % Over 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % Do Not Know/NA 3 0 1 0 3 0 0 0 6 2 15 9.1 % 0 % 5.9 % 0 % 4.9 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 9.1 % 25 % 7.1 % Total 33 4 17 4 61 15 3 1 66 8 212

240 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA 2025 DISPARITY STUDY Table 35. Private Sector Projects Owners' Minority Status Responses African American American Indian Asian American Brazilian American Caucasian Hispanic American Multi- Racial or Bi-Racial Publicly Traded Company Woman Other Total None 18 4 13 2 47 9 2 1 36 6 138 54.5 % 100 % 76.5 % 50 % 77 % 60 % 66.7 % 100 % 54.5 % 75 % 65.1 % 1-10 7 0 2 2 6 4 1 0 12 0 34 21.2 % 0 % 11.8 % 50 % 9.8 % 26.7 % 33.3 % 0 % 18.2 % 0 % 16 % 11-25 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 10 9.1 % 0 % 5.9 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 9.1 % 0 % 4.7 % 26-50 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0.5 % 51-100 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 5 0 6 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 6.7 % 0 % 0 % 7.6 % 0 % 2.8 % Over 100 1 0 0 0 4 1 0 0 1 0 7 3 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 6.6 % 6.7 % 0 % 0 % 1.5 % 0 % 3.3 % Do Not Know/NA 3 0 1 0 4 0 0 0 6 2 16 9.1 % 0 % 5.9 % 0 % 6.6 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 9.1 % 25 % 7.5 % Total 33 4 17 4 61 15 3 1 66 8 212

241 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA 2025 DISPARITY STUDY Table 36. Other Public Sector (non-City of Somerville, Town of Brookline) Projects Owners' Minority Status Responses African American American Indian Asian American Brazilian American Caucasian Hispanic American Multi- Racial or Bi-Racial Publicly Traded Company Woman Other Total None 20 4 11 2 44 10 2 1 39 4 137 60.6 % 100 % 64.7 % 50 % 72.1 % 66.7 % 66.7 % 100 % 59.1 % 50 % 64.6 % 1-10 4 0 4 2 9 2 1 0 12 1 35 12.1 % 0 % 23.5 % 50 % 14.8 % 13.3 % 33.3 % 0 % 18.2 % 12.5 % 16.5 % 11-25 4 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 5 0 11 12.1 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 3.3 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 7.6 % 0 % 5.2 % 26-50 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 5 3 % 0 % 5.9 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 3 % 12.5 % 2.4 % 51-100 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 4 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 13.3 % 0 % 0 % 3 % 0 % 1.9 % Over 100 1 0 0 0 3 1 0 0 1 0 6 3 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 4.9 % 6.7 % 0 % 0 % 1.5 % 0 % 2.8 % Do Not Know/NA 3 0 1 0 3 0 0 0 5 2 14 9.1 % 0 % 5.9 % 0 % 4.9 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 7.6 % 25 % 6.6 % Total 33 4 17 4 61 15 3 1 66 8 212

242 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA 2025 DISPARITY STUDY Table 37. From 2017 - Present, how many times has your company been awarded contracts to perform as a subcontractor: [The City of Somerville Projects] Owners' Minority Status Responses African American American Indian Asian American Brazilian American Caucasian Hispanic American Multi- Racial or Bi-Racial Publicly Traded Company Woman Other Total None 26 4 15 4 53 13 2 1 49 5 172 78.8 % 100 % 88.2 % 100 % 86.9 % 86.7 % 66.7 % 100 % 74.2 % 62.5 % 81.1 % 1-10 2 0 1 0 3 2 0 0 10 1 19 6.1 % 0 % 5.9 % 0 % 4.9 % 13.3 % 0 % 0 % 15.2 % 12.5 % 9 % 11-25 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 3 3 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 1.6 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 1.5 % 0 % 1.4 % 26-50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 51-100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % Over 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % Do Not Know/NA 4 0 1 0 4 0 1 0 6 2 18 12.1 % 0 % 5.9 % 0 % 6.6 % 0 % 33.3 % 0 % 9.1 % 25 % 8.5 % Total 33 4 17 4 61 15 3 1 66 8 212

243 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA 2025 DISPARITY STUDY Table 38. Private Sector Projects Owners' Minority Status Responses African American American Indian Asian American Brazilian American Caucasian Hispanic American Multi- Racial or Bi-Racial Publicly Traded Company Woman Other Total None 18 4 13 4 48 8 1 1 38 6 141 54.5 % 100 % 76.5 % 100 % 78.7 % 53.3 % 33.3 % 100 % 57.6 % 75 % 66.5 % 1-10 8 0 2 0 4 5 1 0 13 0 33 24.2 % 0 % 11.8 % 0 % 6.6 % 33.3 % 33.3 % 0 % 19.7 % 0 % 15.6 % 11-25 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 5 3 % 0 % 5.9 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 4.5 % 0 % 2.4 % 26-50 1 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 4 3 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 1.6 % 13.3 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 1.9 % 51-100 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 4 0 5 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 1.6 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 6.1 % 0 % 2.4 % Over 100 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 5 3 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 3.3 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 3 % 0 % 2.4 % Do Not Know/NA 4 0 1 0 5 0 1 0 6 2 19 12.1 % 0 % 5.9 % 0 % 8.2 % 0 % 33.3 % 0 % 9.1 % 25 % 9 % Total 33 4 17 4 61 15 3 1 66 8 212

244 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA 2025 DISPARITY STUDY Table 39. Other Public Sector (non-City of Somerville, Town of Brookline) Projects Owners' Minority Status Responses African American American Indian Asian American Brazilian American Caucasian Hispanic American Multi- Racial or Bi-Racial Publicly Traded Company Woman Other Total None 20 4 13 4 46 10 1 1 41 5 145 60.6 % 100 % 76.5 % 100 % 75.4 % 66.7 % 33.3 % 100 % 62.1 % 62.5 % 68.4 % 1-10 7 0 2 0 7 3 1 0 11 0 31 21.2 % 0 % 11.8 % 0 % 11.5 % 20 % 33.3 % 0 % 16.7 % 0 % 14.6 % 11-25 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 5 0 8 3 % 0 % 5.9 % 0 % 1.6 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 7.6 % 0 % 3.8 % 26-50 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 2 1 6 3 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 1.6 % 6.7 % 0 % 0 % 3 % 12.5 % 2.8 % 51-100 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 2 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 6.7 % 0 % 0 % 1.5 % 0 % 0.9 % Over 100 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 3 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 3.3 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 1.5 % 0 % 1.4 % Do Not Know/NA 4 0 1 0 4 0 1 0 5 2 17 12.1 % 0 % 5.9 % 0 % 6.6 % 0 % 33.3 % 0 % 7.6 % 25 % 8 % Total 33 4 17 4 61 15 3 1 66 8 212

245 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA 2025 DISPARITY STUDY Table 40. How many times have you been dropped from a project as a subcontractor from 2017 - Present? Owners' Minority Status Responses African American American Indian Asian American Brazilian American Caucasian Hispanic American Multi- Racial or Bi-Racial Publicly Traded Company Woman Other Total None 30 4 14 4 57 15 2 1 56 6 189 90.9 % 100 % 82.4 % 100 % 93.4 % 100 % 66.7 % 100 % 84.8 % 75 % 89.2 % 1-10 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 3 0 5 0 % 0 % 5.9 % 0 % 1.6 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 4.5 % 0 % 2.4 % 11-25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 26-50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 51-100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % Over 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % Do Not Know/NA 3 0 2 0 3 0 1 0 7 2 18 9.1 % 0 % 11.8 % 0 % 4.9 % 0 % 33.3 % 0 % 10.6 % 25 % 8.5 % Total 33 4 17 4 61 15 3 1 66 8 212

246 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA 2025 DISPARITY STUDY Table 41. The following is a list of things that may prevent companies from bidding or obtaining work on a project. In your experience, have any of the following been a barrier to your firm obtaining work on projects for: [Pre-qualification requirements][City of Somerville] Owners' Minority Status Responses African American American Indian Asian American Brazilian American Caucasian Hispanic American Multi- Racial or Bi-Racial Publicly Traded Company Woman Other Total Not Selected 27 3 14 4 57 13 3 1 63 7 192 81.8 % 75 % 82.4 % 100 % 93.4 % 86.7 % 100 % 100 % 95.5 % 87.5 % 90.6 % Selected 6 1 3 0 4 2 0 0 3 1 20 18.2 % 25 % 17.6 % 0 % 6.6 % 13.3 % 0 % 0 % 4.5 % 12.5 % 9.4 % Total 33 4 17 4 61 15 3 1 66 8 212 Table 42. Performance bond requirements[City of Somerville] Owners' Minority Status Responses African American American Indian Asian American Brazilian American Caucasian Hispanic American Multi- Racial or Bi-Racial Publicly Traded Company Woman Other Total Not Selected 27 4 14 4 60 13 3 1 62 7 195 81.8 % 100 % 82.4 % 100 % 98.4 % 86.7 % 100 % 100 % 93.9 % 87.5 % 92 % Selected 6 0 3 0 1 2 0 0 4 1 17 18.2 % 0 % 17.6 % 0 % 1.6 % 13.3 % 0 % 0 % 6.1 % 12.5 % 8 % Total 33 4 17 4 61 15 3 1 66 8 212

247 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA 2025 DISPARITY STUDY Table 43. Time to receive payment from the City of Somerville/Town of Brookline [City of Somerville] Owners' Minority Status Responses African American American Indian Asian American Brazilian American Caucasian Hispanic American Multi- Racial or Bi-Racial Publicly Traded Company Woman Other Total Not Selected 27 4 15 4 59 13 3 1 63 8 197 81.8 % 100 % 88.2 % 100 % 96.7 % 86.7 % 100 % 100 % 95.5 % 100 % 92.9 % Selected 6 0 2 0 2 2 0 0 3 0 15 18.2 % 0 % 11.8 % 0 % 3.3 % 13.3 % 0 % 0 % 4.5 % 0 % 7.1 % Total 33 4 17 4 61 15 3 1 66 8 212

248 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA 2025 DISPARITY STUDY Table 44. Time to receive payment from prime contractor(s) [City of Somerville] Owners' Minority Status Responses African American American Indian Asian American Brazilian American Caucasian Hispanic American Multi- Racial or Bi-Racial Publicly Traded Company Woman Other Total Not Selected 27 4 15 4 59 13 3 1 64 8 198 81.8 % 100 % 88.2 % 100 % 96.7 % 86.7 % 100 % 100 % 97 % 100 % 93.4 % Selected 6 0 2 0 2 2 0 0 2 0 14 18.2 % 0 % 11.8 % 0 % 3.3 % 13.3 % 0 % 0 % 3 % 0 % 6.6 % Total 33 4 17 4 61 15 3 1 66 8 212 Table 45. Excessive paperwork [City of Somerville] Owners' Minority Status Responses African American American Indian Asian American Brazilian American Caucasian Hispanic American Multi- Racial or Bi-Racial Publicly Traded Company Woman Other Total Not Selected 23 3 15 2 54 14 3 1 57 4 176 69.7 % 75 % 88.2 % 50 % 88.5 % 93.3 % 100 % 100 % 86.4 % 50 % 83 % Selected 10 1 2 2 7 1 0 0 9 4 36 30.3 % 25 % 11.8 % 50 % 11.5 % 6.7 % 0 % 0 % 13.6 % 50 % 17 % Total 33 4 17 4 61 15 3 1 66 8 212

249 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA 2025 DISPARITY STUDY Table 46. Bid bond requirements [City of Somerville] Owners' Minority Status Responses African American American Indian Asian American Brazilian American Caucasian Hispanic American Multi- Racial or Bi-Racial Publicly Traded Company Woman Other Total Not Selected 26 4 14 4 57 13 3 1 61 8 191 78.8 % 100 % 82.4 % 100 % 93.4 % 86.7 % 100 % 100 % 92.4 % 100 % 90.1 % Selected 7 0 3 0 4 2 0 0 5 0 21 21.2 % 0 % 17.6 % 0 % 6.6 % 13.3 % 0 % 0 % 7.6 % 0 % 9.9 % Total 33 4 17 4 61 15 3 1 66 8 212 Table 47. Financing [City of Somerville] Owners' Minority Status Responses African American American Indian Asian American Brazilian American Caucasian Hispanic American Multi- Racial or Bi-Racial Publicly Traded Company Woman Other Total Not Selected 28 4 16 4 61 13 3 1 63 7 200 84.8 % 100 % 94.1 % 100 % 100 % 86.7 % 100 % 100 % 95.5 % 87.5 % 94.3 % Selected 5 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 3 1 12 15.2 % 0 % 5.9 % 0 % 0 % 13.3 % 0 % 0 % 4.5 % 12.5 % 5.7 % Total 33 4 17 4 61 15 3 1 66 8 212

250 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA 2025 DISPARITY STUDY Table 48. Insurance requirements [City of Somerville] Owners' Minority Status Responses African American American Indian Asian American Brazilian American Caucasian Hispanic American Multi- Racial or Bi-Racial Publicly Traded Company Woman Other Total Not Selected 31 4 14 4 57 13 3 1 62 8 197 93.9 % 100 % 82.4 % 100 % 93.4 % 86.7 % 100 % 100 % 93.9 % 100 % 92.9 % Selected 2 0 3 0 4 2 0 0 4 0 15 6.1 % 0 % 17.6 % 0 % 6.6 % 13.3 % 0 % 0 % 6.1 % 0 % 7.1 % Total 33 4 17 4 61 15 3 1 66 8 212 Table 49. Bid specifications [City of Somerville] Owners' Minority Status Responses African American American Indian Asian American Brazilian American Caucasian Hispanic American Multi- Racial or Bi-Racial Publicly Traded Company Woman Other Total Not Selected 28 4 14 2 56 14 3 1 63 8 193 84.8 % 100 % 82.4 % 50 % 91.8 % 93.3 % 100 % 100 % 95.5 % 100 % 91 % Selected 5 0 3 2 5 1 0 0 3 0 19 15.2 % 0 % 17.6 % 50 % 8.2 % 6.7 % 0 % 0 % 4.5 % 0 % 9 % Total 33 4 17 4 61 15 3 1 66 8 212

251 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA 2025 DISPARITY STUDY Table 50. Lack of access to competitive supplier pricing [City of Somerville] Owners' Minority Status Responses African American American Indian Asian American Brazilian American Caucasian Hispanic American Multi- Racial or Bi-Racial Publicly Traded Company Woman Other Total Not Selected 29 4 14 2 56 14 2 1 62 8 192 87.9 % 100 % 82.4 % 50 % 91.8 % 93.3 % 66.7 % 100 % 93.9 % 100 % 90.6 % Selected 4 0 3 2 5 1 1 0 4 0 20 12.1 % 0 % 17.6 % 50 % 8.2 % 6.7 % 33.3 % 0 % 6.1 % 0 % 9.4 % Total 33 4 17 4 61 15 3 1 66 8 212 Table 51. Limited time given to prepare bid package or quote [City of Somerville] Owners' Minority Status Responses African American American Indian Asian American Brazilian American Caucasian Hispanic American Multi- Racial or Bi-Racial Publicly Traded Company Woman Other Total Not Selected 24 4 14 3 57 13 2 1 62 7 187 72.7 % 100 % 82.4 % 75 % 93.4 % 86.7 % 66.7 % 100 % 93.9 % 87.5 % 88.2 % Selected 9 0 3 1 4 2 1 0 4 1 25 27.3 % 0 % 17.6 % 25 % 6.6 % 13.3 % 33.3 % 0 % 6.1 % 12.5 % 11.8 % Total 33 4 17 4 61 15 3 1 66 8 212

252 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA 2025 DISPARITY STUDY Table 52. Limited knowledge of purchasing /contracting policies and procedures [City of Somerville] Owners' Minority Status Responses African American American Indian Asian American Brazilian American Caucasian Hispanic American Multi- Racial or Bi-Racial Publicly Traded Company Woman Other Total Not Selected 26 4 14 2 52 13 3 1 59 5 179 78.8 % 100 % 82.4 % 50 % 85.2 % 86.7 % 100 % 100 % 89.4 % 62.5 % 84.4 % Selected 7 0 3 2 9 2 0 0 7 3 33 21.2 % 0 % 17.6 % 50 % 14.8 % 13.3 % 0 % 0 % 10.6 % 37.5 % 15.6 % Total 33 4 17 4 61 15 3 1 66 8 212 Table 53. Language Barriers [City of Somerville] Owners' Minority Status Responses African American American Indian Asian American Brazilian American Caucasian Hispanic American Multi- Racial or Bi-Racial Publicly Traded Company Woman Other Total Not Selected 32 4 17 2 61 14 3 1 65 8 207 97 % 100 % 100 % 50 % 100 % 93.3 % 100 % 100 % 98.5 % 100 % 97.6 % Selected 1 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 1 0 5 3 % 0 % 0 % 50 % 0 % 6.7 % 0 % 0 % 1.5 % 0 % 2.4 % Total 33 4 17 4 61 15 3 1 66 8 212

253 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA 2025 DISPARITY STUDY Table 54. Lack of experience [City of Somerville] Owners' Minority Status Responses African American American Indian Asian American Brazilian American Caucasian Hispanic American Multi- Racial or Bi-Racial Publicly Traded Company Woman Other Total Not Selected 29 4 14 4 59 14 2 1 65 7 199 87.9 % 100 % 82.4 % 100 % 96.7 % 93.3 % 66.7 % 100 % 98.5 % 87.5 % 93.9 % Selected 4 0 3 0 2 1 1 0 1 1 13 12.1 % 0 % 17.6 % 0 % 3.3 % 6.7 % 33.3 % 0 % 1.5 % 12.5 % 6.1 % Total 33 4 17 4 61 15 3 1 66 8 212 Table 55. Lack of personnel [City of Somerville] Owners' Minority Status Responses African American American Indian Asian American Brazilian American Caucasian Hispanic American Multi- Racial or Bi-Racial Publicly Traded Company Woman Other Total Not Selected 31 4 17 4 58 15 3 1 65 8 206 93.9 % 100 % 100 % 100 % 95.1 % 100 % 100 % 100 % 98.5 % 100 % 97.2 % Selected 2 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 1 0 6 6.1 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 4.9 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 1.5 % 0 % 2.8 % Total 33 4 17 4 61 15 3 1 66 8 212

254 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA 2025 DISPARITY STUDY Table 56. Contract too large [City of Somerville] Owners' Minority Status Responses African American American Indian Asian American Brazilian American Caucasian Hispanic American Multi- Racial or Bi-Racial Publicly Traded Company Woman Other Total Not Selected 29 3 15 4 55 14 3 1 65 8 197 87.9 % 75 % 88.2 % 100 % 90.2 % 93.3 % 100 % 100 % 98.5 % 100 % 92.9 % Selected 4 1 2 0 6 1 0 0 1 0 15 12.1 % 25 % 11.8 % 0 % 9.8 % 6.7 % 0 % 0 % 1.5 % 0 % 7.1 % Total 33 4 17 4 61 15 3 1 66 8 212 Table 57. Contract too expensive to bid [City of Somerville] Owners' Minority Status Responses African American American Indian Asian American Brazilian American Caucasian Hispanic American Multi- Racial or Bi-Racial Publicly Traded Company Woman Other Total Not Selected 29 4 16 4 56 15 3 1 63 8 199 87.9 % 100 % 94.1 % 100 % 91.8 % 100 % 100 % 100 % 95.5 % 100 % 93.9 % Selected 4 0 1 0 5 0 0 0 3 0 13 12.1 % 0 % 5.9 % 0 % 8.2 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 4.5 % 0 % 6.1 % Total 33 4 17 4 61 15 3 1 66 8 212

255 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA 2025 DISPARITY STUDY Table 58. Selection process [City of Somerville] Owners' Minority Status Responses African American American Indian Asian American Brazilian American Caucasian Hispanic American Multi- Racial or Bi-Racial Publicly Traded Company Woman Other Total Not Selected 25 4 15 2 56 14 3 1 58 7 185 75.8 % 100 % 88.2 % 50 % 91.8 % 93.3 % 100 % 100 % 87.9 % 87.5 % 87.3 % Selected 8 0 2 2 5 1 0 0 8 1 27 24.2 % 0 % 11.8 % 50 % 8.2 % 6.7 % 0 % 0 % 12.1 % 12.5 % 12.7 % Total 33 4 17 4 61 15 3 1 66 8 212 Table 59. Not certified [City of Somerville] Owners' Minority Status Responses African American American Indian Asian American Brazilian American Caucasian Hispanic American Multi- Racial or Bi-Racial Publicly Traded Company Woman Other Total Not Selected 31 4 17 4 60 13 3 1 64 8 205 93.9 % 100 % 100 % 100 % 98.4 % 86.7 % 100 % 100 % 97 % 100 % 96.7 % Selected 2 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 2 0 7 6.1 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 1.6 % 13.3 % 0 % 0 % 3 % 0 % 3.3 % Total 33 4 17 4 61 15 3 1 66 8 212

256 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA 2025 DISPARITY STUDY Table 60. Unfair competition with large firms [City of Somerville] Owners' Minority Status Responses African American American Indian Asian American Brazilian American Caucasian Hispanic American Multi- Racial or Bi-Racial Publicly Traded Company Woman Other Total Not Selected 25 3 13 1 56 14 2 1 56 6 177 75.8 % 75 % 76.5 % 25 % 91.8 % 93.3 % 66.7 % 100 % 84.8 % 75 % 83.5 % Selected 8 1 4 3 5 1 1 0 10 2 35 24.2 % 25 % 23.5 % 75 % 8.2 % 6.7 % 33.3 % 0 % 15.2 % 25 % 16.5 % Total 33 4 17 4 61 15 3 1 66 8 212 Table 61. Other [City of Somerville] Owners' Minority Status Responses African American American Indian Asian American Brazilian American Caucasian Hispanic American Multi- Racial or Bi-Racial Publicly Traded Company Woman Other Total Not Selected 22 4 13 1 54 12 2 1 59 6 174 81.5 % 100 % 92.9 % 50 % 94.7 % 100 % 66.7 % 100 % 98.3 % 85.7 % 93 % Selected 5 0 1 1 3 0 1 0 1 1 13 18.5 % 0 % 7.1 % 50 % 5.3 % 0 % 33.3 % 0 % 1.7 % 14.3 % 7 % Total 27 4 14 2 57 12 3 1 60 7 187

257 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA 2025 DISPARITY STUDY Table 62. For participants who selected 'Other', responses fell in the following categories. [City of Somerville] Owners' Minority Status Responses African American American Indian Asian American Brazilian American Caucasian Hispanic American Multi- Racial or Bi-Racial Publicly Traded Company Woman Other Total Discrimina tory behavior 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 25 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 10 % No response from procureme nt manager 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 3 25 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 100 % 100 % 30 % Sense of favoritism 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 % 0 % 100 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 10 % Limited knowledge of purchasing /contractin g policies and procedures 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % Lack of awareness 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 25 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 33.3 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 20 % 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2

258 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA 2025 DISPARITY STUDY Table 62. For participants who selected 'Other', responses fell in the following categories. [City of Somerville] Owners' Minority Status Responses African American American Indian Asian American Brazilian American Caucasian Hispanic American Multi- Racial or Bi-Racial Publicly Traded Company Woman Other Total No opportuniti es in my field of work 25 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 33.3 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 20 % Lack of personnel 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 33.3 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 10 % Total 4 0 1 0 3 0 0 0 1 1 10

259 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA 2025 DISPARITY STUDY Table 63. What is the amount of time that it typically takes to receive payment, from the date you submit your invoice for your services on (City of Somerville, Town of Brookline) projects? [The City of Somerville] Owners' Minority Status Responses African American American Indian Asian American Brazilian American Caucasian Hispanic American Multi- Racial or Bi-Racial Publicly Traded Company Woman Other Total Less than 30 days 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 4 0 % 0 % 25 % 0 % 4 % 0 % 50 % 0 % 3.6 % 0 % 5.4 % 31-60 days 1 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 3 0 10 11.1 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 24 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 10.7 % 0 % 13.5 % 61-90 days 2 0 1 0 13 0 0 0 11 0 27 22.2 % 0 % 25 % 0 % 52 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 39.3 % 0 % 36.5 % 91-120 days 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 5 22.2 % 0 % 50 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 3.6 % 0 % 6.8 % Over 120 days 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % Do Not Know/NA 4 0 0 2 5 2 1 0 12 2 28 44.4 % 0 % 0 % 100 % 20 % 100 % 50 % 0 % 42.9 % 100 % 37.8 % Total 9 0 4 2 25 2 2 0 28 2 74

260 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA 2025 DISPARITY STUDY Table 64. What is the amount of time that it typically takes to receive payment, from the date you submit your invoice to the prime contractor for your services on (City of Somerville, Town of Brookline) Projects? [City of Somerville] Owners' Minority Status Responses African American American Indian Asian American Brazilian American Caucasian Hispanic American Multi- Racial or Bi-Racial Publicly Traded Company Woman Other Total Less than 30 days 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 2 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 100 % 0 % 5.6 % 0 % 4.8 % 31-60 days 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 5 28.6 % 220 % 0 % 0 % 12.5 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 11.1 % 0 % 11.9 % 61-90 days 0 0 1 0 2 1 0 0 4 0 8 0 % 0 % 33.3 % 0 % 25 % 50 % 0 % 0 % 22.2 % 0 % 19 % 91-120 days 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 3 14.3 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 11.1 % 0 % 7.1 % Over 120 days 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 5.6 % 0 % 2.4 % Do Not Know/NA 4 0 2 0 5 1 0 0 8 3 23 57.1 % 0 % 66.7 % 0 % 62.5 % 50 % 0 % 0 % 44.4 % 100 % 54.8 % Total 7 0 3 0 8 2 1 0 18 3 42

261 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA 2025 DISPARITY STUDY Table 65. Is your company a certified:Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE)Minority owned Business Enterprise (MBE)Woman owned Business Enterprise (WBE)Veteran Business Enterprise (VBE)Disabled Business Enterprise (DBE)LGBTQ+ Business Enterprise Owners' Minority Status Responses African American American Indian Asian American Brazilian American Caucasian Hispanic American Multi- Racial or Bi-Racial Publicly Traded Company Woman Other Total Yes 32 3 14 4 14 13 2 1 57 6 146 97 % 75 % 82.4 % 100 % 23 % 86.7 % 66.7 % 100 % 86.4 % 75 % 68.9 % No 1 1 3 0 47 2 1 0 9 2 66 3 % 25 % 17.6 % 0 % 77 % 13.3 % 33.3 % 0 % 13.6 % 25 % 31.1 % Total 33 4 17 4 61 15 3 1 66 8 212

262 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA 2025 DISPARITY STUDY Table 66. What is your certification? [Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE)] Owners' Minority Status Responses African American American Indian Asian American Brazilian American Caucasian Hispanic American Multi- Racial or Bi-Racial Publicly Traded Company Woman Other Total Yes 13 0 4 1 1 3 0 1 13 0 36 40.6 % 0 % 28.6 % 25 % 7.1 % 23.1 % 0 % 100 % 22.8 % 0 % 24.7 % No 10 3 5 2 10 8 1 0 36 4 79 31.2 % 100 % 35.7 % 50 % 71.4 % 61.5 % 50 % 0 % 63.2 % 66.7 % 54.1 % N/A 9 0 5 1 3 2 1 0 8 2 31 28.1 % 0 % 35.7 % 25 % 21.4 % 15.4 % 50 % 0 % 14 % 33.3 % 21.2 % Total 32 3 14 4 14 13 2 1 57 6 146

263 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA 2025 DISPARITY STUDY Table 67. Minority owned Business Enterprise (MBE) Owners' Minority Status Responses African American American Indian Asian American Brazilian American Caucasian Hispanic American Multi- Racial or Bi-Racial Publicly Traded Company Woman Other Total Yes 29 3 12 4 2 13 2 1 3 3 72 90.6 % 100 % 85.7 % 100 % 14.3 % 100 % 100 % 100 % 5.3 % 50 % 49.3 % No 2 0 2 0 9 0 0 0 43 3 59 6.2 % 0 % 14.3 % 0 % 64.3 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 75.4 % 50 % 40.4 % N/A 1 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 11 0 15 3.1 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 21.4 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 19.3 % 0 % 10.3 % Total 32 3 14 4 14 13 2 1 57 6 146

264 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA 2025 DISPARITY STUDY Table 68. Woman owned Business Enterprise (WBE) Owners' Minority Status Responses African American American Indian Asian American Brazilian American Caucasian Hispanic American Multi- Racial or Bi-Racial Publicly Traded Company Woman Other Total Yes 10 2 8 1 2 4 1 0 57 6 91 31.2 % 66.7 % 57.1 % 25 % 14.3 % 30.8 % 50 % 0 % 100 % 100 % 62.3 % No 14 1 4 2 9 8 0 0 0 0 38 43.8 % 33.3 % 28.6 % 50 % 64.3 % 61.5 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 26 % N/A 8 0 2 1 3 1 1 1 0 0 17 25 % 0 % 14.3 % 25 % 21.4 % 7.7 % 50 % 100 % 0 % 0 % 11.6 % Total 32 3 14 4 14 13 2 1 57 6 146

265 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA 2025 DISPARITY STUDY Table 69. Veteran Business Enterprise (VBE) Owners' Minority Status Responses African American American Indian Asian American Brazilian American Caucasian Hispanic American Multi- Racial or Bi-Racial Publicly Traded Company Woman Other Total Yes 3 0 0 0 4 1 1 0 1 0 10 9.4 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 28.6 % 7.7 % 50 % 0 % 1.8 % 0 % 6.8 % No 15 3 6 2 8 8 0 0 45 4 91 46.9 % 100 % 42.9 % 50 % 57.1 % 61.5 % 0 % 0 % 78.9 % 66.7 % 62.3 % N/A 14 0 8 2 2 4 1 1 11 2 45 43.8 % 0 % 57.1 % 50 % 14.3 % 30.8 % 50 % 100 % 19.3 % 33.3 % 30.8 % Total 32 3 14 4 14 13 2 1 57 6 146

266 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA 2025 DISPARITY STUDY Table 70. Disabled Business Enterprise (DBE) Owners' Minority Status Responses African American American Indian Asian American Brazilian American Caucasian Hispanic American Multi- Racial or Bi-Racial Publicly Traded Company Woman Other Total Yes 3 0 1 1 6 2 0 0 2 0 15 9.4 % 0 % 7.1 % 25 % 42.9 % 15.4 % 0 % 0 % 3.5 % 0 % 10.3 % No 15 3 6 2 6 8 1 0 44 4 89 46.9 % 100 % 42.9 % 50 % 42.9 % 61.5 % 50 % 0 % 77.2 % 66.7 % 61 % N/A 14 0 7 1 2 3 1 1 11 2 42 43.8 % 0 % 50 % 25 % 14.3 % 23.1 % 50 % 100 % 19.3 % 33.3 % 28.8 % Total 32 3 14 4 14 13 2 1 57 6 146

267 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA 2025 DISPARITY STUDY Table 71. LGBTQ+ Business Enterprise Owners' Minority Status Responses African American American Indian Asian American Brazilian American Caucasian Hispanic American Multi- Racial or Bi-Racial Publicly Traded Company Woman Other Total Yes 0 0 1 1 4 1 0 0 2 0 9 0 % 0 % 7.1 % 25 % 28.6 % 7.7 % 0 % 0 % 3.5 % 0 % 6.2 % No 17 3 6 2 8 9 1 0 46 4 96 53.1 % 100 % 42.9 % 50 % 57.1 % 69.2 % 50 % 0 % 80.7 % 66.7 % 65.8 % N/A 15 0 7 1 2 3 1 1 9 2 41 46.9 % 0 % 50 % 25 % 14.3 % 23.1 % 50 % 100 % 15.8 % 33.3 % 28.1 % Total 32 3 14 4 14 13 2 1 57 6 146

268 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA 2025 DISPARITY STUDY Table 72. Why is your company not certified as any of the following?: Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE), Minority owned Business Enterprise (MBE), Woman owned Business Enterprise (WBE), Veteran Business Enterprise (VBE), Disabled Business Enterprise (DBE),or LGBTQ+ Business Enterprise [I do not understand the certification process] Owners' Minority Status Responses African American American Indian Asian American Brazilian American Caucasian Hispanic American Multi- Racial or Bi-Racial Publicly Traded Company Woman Other Total Not Selected 1 1 3 0 45 2 1 0 7 2 62 100 % 100 % 100 % 0 % 95.7 % 100 % 100 % 0 % 77.8 % 100 % 93.9 % Selected 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 4 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 4.3 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 22.2 % 0 % 6.1 % Total 1 1 3 0 47 2 1 0 9 2 66 Table 73. We do not meet one or more of the requirements for certification Owners' Minority Status Responses African American American Indian Asian American Brazilian American Caucasian Hispanic American Multi- Racial or Bi-Racial Publicly Traded Company Woman Other Total Not Selected 1 1 3 0 35 2 0 0 9 1 52 100 % 100 % 100 % 0 % 74.5 % 100 % 0 % 0 % 100 % 50 % 78.8 % Selected 0 0 0 0 12 0 1 0 0 1 14 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 25.5 % 0 % 100 % 0 % 0 % 50 % 21.2 % Total 1 1 3 0 47 2 1 0 9 2 66

269 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA 2025 DISPARITY STUDY Table 74. Certification is too expensive Owners' Minority Status Responses African American American Indian Asian American Brazilian American Caucasian Hispanic American Multi- Racial or Bi-Racial Publicly Traded Company Woman Other Total Not Selected 1 1 3 0 47 2 1 0 9 1 65 100 % 100 % 100 % 0 % 100 % 100 % 100 % 0 % 100 % 50 % 98.5 % Selected 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 50 % 1.5 % Total 1 1 3 0 47 2 1 0 9 2 66

270 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA 2025 DISPARITY STUDY Table 75. I do not want governmental agencies to have information about my company Owners' Minority Status Responses African American American Indian Asian American Brazilian American Caucasian Hispanic American Multi- Racial or Bi-Racial Publicly Traded Company Woman Other Total Not Selected 1 1 3 0 45 2 1 0 9 2 64 100 % 100 % 100 % 0 % 95.7 % 100 % 100 % 0 % 100 % 100 % 97 % Selected 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 4.3 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 3 % Total 1 1 3 0 47 2 1 0 9 2 66 Table 76. I have not had time to get certified/the process is too time-consuming Owners' Minority Status Responses African American American Indian Asian American Brazilian American Caucasian Hispanic American Multi- Racial or Bi-Racial Publicly Traded Company Woman Other Total Not Selected 1 1 2 0 44 2 1 0 6 2 59 100 % 100 % 66.7 % 0 % 93.6 % 100 % 100 % 0 % 66.7 % 100 % 89.4 % Selected 0 0 1 0 3 0 0 0 3 0 7 0 % 0 % 33.3 % 0 % 6.4 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 33.3 % 0 % 10.6 % Total 1 1 3 0 47 2 1 0 9 2 66

271 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA 2025 DISPARITY STUDY Table 77. Certification does not benefit and/or will negatively impact my company Owners' Minority Status Responses African American American Indian Asian American Brazilian American Caucasian Hispanic American Multi- Racial or Bi-Racial Publicly Traded Company Woman Other Total Not Selected 0 0 2 0 17 0 1 0 5 1 26 0 % 0 % 66.7 % 0 % 36.2 % 0 % 100 % 0 % 55.6 % 50 % 39.4 % Selected 1 1 1 0 30 2 0 0 4 1 40 100 % 100 % 33.3 % 0 % 63.8 % 100 % 0 % 0 % 44.4 % 50 % 60.6 % Total 1 1 3 0 47 2 1 0 9 2 66 Table 78. Do not understand how certification can benefit my firm Owners' Minority Status Responses African American American Indian Asian American Brazilian American Caucasian Hispanic American Multi- Racial or Bi-Racial Publicly Traded Company Woman Other Total Not Selected 1 1 2 0 43 2 1 0 6 2 58 100 % 100 % 66.7 % 0 % 91.5 % 100 % 100 % 0 % 66.7 % 100 % 87.9 % Selected 0 0 1 0 4 0 0 0 3 0 8 0 % 0 % 33.3 % 0 % 8.5 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 33.3 % 0 % 12.1 % Total 1 1 3 0 47 2 1 0 9 2 66

272 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA 2025 DISPARITY STUDY Table 79. Between 2017 - Present, did your company apply and receive any of the following? [Business start-up loan?] Owners' Minority Status Responses African American American Indian Asian American Brazilian American Caucasian Hispanic American Multi- Racial or Bi-Racial Publicly Traded Company Woman Other Total Never Applied 28 4 15 3 60 13 3 1 66 8 201 84.8 % 100 % 88.2 % 75 % 98.4 % 86.7 % 100 % 100 % 100 % 100 % 94.8 % Applied, Never Approved 4 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 12.1 % 0 % 0 % 25 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 2.4 % Applied, Some Approved 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 3 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 6.7 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0.9 % Applied, All Approved 0 0 2 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 4 0 % 0 % 11.8 % 0 % 1.6 % 6.7 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 1.9 % Total 33 4 17 4 61 15 3 1 66 8 212

273 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA 2025 DISPARITY STUDY Table 80. Operating capital loan? Owners' Minority Status Responses African American American Indian Asian American Brazilian American Caucasian Hispanic American Multi- Racial or Bi-Racial Publicly Traded Company Woman Other Total Never Applied 24 4 13 3 54 11 2 1 60 6 178 72.7 % 100 % 76.5 % 75 % 88.5 % 73.3 % 66.7 % 100 % 90.9 % 75 % 84 % Applied, Never Approved 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 9.1 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 1.4 % Applied, Some Approved 4 0 2 1 1 2 0 0 1 0 11 12.1 % 0 % 11.8 % 25 % 1.6 % 13.3 % 0 % 0 % 1.5 % 0 % 5.2 % Applied, All Approved 2 0 2 0 6 2 1 0 5 2 20 6.1 % 0 % 11.8 % 0 % 9.8 % 13.3 % 33.3 % 0 % 7.6 % 25 % 9.4 % Total 33 4 17 4 61 15 3 1 66 8 212

274 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA 2025 DISPARITY STUDY Table 81. Equipment loan? Owners' Minority Status Responses African American American Indian Asian American Brazilian American Caucasian Hispanic American Multi- Racial or Bi-Racial Publicly Traded Company Woman Other Total Never Applied 26 4 13 3 55 11 3 1 61 7 184 78.8 % 100 % 76.5 % 75 % 90.2 % 73.3 % 100 % 100 % 92.4 % 87.5 % 86.8 % Applied, Never Approved 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0.5 % Applied, Some Approved 1 0 1 1 1 2 0 0 0 1 7 3 % 0 % 5.9 % 25 % 1.6 % 13.3 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 12.5 % 3.3 % Applied, All Approved 5 0 3 0 5 2 0 0 5 0 20 15.2 % 0 % 17.6 % 0 % 8.2 % 13.3 % 0 % 0 % 7.6 % 0 % 9.4 % Total 33 4 17 4 61 15 3 1 66 8 212

275 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA 2025 DISPARITY STUDY Table 82. Commercial/Professional liability insurance? Owners' Minority Status Responses African American American Indian Asian American Brazilian American Caucasian Hispanic American Multi- Racial or Bi-Racial Publicly Traded Company Woman Other Total Never Applied 16 4 9 1 44 9 1 1 39 2 126 48.5 % 100 % 52.9 % 25 % 72.1 % 60 % 33.3 % 100 % 59.1 % 25 % 59.4 % Applied, Never Approved 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0.5 % Applied, Some Approved 2 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 5 6.1 % 0 % 0 % 25 % 0 % 6.7 % 0 % 0 % 1.5 % 0 % 2.4 % Applied, All Approved 14 0 8 2 17 5 2 0 26 6 80 42.4 % 0 % 47.1 % 50 % 27.9 % 33.3 % 66.7 % 0 % 39.4 % 75 % 37.7 % Total 33 4 17 4 61 15 3 1 66 8 212

276 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA 2025 DISPARITY STUDY Table 83. PPP (Paycheck Protection Program loan)? Owners' Minority Status Responses African American American Indian Asian American Brazilian American Caucasian Hispanic American Multi- Racial or Bi-Racial Publicly Traded Company Woman Other Total Never Applied 16 3 10 3 32 6 1 1 34 4 110 48.5 % 75 % 58.8 % 75 % 52.5 % 40 % 33.3 % 100 % 51.5 % 50 % 51.9 % Applied, Never Approved 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 9.1 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 1.4 % Applied, Some Approved 3 0 1 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 8 9.1 % 0 % 5.9 % 25 % 1.6 % 13.3 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 3.8 % Applied, All Approved 11 1 6 0 28 7 2 0 32 4 91 33.3 % 25 % 35.3 % 0 % 45.9 % 46.7 % 66.7 % 0 % 48.5 % 50 % 42.9 % Total 33 4 17 4 61 15 3 1 66 8 212

277 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA 2025 DISPARITY STUDY Table 84. What was the largest commercial loan you received from 2017 - Present? Owners' Minority Status Responses African American American Indian Asian American Brazilian American Caucasian Hispanic American Multi- Racial or Bi-Racial Publicly Traded Company Woman Other Total $50,000 or less 10 0 3 0 8 1 1 0 8 4 35 30.3 % 0 % 17.6 % 0 % 13.1 % 6.7 % 33.3 % 0 % 12.1 % 50 % 16.5 % $50,001 - $100,000 2 0 0 1 1 2 0 0 4 0 10 6.1 % 0 % 0 % 25 % 1.6 % 13.3 % 0 % 0 % 6.1 % 0 % 4.7 % $100,001 - $300,000 5 1 2 0 3 2 0 0 4 1 18 15.2 % 25 % 11.8 % 0 % 4.9 % 13.3 % 0 % 0 % 6.1 % 12.5 % 8.5 % $300,001 - $500,000 0 0 2 1 3 0 0 0 4 0 10 0 % 0 % 11.8 % 25 % 4.9 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 6.1 % 0 % 4.7 % $500,001 - $1,000,000 2 0 2 0 11 0 0 0 3 0 18 6.1 % 0 % 11.8 % 0 % 18 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 4.5 % 0 % 8.5 % $1,000,001 - $3,000,000 0 0 2 0 1 1 0 0 2 0 6 0 % 0 % 11.8 % 0 % 1.6 % 6.7 % 0 % 0 % 3 % 0 % 2.8 % $3,000,001 - $5,000,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 1.5 % 12.5 % 0.9 % $5,000,001 to $10,000,00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 %

278 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA 2025 DISPARITY STUDY Table 84. What was the largest commercial loan you received from 2017 - Present? Owners' Minority Status Responses African American American Indian Asian American Brazilian American Caucasian Hispanic American Multi- Racial or Bi-Racial Publicly Traded Company Woman Other Total Over $10,000,00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % Do Not Know/ NA 14 3 6 2 34 9 2 1 40 2 113 42.4 % 75 % 35.3 % 50 % 55.7 % 60 % 66.7 % 100 % 60.6 % 25 % 53.3 % Total 33 4 17 4 61 15 3 1 66 8 212

279 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA 2025 DISPARITY STUDY Table 85. How many times have you been denied a commercial (business) bank loan from 2017 - Present? Owners' Minority Status Responses African American American Indian Asian American Brazilian American Caucasian Hispanic American Multi- Racial or Bi-Racial Publicly Traded Company Woman Other Total None 15 1 12 2 35 12 1 0 43 7 128 45.5 % 25 % 70.6 % 50 % 57.4 % 80 % 33.3 % 0 % 65.2 % 87.5 % 60.4 % 1-10 9 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 15 27.3 % 0 % 17.6 % 0 % 1.6 % 0 % 33.3 % 0 % 1.5 % 0 % 7.1 % 11-25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 26-50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 51-100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % Over 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % Do Not Know/ NA 9 3 2 2 25 3 1 1 22 1 69 27.3 % 75 % 11.8 % 50 % 41 % 20 % 33.3 % 100 % 33.3 % 12.5 % 32.5 % Total 33 4 17 4 61 15 3 1 66 8 212

280 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA 2025 DISPARITY STUDY Table 86. Of the items your company was denied, what was the denial reason? [Business start-up loan?][Insufficient Documentation] Owners' Minority Status Responses African American American Indian Asian American Brazilian American Caucasian Hispanic American Multi- Racial or Bi-Racial Publicly Traded Company Woman Other Total Not Selected 5 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 7 100 % 0 % 0 % 100 % 0 % 100 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 100 % Selected 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % Total 5 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 7 Table 87. Operating capital loan? [Insufficient Documentation] Owners' Minority Status Responses African American American Indian Asian American Brazilian American Caucasian Hispanic American Multi- Racial or Bi-Racial Publicly Traded Company Woman Other Total Not Selected 5 0 2 1 1 2 0 0 1 0 12 71.4 % 0 % 100 % 100 % 100 % 100 % 0 % 0 % 100 % 0 % 85.7 % Selected 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 28.6 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 14.3 % Total 7 0 2 1 1 2 0 0 1 0 14

281 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA 2025 DISPARITY STUDY Table 88. Equipment loan? [Insufficient Documentation] Owners' Minority Status Responses African American American Indian Asian American Brazilian American Caucasian Hispanic American Multi- Racial or Bi-Racial Publicly Traded Company Woman Other Total Not Selected 2 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 7 100 % 0 % 100 % 100 % 100 % 50 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 100 % 87.5 % Selected 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 50 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 12.5 % Total 2 0 1 1 1 2 0 0 0 1 8 Table 89. Commercial/Professional liability insurance? [Insufficient Documentation] Owners' Minority Status Responses African American American Indian Asian American Brazilian American Caucasian Hispanic American Multi- Racial or Bi-Racial Publicly Traded Company Woman Other Total Not Selected 3 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 6 100 % 0 % 0 % 100 % 0 % 100 % 0 % 0 % 100 % 0 % 100 % Selected 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % Total 3 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 6

282 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA 2025 DISPARITY STUDY Table 90. PPP (Paycheck Protection Program) loan? [Insufficient Documentation] Owners' Minority Status Responses African American American Indian Asian American Brazilian American Caucasian Hispanic American Multi- Racial or Bi-Racial Publicly Traded Company Woman Other Total Not Selected 6 0 1 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 11 100 % 0 % 100 % 100 % 100 % 100 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 100 % Selected 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % Total 6 0 1 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 11 Table 91. Business start-up loan? [Insufficient Business History] Owners' Minority Status Responses African American American Indian Asian American Brazilian Caucasian Hispanic American Multi- Racial or Bi-Racial Publicly Traded Company Woman Other Total Not Selected 3 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 5 60 % 0 % 0 % 100 % 0 % 100 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 71.4 % Selected 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 40 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 28.6 % Total 5 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 7

283 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA 2025 DISPARITY STUDY Table 92. Operating capital loan? [Insufficient Business History] Owners' Minority Status Responses African American American Indian Asian American Brazilian American Caucasian Hispanic American Multi- Racial or Bi-Racial Publicly Traded Company Woman Other Total Not Selected 5 0 1 1 1 2 0 0 1 0 11 71.4 % 0 % 50 % 100 % 100 % 100 % 0 % 0 % 100 % 0 % 78.6 % Selected 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 28.6 % 0 % 50 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 21.4 % Total 7 0 2 1 1 2 0 0 1 0 14 Table 93. Equipment loan? [Insufficient Business History] Owners' Minority Status Responses African American American Indian Asian American Brazilian American Caucasian Hispanic American Multi- Racial or Bi-Racial Publicly Traded Company Woman Other Total Not Selected 2 0 1 1 1 2 0 0 0 1 8 100 % 0 % 100 % 100 % 100 % 100 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 100 % 100 % Selected 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % Total 2 0 1 1 1 2 0 0 0 1 8

284 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA 2025 DISPARITY STUDY Table 94. Commercial/Professional liability insurance? [Insufficient Business History] Owners' Minority Status Responses African American American Indian Asian American Brazilian American Caucasian Hispanic American Multi- Racial or Bi-Racial Publicly Traded Company Woman Other Total Not Selected 3 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 6 100 % 0 % 0 % 100 % 0 % 100 % 0 % 0 % 100 % 0 % 100 % Selected 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % Total 3 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 6 Table 95. PPP (Paycheck Protection Program) loan? [Insufficient Business History] Owners' Minority Status Responses African American American Indian Asian American Brazilian American Caucasian Hispanic American Multi- Racial or Bi-Racial Publicly Traded Company Woman Other Total Not Selected 5 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 9 83.3 % 0 % 100 % 100 % 100 % 50 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 81.8 % Selected 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 16.7 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 50 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 18.2 % Total 6 0 1 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 11

285 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA 2025 DISPARITY STUDY Table 96. Business start-up loan? [Confusion about Process] Owners' Minority Status Responses African American American Indian Asian American Brazilian American Caucasian Hispanic American Multi- Racial or Bi-Racial Publicly Traded Company Woman Other Total Not Selected 4 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 6 80 % 0 % 0 % 100 % 0 % 100 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 85.7 % Selected 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 20 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 14.3 % Total 5 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 7 Table 97. Operating capital loan? [Confusion about Process] Owners' Minority Status Responses African American American Indian Asian American Brazilian American Caucasian Hispanic American Multi- Racial or Bi-Racial Publicly Traded Company Woman Other Total Not Selected 6 0 2 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 12 85.7 % 0 % 100 % 100 % 100 % 50 % 0 % 0 % 100 % 0 % 85.7 % Selected 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 14.3 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 50 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 14.3 % Total 7 0 2 1 1 2 0 0 1 0 14

286 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA 2025 DISPARITY STUDY Table 98. Equipment loan? [Confusion about Process] Owners' Minority Status Responses African American American Indian Asian American Brazilian American Caucasian Hispanic American Multi- Racial or Bi-Racial Publicly Traded Company Woman Other Total Not Selected 1 0 1 1 1 2 0 0 0 1 7 50 % 0 % 100 % 100 % 100 % 100 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 100 % 87.5 % Selected 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 50 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 12.5 % Total 2 0 1 1 1 2 0 0 0 1 8 Table 99. Commercial/Professional liability insurance? [Confusion about Process] Owners' Minority Status Responses African American American Indian Asian American Brazilian American Caucasian Hispanic American Multi- Racial or Bi-Racial Publicly Traded Company Woman Other Total Not Selected 2 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 5 66.7 % 0 % 0 % 100 % 0 % 100 % 0 % 0 % 100 % 0 % 83.3 % Selected 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 33.3 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 16.7 % Total 3 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 6

287 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA 2025 DISPARITY STUDY Table 100. PPP (Paycheck Protection Program) loan? [Confusion about Process] Owners' Minority Status Responses African American American Indian Asian American Brazilian American Caucasian Hispanic American Multi- Racial or Bi-Racial Publicly Traded Company Woman Other Total Not Selected 5 0 1 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 10 83.3 % 0 % 100 % 100 % 100 % 100 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 90.9 % Selected 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 16.7 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 9.1 % Total 6 0 1 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 11 Table 101. Business start-up loan? [Credit History] Owners' Minority Status Responses African American American Indian Asian American Brazilian American Caucasian Hispanic American Multi- Racial or Bi-Racial Publicly Traded Company Woman Other Total Not Selected 5 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 7 100 % 0 % 0 % 100 % 0 % 100 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 100 % Selected 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % Total 5 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 7

288 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA 2025 DISPARITY STUDY Table 102. Operating capital loan? [Credit History] Owners' Minority Status Responses African American American Indian Asian American Brazilian American Caucasian Hispanic American Multi- Racial or Bi-Racial Publicly Traded Company Woman Other Total Not Selected 6 0 1 1 1 2 0 0 1 0 12 85.7 % 0 % 50 % 100 % 100 % 100 % 0 % 0 % 100 % 0 % 85.7 % Selected 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 14.3 % 0 % 50 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 14.3 % Total 7 0 2 1 1 2 0 0 1 0 14 Table 103. Equipment loan? [Credit History] Owners' Minority Status Responses African American American Indian Asian American Brazilian American Caucasian Hispanic American Multi- Racial or Bi-Racial Publicly Traded Company Woman Other Total Not Selected 2 0 1 1 1 2 0 0 0 1 8 100 % 0 % 100 % 100 % 100 % 100 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 100 % 100 % Selected 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % Total 2 0 1 1 1 2 0 0 0 1 8

289 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA 2025 DISPARITY STUDY Table 104. Commercial/Professional liability insurance? [Credit History] Owners' Minority Status Responses African American American Indian Asian American Brazilian American Caucasian Hispanic American Multi- Racial or Bi-Racial Publicly Traded Company Woman Other Total Not Selected 3 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 6 100 % 0 % 0 % 100 % 0 % 100 % 0 % 0 % 100 % 0 % 100 % Selected 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % Total 3 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 6 Table 105. PPP (Paycheck Protection Program) loan? [Credit History] Owners' Minority Status Responses African American American Indian Asian American Brazilian American Caucasian Hispanic American Multi- Racial or Bi-Racial Publicly Traded Company Woman Other Total Not Selected 6 0 1 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 11 100 % 0 % 100 % 100 % 100 % 100 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 100 % Selected 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % Total 6 0 1 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 11

290 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA 2025 DISPARITY STUDY Table 106. Business start-up loan? [Do Not Know] Owners' Minority Status Responses African American American Indian Asian American Brazilian American Caucasian Hispanic American Multi- Racial or Bi-Racial Publicly Traded Company Woman Other Total Not Selected 3 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 5 60 % 0 % 0 % 100 % 0 % 100 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 71.4 % Selected 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 40 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 28.6 % Total 5 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 7 Table 107. Operating capital loan? [Do Not Know] Owners' Minority Status Responses African American American Indian Asian American Brazilian American Caucasian Hispanic American Multi- Racial or Bi-Racial Publicly Traded Company Woman Other Total Not Selected 5 0 1 1 1 2 0 0 1 0 11 71.4 % 0 % 50 % 100 % 100 % 100 % 0 % 0 % 100 % 0 % 78.6 % Selected 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 28.6 % 0 % 50 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 21.4 % Total 7 0 2 1 1 2 0 0 1 0 14

291 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA 2025 DISPARITY STUDY Table 108. Equipment loan? [Do Not Know] Owners' Minority Status Responses African American American Indian Asian American Brazilian American Caucasian Hispanic American Multi- Racial or Bi-Racial Publicly Traded Company Woman Other Total Not Selected 2 0 0 1 1 2 0 0 0 1 7 100 % 0 % 0 % 100 % 100 % 100 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 100 % 87.5 % Selected 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 % 0 % 100 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 12.5 % Total 2 0 1 1 1 2 0 0 0 1 8 Table 109. Commercial/Professional liability insurance? [Do Not Know] Owners' Minority Status Responses African American American Indian Asian American Brazilian American Caucasian Hispanic American Multi- Racial or Bi-Racial Publicly Traded Company Woman Other Total Not Selected 3 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 5 100 % 0 % 0 % 100 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 100 % 0 % 83.3 % Selected 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 100 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 16.7 % Total 3 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 6

292 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA 2025 DISPARITY STUDY Table 110. PPP (Paycheck Protection Program) loan? [Do Not Know] Owners' Minority Status Responses African American American Indian Asian American Brazilian American Caucasian Hispanic American Multi- Racial or Bi-Racial Publicly Traded Company Woman Other Total Not Selected 6 0 1 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 11 100 % 0 % 100 % 100 % 100 % 100 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 100 % Selected 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % Total 6 0 1 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 11 Table 111. Business start-up loan? [N/A] Owners' Minority Status Responses African American American Indian Asian American Brazilian American Caucasian Hispanic American Multi- Racial or Bi-Racial Publicly Traded Company Woman Other Total Not Selected 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 100 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 71.4 % Selected 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 % 0 % 0 % 100 % 0 % 100 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 28.6 % Total 5 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 7

293 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA 2025 DISPARITY STUDY Table 112. Operating capital loan? [N/A] Owners' Minority Status Responses African American American Indian Asian American Brazilian American Caucasian Hispanic American Multi- Racial or Bi-Racial Publicly Traded Company Woman Other Total Not Selected 6 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 8 85.7 % 0 % 50 % 0 % 0 % 50 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 57.1 % Selected 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 6 14.3 % 0 % 50 % 100 % 100 % 50 % 0 % 0 % 100 % 0 % 42.9 % Total 7 0 2 1 1 2 0 0 1 0 14 Table 113. Equipment loan? [N/A] Owners' Minority Status Responses African American American Indian Asian American Brazilian American Caucasian Hispanic American Multi- Racial or Bi-Racial Publicly Traded Company Woman Other Total Not Selected 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 3 50 % 0 % 100 % 0 % 0 % 50 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 37.5 % Selected 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 5 50 % 0 % 0 % 100 % 100 % 50 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 100 % 62.5 % Total 2 0 1 1 1 2 0 0 0 1 8

294 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA 2025 DISPARITY STUDY Table 114. Commercial/Professional liability insurance? [N/A] Owners' Minority Status Responses African American American Indian Asian American Brazilian American Caucasian Hispanic American Multi- Racial or Bi-Racial Publicly Traded Company Woman Other Total Not Selected 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 33.3 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 100 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 33.3 % Selected 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 4 66.7 % 0 % 0 % 100 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 100 % 0 % 66.7 % Total 3 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 6 Table 115. PPP (Paycheck Protection Program) loan? [N/A] Owners' Minority Status Responses African American American Indian Asian American Brazilian American Caucasian Hispanic American Multi- Racial or Bi-Racial Publicly Traded Company Woman Other Total Not Selected 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 3 33.3 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 50 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 27.3 % Selected 4 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 8 66.7 % 0 % 100 % 100 % 100 % 50 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 72.7 % Total 6 0 1 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 11

295 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA 2025 DISPARITY STUDY Table 116. From 2017 - Present, how often has your company experienced any racial, gender, or ethnicity discriminatory behavior from the Boston Metropolitan Area (i.e., non- governmental entities)? Owners' Minority Status Responses African American American Indian Asian American Brazilian American Caucasian Hispanic American Multi- Racial or Bi-Racial Publicly Traded Company Woman Other Total Never 11 3 8 1 38 8 0 1 39 5 114 33.3 % 75 % 47.1 % 25 % 62.3 % 53.3 % 0 % 100 % 59.1 % 62.5 % 53.8 % Seldom 5 0 5 0 2 3 2 0 9 0 26 15.2 % 0 % 29.4 % 0 % 3.3 % 20 % 66.7 % 0 % 13.6 % 0 % 12.3 % Often 6 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 2 1 12 18.2 % 0 % 0 % 50 % 1.6 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 3 % 12.5 % 5.7 % Very Often 3 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 8 9.1 % 0 % 5.9 % 25 % 1.6 % 6.7 % 0 % 0 % 1.5 % 0 % 3.8 % Do Not Know 8 1 3 0 19 3 1 0 15 2 52 24.2 % 25 % 17.6 % 0 % 31.1 % 20 % 33.3 % 0 % 22.7 % 25 % 24.5 % Total 33 4 17 4 61 15 3 1 66 8 212

296 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA 2025 DISPARITY STUDY Table 117. From 2017 - Present, how often has your company experienced any racial, gender, or ethnicity discriminatory behavior from: [City of Somerville] Owners' Minority Status Responses African American American Indian Asian American Brazilian American Caucasian Hispanic American Multi- Racial or Bi-Racial Publicly Traded Company Woman Other Total Never 19 3 10 1 41 10 1 1 48 7 141 57.6 % 75 % 58.8 % 25 % 67.2 % 66.7 % 33.3 % 100 % 72.7 % 87.5 % 66.5 % Seldom 2 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 0 6 6.1 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 6.7 % 33.3 % 0 % 3 % 0 % 2.8 % Often 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 % 0 % 0 % 25 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0.5 % Very Often 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 % 0 % 0 % 25 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0.5 % Do Not Know 12 1 7 1 20 4 1 0 16 1 63 36.4 % 25 % 41.2 % 25 % 32.8 % 26.7 % 33.3 % 0 % 24.2 % 12.5 % 29.7 % Total 33 4 17 4 61 15 3 1 66 8 212

297 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA 2025 DISPARITY STUDY Table 118. Do you believe there is an informal network of prime and subcontractors doing business with the City of Somerville, Town of Brookline that monopolizes the public contracting process? Informal network is defined as firms that have an advantage due to their relationships inside the City of Somerville, Town of Brookline. [City of Somerville] Owners' Minority Status Responses African American American Indian Asian American Brazilian American Caucasian Hispanic American Multi- Racial or Bi-Racial Publicly Traded Company Woman Other Total Yes 19 0 6 4 10 5 2 0 16 7 69 57.6 % 0 % 35.3 % 100 % 16.4 % 33.3 % 66.7 % 0 % 24.2 % 87.5 % 32.5 % No 14 4 11 0 51 10 1 1 50 1 143 42.4 % 100 % 64.7 % 0 % 83.6 % 66.7 % 33.3 % 100 % 75.8 % 12.5 % 67.5 % Total 33 4 17 4 61 15 3 1 66 8 212

298 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA 2025 DISPARITY STUDY Table 119. The City of Somerville is generally accommodating to the language needs of its vendor community. Owners' Minority Status Responses African American American Indian Asian American Brazilian American Caucasian Hispanic American Multi- Racial or Bi-Racial Publicly Traded Company Woman Other Total Strongly agree 1 0 0 1 2 1 0 0 6 0 11 3 % 0 % 0 % 25 % 3.3 % 6.7 % 0 % 0 % 9.1 % 0 % 5.2 % Agree 5 0 5 0 2 1 1 0 5 1 20 15.2 % 0 % 29.4 % 0 % 3.3 % 6.7 % 33.3 % 0 % 7.6 % 12.5 % 9.4 % Neither agree nor disagree 12 4 10 0 37 8 0 1 27 3 102 36.4 % 100 % 58.8 % 0 % 60.7 % 53.3 % 0 % 100 % 40.9 % 37.5 % 48.1 % Disagree 2 0 0 2 6 1 0 0 6 2 19 6.1 % 0 % 0 % 50 % 9.8 % 6.7 % 0 % 0 % 9.1 % 25 % 9 % Strongly disagree 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 2 0 5 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 3.3 % 0 % 33.3 % 0 % 3 % 0 % 2.4 % N/A 13 0 2 1 12 4 1 0 20 2 55 39.4 % 0 % 11.8 % 25 % 19.7 % 26.7 % 33.3 % 0 % 30.3 % 25 % 25.9 % Total 33 4 17 4 61 15 3 1 66 8 212

299 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA 2025 DISPARITY STUDY Table 120. Double standards in qualifications and work performance make it more difficult for Minority and/or Woman owned business to win bids or contracts. Owners' Minority Status Responses African American American Indian Asian American Brazilian American Caucasian Hispanic American Multi- Racial or Bi-Racial Publicly Traded Company Woman Other Total Strongly agree 7 0 1 2 3 4 1 0 3 2 23 21.2 % 0 % 5.9 % 50 % 4.9 % 26.7 % 33.3 % 0 % 4.5 % 25 % 10.8 % Agree 9 0 3 1 5 1 1 0 8 3 31 27.3 % 0 % 17.6 % 25 % 8.2 % 6.7 % 33.3 % 0 % 12.1 % 37.5 % 14.6 % Neither agree nor disagree 14 4 11 1 44 7 0 1 44 3 129 42.4 % 100 % 64.7 % 25 % 72.1 % 46.7 % 0 % 100 % 66.7 % 37.5 % 60.8 % Disagree 1 0 1 0 5 2 1 0 6 0 16 3 % 0 % 5.9 % 0 % 8.2 % 13.3 % 33.3 % 0 % 9.1 % 0 % 7.5 % Strongly disagree 2 0 1 0 4 1 0 0 5 0 13 6.1 % 0 % 5.9 % 0 % 6.6 % 6.7 % 0 % 0 % 7.6 % 0 % 6.1 % Total 33 4 17 4 61 15 3 1 66 8 212

300 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA 2025 DISPARITY STUDY Table 121. Sometimes, a prime contractor will contact Minority, Woman, Veteran, LGBTQ+, or Disabled owned firm to ask for quotes but never give the proposal sufficient review to consider giving that firm the award. Owners' Minority Status Responses African American American Indian Asian American Brazilian American Caucasian Hispanic American Multi- Racial or Bi-Racial Publicly Traded Company Woman Other Total Strongly agree 6 0 2 4 1 3 1 0 5 2 24 18.2 % 0 % 11.8 % 100 % 1.6 % 20 % 33.3 % 0 % 7.6 % 25 % 11.3 % Agree 9 0 2 0 3 1 0 0 5 1 21 27.3 % 0 % 11.8 % 0 % 4.9 % 6.7 % 0 % 0 % 7.6 % 12.5 % 9.9 % Neither agree nor disagree 14 4 11 0 47 8 0 1 45 4 134 42.4 % 100 % 64.7 % 0 % 77 % 53.3 % 0 % 100 % 68.2 % 50 % 63.2 % Disagree 2 0 1 0 4 2 1 0 7 1 18 6.1 % 0 % 5.9 % 0 % 6.6 % 13.3 % 33.3 % 0 % 10.6 % 12.5 % 8.5 % Strongly disagree 2 0 1 0 6 1 1 0 4 0 15 6.1 % 0 % 5.9 % 0 % 9.8 % 6.7 % 33.3 % 0 % 6.1 % 0 % 7.1 % Total 33 4 17 4 61 15 3 1 66 8 212

301 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA 2025 DISPARITY STUDY Table 122. For participants who provided Feedback, responses fell in the following categories. [City of Somerville] Owners' Minority Status Responses African American American Indian Asian American Brazilian American Caucasian Hispanic American Multi- Racial or Bi-Racial Publicly Traded Company Woman Other Total Not Applicable 3 0 1 0 4 3 0 0 0 0 11 30 % 0 % 16.7 % 0 % 50 % 75 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 27.5 % Outreach and engagemen t 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 % 0 % 16.7 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 16.7 % 0 % 5 % Contract manageme nt and clarity 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 4 20 % 0 % 16.7 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 16.7 % 0 % 10 % Financing and financial barriers 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 20 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 5 % Support for small businesses 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 12.5 % 25 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 5 % Positive feedback 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 3 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 12.5 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 33.3 % 0 % 7.5 % Communic ation issues 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 2 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 100 % 0 % 0 % 20 % 5 % 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

302 CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MA 2025 DISPARITY STUDY Table 122. For participants who provided Feedback, responses fell in the following categories. [City of Somerville] Owners' Minority Status Responses African American American Indian Asian American Brazilian American Caucasian Hispanic American Multi- Racial or Bi-Racial Publicly Traded Company Woman Other Total Simplificat ion of processes 0 % 0 % 16.7 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 2.5 % Process clarity and accessibilit y 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 3 0 % 0 % 16.7 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 40 % 7.5 % Interest in contracting opportuniti es 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 5 20 % 0 % 16.7 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 40 % 12.5 % Other 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 10 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 12.5 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 5 % Confidenti ality concerns 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 12.5 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 2.5 % Challenges faced by small businesses 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 33.3 % 0 % 5 % Total 10 0 6 0 8 4 1 0 6 5 40