116 Board of Public Works
from black businessmen and legislators, and it involved two aspects—assuring greater
participation by black-owned contractors and greater employment opportunities for
blacks in white—owned firms doing public business.
The 1961 law was directed at the second goal, as was a 1976 amendment to the
State Code of Fair Practices promulgated by gubernatorial executive order. The revised
code, effective 1 November 1976, required all state contracts to contain not only an-
tidiscrimination clauses but also provisions for an affirmative action plan "directed
at increasing the utilization of women and members of minority groups on State Public
Works Projects" that complied with specific criteria set out in the executive order.
Responsibility for enforcement was placed squarely with the board; its approval of the
affirmative action plan was made a prerequisite to the award of a contract.56
For a while, again at the urging of black legislators, a small compliance unit was
established under the board's aegis for the purpose of monitoring compliance with the
new executive order. Eventually, however, the departments of Transportation and
General Services developed their own capabilities in this regard, and the board's unit
was disbanded. Plan approval and monitoring are now done on the departmental level.
The push to increase the share of state business going to black firms came pri-
marily in the context of the Baltimore subway project. As part of its overall compliance
with federal affirmative action requirements, DOT adopted a standard that anticipated
10 percent of the subway work going to minority contractors or subcontractors. For a
while—with respect to the first two or three contracts—that created a dual problem
for the board: deciding who is and who is not a minority contractor and deciding what
to do when the 10 percent goal was not met.
An example of the second problem arose in connection with the first major con-
struction contract submitted to the board—the Bolton Hill tunnel. When that contract
came before the board on 22 October 1976, an association of black contractors protested,
claiming that the amount reserved for minority contractors was considerably less than
10 percent.57
The low bid on the prime contract was $41.6 million, of which only $1.1 million
appeared scheduled for minority subcontractors. Sen. Robert Douglass, a black leg-
islator acting as spokesman for an association of black contractors, recommended that
the contract not be approved. The DOT representative responded that diligent efforts
had been made to distribute a greater share to minority firms, but that there were
only certain parts of the work for which qualified minority firms could be found. The
board directed DOT to negotiate the matter with the association and deferred action
on the prime contract. On 12 November the board was informed that after several
meetings an understanding had been reached whereby through joint ventures and
other techniques the minority share had risen to $2.8 million—more than double the
original proposal.58
The first problem—deciding who is a minority contractor—was more subtle. The
bids submitted by the prospective prime contractors were supposed to contain a break-
down on the intended subcontractors. The black contractors would go over the sub-
contractor lists carefully to see whether and to what extent those firms were black-
owned and operated. In a number of instances in the beginning, claims were made
that some of the subcontractors designated as minority firms were really owned by
whites and that the black presence was a sham. Where joint ventures between black
and white firms were involved, as they often were, disputes arose as to what percentage
of the business awarded to those joint ventures should be counted toward the overall
10 percent goal. On at least two occasions the board was put squarely in the middle
56. Executive Order 01.01.1976.05, 9 July 1976.
57. BPW Minutes, transcripts 22 October 1976, pp. 91-96, MdHR 40328-57-3.
58. BPW Minutes, 22 October 1976, pp. 43-44, MdHR 40281-316-3; transcripts, 12 November 1976, pp. 18-
35, MdHR 40328-59-1.
