Committee refers disparity-study draft after contractors warn COEP technical-assistance gap threatens small firms

The Labor and Workforce Development Committee on Aug. 14 heard extended testimony from contractors, trade organizations and city officials about gaps in City of Portland technical-assistance services funded through the Community Opportunities and Enhancement Program, or COEP, and referred a draft ordinance on disparity studies back to the sponsor’s office for revision and a proposed resolution.

COEP is run under an intergovernmental agreement administered by Prosper Portland; Donnie Olivera, DCA for Community and Economic Development, told the committee the current IGA is in its final year and that staff are discussing short-term adjustments and additional resources to address immediate needs.

"We're working right now on how can we, in the short term, for the remainder of this IGA, provide some additional resources to meet that gap that he's daylighting," Olivera said.

The discussion followed long public testimony from contractors and trade groups who said COEP-funded technical assistance has not been sufficiently project-specific or easy to access for subcontractors working on large city projects. Maurice Ramming, who identified his firms as O'Neil Construction Group, O'Neil Electric and Howard Jacobs Masonry, told the committee small contractors had trouble accessing assistance on complex projects and said a prior Community Benefits/Apprenticeship model provided more direct, project‑tied support.

"There’s additional technical assistance that’s needed," Ramming said.

Pacific Mark Construction president Mark Matthews said subcontractors who win city work are not consistently getting the administrative and compliance help they need once on site, and that some small firms have failed during multi‑year projects. "If you don't help them, they're not gonna go anywhere," Matthews said.

Industry and workforce groups urged the city not to repurpose COEP funds to cover shortfalls on large projects. Con Tran, policy director for the Oregon chapter of the National Association of Minority Contractors (NAMEC), told the committee that COEP supports training, mentorship and direct technical services and warned that diverting COEP funds would weaken the pipeline of firms and workers needed on major infrastructure projects.

"NAMEC Oregon alone has served 242 small businesses and delivered over 1,700 hours of technical assistance since 2021," Tran said. "By pulling money from COEP, the city would weaken the very pipeline of diverse contractors and workers that those projects would need and rely on."

Several witnesses described operational barriers that left subcontractors with unmet needs: difficulty obtaining required insurance and bonding, high material costs and lines of credit, burdensome spoil‑disposal requirements, and uncertainty about which service providers offer which assistance. Faye Burch, who said she works on the Bull Run pipeline and facilities project, described examples in which subcontractors had to withdraw because they could not meet insurance or dumping‑site requirements.

Construction‑industry and labor representatives also urged clearer communication and an ongoing forum for project teams, Prosper Portland, trade groups and the city’s bureaus to identify and resolve problems quickly. Randall Friesen of the Columbia Pacific Building and Trades Council said the 1% set‑aside originally was intended to be project‑specific and noted confusion after program changes in 2017.

On legal and policy questions, Heidi Brown of the City Attorney’s Office advised that the city could not rely on an outside disparity study to justify a race‑conscious contracting remedy; case law requires a study tied to the municipal entity whose practices are being remedied. Brown suggested the city commission a new disparity study for use by the city.

City staff and the committee settled on a procedural next step: the sponsor moved to refer the draft ordinance back to the sponsor’s office for rework and to convert it to a resolution directing the administration to scope and conduct a city-specific disparity study. The motion carried with no objection.

Committee members and staff said they would pursue short‑term administrative fixes while scoping a disparity study that staff estimated could be completed in roughly six to eight months if funded and started promptly.

The committee also heard requests for clearer public reporting on COEP performance and on which firms receive technical‑assistance grants; several councilors asked staff to bring that documentation to upcoming meetings so elected officials and contractors can monitor delivery.

Ending: Councilors and staff asked Prosper Portland, procurement and bureau managers to meet regularly with contractors and service providers and to return to the committee with options to fill near‑term gaps while the new IGA and the disparity‑study work proceed.