Adopted by the 1999 Session of the General Assembly, Senate Joint Resolution No. 474 established a nine-member joint subcommittee to study state government procurement practices and procedures. In particular, the joint subcommittee was charged with reviewing the state's policies concerning minority business participation in the state procurement process. The resolution provides for the study to be conducted in two phases. In the first phase, the joint subcommittee was required to i) perform a thorough review of relevant court decisions and state laws and policies relative to programs encouraging minority participation in the state contracting process, iii) identify independent experts or firms which perform disparity studies, and iii) confer with other states that have conducted disparity studies. At completion of the first phase, the joint subcommittee was required to recommend to the General Assembly the funding necessary to conduct the disparity study. The second phase of the study involved the joint subcommittee securing an independent expert or firm to conduct the disparity study and oversee the work of that expert.

While Virginia does not include preferences, set-asides, quotas or firm goals in its policies to promote minority participation in state procurement, some localities in the state and several other states do use such policies. The Supreme Court's decision in City of Richmond v. Croson in 1989 placed these programs under stricter scrutiny when challenged. After Croson, state and local governments began to commission studies to assess the existence and extent of discrimination in their contracting processes. These studies help to determine if a significant statistical disparity exists between the number of available qualified minority and women-owned firms willing and able to perform or fulfill government contracts for goods and services and the number of such firms actually being awarded state contracts.

The joint subcommittee developed a study plan providing for completion of the tasks required by the resolution. To assist in completing the objectives of the study, the joint subcommittee heard from representatives of state and local agencies. The joints subcommittee also analyzed disparity study activity in eight states with emphasis on the scope, cost and duration of such studies. To gain a clearer understanding of costs in relation to the disparity study proposed by the resolution, the joint subcommittee studied specific information involving the (i) method to be used for selecting the independent consultant to conduct the study, (ii) availability of firms to perform the study, (iii) anticipated cost of the study, and (iv) the time needed for completing the study.

In addition to analyzing information relative to disparity studies, the joint subcommittee also received public comment. Those providing public comment included experts in the field, individuals representing professional associations, various business interests and both minority and majority business owners. Collectively, public comment represented a variety of views relative to the need for a disparity study and the reliability of the data that would be derived from such a study. The joint subcommittee was careful to include the information derived from public comment sessions in its deliberations.

After reviewing the information developed over the course of the first year of the study, the joint subcommittee was unable to reach unanimous agreement on the funding recommendation. The joint subcommittee voted, however to make the following recommendation:

1. That a budget amendment requesting up to $950,000 be offered for conducting the disparity study to be overseen by the Joint Subcommittee Studying State Government Procurement Practices and Procedures pursuant to Senate Joint Resolution 474; and

2. That, in carrying out the disparity study, the joint subcommittee shall ensure that state colleges and universities and other state entities be requested to participate wherever possible to conduct the disparity study.