Why do race, ethnicity, and sex need to be considered at all in deciding who gets awarded a contract? It's good to make sure contracting programs are open to all, that bidding opportunities are widely publicized beforehand, and that no one gets discriminated against because of skin color, national origin, or sex. But that means no preferences because of skin color, etc. either--whether it's labeled a "set-aside," a "quota," or a "goal," since they all end up amounting to the same thing. Such discrimination is unfair and divisive; it breeds corruption and otherwise costs the taxpayers and businesses money to award a contract to someone other than the lowest bidder; and it's almost always illegal—indeed, unconstitutional—to boot (see 42 U.S.C. section 1981 and this model brief: http://www.pacificlegal.org/page.aspx?pid=1342 ). Those who insist on engaging in such discrimination deserve to be sued, and they will lose.

Making these stipulations the driving force behind awarding contracts to individuals/corporations does not always ensure the most suited company is going to provide a satisfactory product. This part of the article - Participants in the Accelerator Program learn how to better manage their firms, improve back office operations, meet industry standards and embrace cutting-edge technologies - will prove whether such moves are cost effective. Why block companies who are already schooled and experienced in such business practices? Small companies that are starting from ground level bid on ground level projects and build upon that. I have worked on construction crews in various parts of the country and that is how it is done. This bleeding heart liberal EOE red tape gets to be a bit too much.