TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. FACTUAL & PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND.................................................780
A. Introduction................................................................780
B. Facts.......................................................................781
C. Relief requested by Rothe in its motion for summary judgment................783
D. The 2006 Reauthorization of the 1207 Program................................783
1. The 1207 Program, 10 U.S.C. § 2323.................................784
2. The 1207 Program cross-references Section 8(a) and 8(d) of the
Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C. § 637...............................786
3. Title 13 of the Code of Federal Regulations, "Business and Credit
Assistance"............................................................786
4. Title 48 of the Code of Federal Regulations, "Federal Acquisitions
Regulations System"....................................................789
5. Intervening regulatory changes to the 1207 Program......................790
a. PEA Regulations.....................................................791
b. Economic disadvantage regulations were amended to require
an individualized showing of economic disadvantage for all
SDB applicants.....................................................793
c. Social disadvantage regulations were amended to lower the
burden of proof required for non-minority small businesses
to qualify as SDBs.................................................793
E. Procedural History..........................................................794
1. Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint.....................................794
2. Rothe I, 49 F.Supp.2d 937 (W.D.Tex.1999) (Prado,).......................795
3. Rothe II, 194 F.3d 622 (5th Cir.1999)...................................800
4. Rothe III, 262 F.3d 1306 (Fed.Cir.2001).................................801
5. Rothe IV, 324 F.Supp.2d 840 (W.D.Tex.2004) (Rodriguez, J.)..............805
6. Rothe V, 413 F.3d 1327 (Fed.Cir.2005)...................................811
7. Procedural history after the Rothe V remand.............................813
II. LEGAL ANALYSIS..................................................................815
A. Summary Judgment Standard of Review.........................................815
B. Little Tucker Act Claim.....................................................816
C. The Court will not consider the facial constitutionality of the 1999
and 2002 Reauthorizations of the 1207 Program because those
claims are moot. Those claims have also been waived on appeal
and are outside the scope of remand. Furthermore, consideration
of those claims is barred by the law of the case doctrine..................818
1. Rothe's claims regarding the constitutionality of the 1999 and
2002 Reauthorizations are moot.........................................819
2. Rothe's claims regarding the constitutionality of the 1999 and
2002 Reauthorizations are outside the scope of remand. Consideration
of those claims is barred by the doctrines of waiver
and law of the case.....................................................823
D. The Eighth, Ninth, and Tenth Circuits have evaluated similar affirmative
action programs under Croson, and the legal analysis contained
in those opinions is relevant to this Court's evaluation of the
facial constitutionality of the 2006 Reauthorization to the extent
that their holdings do not conflict with the law of the case...............825
1. Concrete Works of Colorado, Inc. v. City and County of Denver, 36
F.3d 1513 (10th Cir.1994) ("Concrete Works II")........................828
2. Concrete Works of Colorado, Inc. v. City and County of Denver, 321
F.3d 950 (10th Cir.2003) ("Concrete Works IV").........................830
3. Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Slater, 228 F.3d 1147 (10th Cir.2000)
("Adarand VII"), cert. denied as improvidently granted, 534
U.S. 103 (2001)........................................................832
4. Sherbrooke Turf, Inc. v. Minnesota Dep't of Transp., 345 F.3d 964
(8th Cir.2003), cert. denied 541 U.S. 1041 (2004)......................832
5. Western States Paving Co., Inc. v. Washington State Dep't of
Trans., 407 F.3d 983 (tb Cir.2005), cent denied 126 S.Ct. 1332
(2006).................................................................832
6. Inter-circuit conflict regarding strict scrutiny analysis...............832
7. Recent Supreme Court Cases: Carhart & Parents Involved..................833
a. Gonzales v. Carhart, 127 S.Ct. 1610 (April 18, 2007)................834
b. Parents Involved in Community Schs. v. Seattle Sch. Dist. No
1, 127 S.Ct. 2738 (June 28, 2007)..................................835
E. Congress had a compelling interest in reauthorizing the 1207
Program in 2006, which was supported by a strong basis in the
evidence...................................................................835
1. Six state and local disparity studies were before Congress prior to
the 2006 Reauthorization of the 1207 Program...........................835
2. City of New York Disparity Study, Mason Tillman Associates
Ltd. (January 2005)....................................................840
a. Availability Analysis..............................................840
b. Introduction: Disparity Analysis...................................842
c. Disparity Analysis: Construction Prime Contractors.................843
d. Disparity Analysis: Architecture and Engineering Prime
Contracts.........................................................843
e. Disparity Analysis: Professional Services Prime Contracts..........844
f. Disparity Analysis: Standard Services Prime Contracts..............844
g. Disparity Analysis: Goods Prime Contracts..........................845
h. Disparity Analysis Summary: Prime Construction, Architecture
and Engineering Contracts under $50,000 and Prime
Professional Services, Standard Services, and Goods
Contracts under $25,000...........................................845
i. Disparity Analysis Summary: Subcontracts...........................845
j. Anecdotal evidence.................................................846
k. Rothe's rebuttal evidence concerning the New York Study............846
3. Alameda County Availability Study, Mason Tillman Associates
Ltd. (October 2004)....................................................848
a. Disparity Analysis: Construction Prime Contracts....................849
b. Disparity Analysis: Architecture and Engineering Prime
Contracts..........................................................849
c. Disparity Analysis: Professional Services Prime Contracts...........849
d. Disparity Analysis: Goods and Other Services Prime
Contracts..........................................................850
e. Disparity Analysis: Construction Subcontracts.......................850
f. Disparity Analysis: Architecture and Engineering
Subcontracts.......................................................850
g. Disparity Analysis: Professional Services Subcontracts..............851
4. Ohio Multi-Jurisdictional Disparity Studies, Mason Tillman
Associates, Ltd. (October 2003)........................................851
a. Disparity Analysis: Vertical Construction Prime Contracts
under $500,000 and under $15,000...................................851
b. Disparity Analysis: Horizontal Construction Prime Contracts
under $500,000 and under $15,000...................................852
c. Disparity Analysis: Architecture and Engineering Prime
Contracts under $500,000 and under $25,000.........................852
d. Disparity Analysis: Professional Services Prime Contracts
under $500,000 and under $15,000...................................853
e.
...
