Small Business: Responses to Survey on Construction Firms' Access to
Surety Bonds (Letter Report, 06/26/95, GAO/RCED-95-173S).
Federal law requires contractors to provide surety bonds on all federal
construction contracts worth more than $25,000. Surety bonds guarantee
that should a bonded contractor default, a construction project will be
completed and the contractor's employees and material suppliers will be
paid. Most state and local governments and some private sector lenders
also require construction firms to be bonded. Some small construction
firms argue that surety companies' decisions to approve or deny bonds
can seem arbitrary and can impede the growth of small firms, especially
those owned by women and minorities. Because limited data exist on this
issue, GAO surveyed a random sample of 12,000 construction firms, of
which about 98 percent were small enough to qualify for Small Business
Administration programs. GAO focused on the (1) firms' overall rate of
obtaining bonds; (2) characteristics of the small firms that did bonded
work; (3) recent experiences of these firms in obtaining bonds; and (4)
characteristics of those firms that did not perform bonded work,
including their reasons for not doing such work. The first volume
(GAO/RCED-95-173FS) discusses the survey results in detail. The second
volume (GAO/RCED-95-173S) provides detailed statistics on the
experiences of small construction firms.
--------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------
REPORTNUM: RCED-95-173S
TITLE: Small Business: Responses to Survey on Construction Firms'
Access to Surety Bonds
DATE: 06/26/95
SUBJECT: Surety bonds
Small business contracts
Small business contractors
Small business assistance
Construction contracts
Construction industry
Bid guarantees
Budget receipts
Surveys
**************************************************************************
* This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a GAO *
* report. Delineations within the text indicating chapter titles, *
* headings, and bullets are preserved. Major divisions and subdivisions *
* of the text, such as Chapters, Sections, and Appendixes, are *
* identified by double and single lines. The numbers on the right end *
* of these lines indicate the position of each of the subsections in the *
* document outline. These numbers do NOT correspond with the page *
* numbers of the printed product. *
* *
* No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although figure *
* captions are reproduced. Tables are included, but may not resemble *
* those in the printed version. *
* *
* A printed copy of this report may be obtained from the GAO Document *
* Distribution Facility by calling (202) 512-6000, by faxing your *
* request to (301) 258-4066, or by writing to P.O. Box 6015, *
* Gaithersburg, MD 20884-6015. We are unable to accept electronic orders *
* for printed documents at this time. *
**************************************************************************
Cover
================================================================ COVER
Supplement to Fact Sheet for Congressional Committees
June 1995
SMALL BUSINESS - RESPONSES TO
SURVEY ON CONSTRUCTION FIRMS'
ACCESS TO SURETY BONDS
GAO/RCED-95-173S
Responses to Survey
(385370)
Abbreviations
=============================================================== ABBREV
CPA - certified public accountant
DOT - Department of Transportation
GAO - General Accounting Office
SIC - standard industrial classification
SBA - Small Business Administration
FOREWORD
============================================================ Chapter 0
Federal law currently requires contractors to provide assurance--in
the form of a surety bond--that federal construction contracts will
be completed and that the contractors' employees and suppliers will
be paid. Most state and local governments and some private-sector
lenders also require construction firms to be bonded.
Surety companies issue bonds on the basis of their evaluation of a
construction firm's ability to complete a project successfully. To
obtain a bond, a contractor must show that it has the financial
capacity and experience to perform the project. Doing so can be
difficult for small construction companies. The Small Business
Access to Surety Bonding Survey Act, contained in the Small Business
Credit and Business Opportunity Enhancement Act of 1992, directed us
to survey small construction companies for information on their
experiences in obtaining surety bonds between 1990 and 1993. We sent
out a questionnaire to 12,000 firms. Our report on this survey is
entitled Small Business: Construction Firms' Access to Surety Bonds
(GAO/RCED-95-173FS, June 26, 1995). This supplement provides
detailed statistics on the experiences of small construction firms.
Section 1 of this supplement includes background information on the
methodology and limitations of our survey along with statistics on
the overall response rate and information on how to interpret the
tables in the subsequent sections. Sections 2 to 4 include, among
other data, detailed data on the results of our survey by the average
annual revenues of the firms and the ethnicity and gender of the
firms' owners. These sections parallel the discussion in sections 2
to 4 of our report GAO/RCED-95-173FS. The tables in section 2 of
this supplement summarize the characteristics of construction firms
that are small enough to be eligible for the Small Business
Administration's (SBA) programs and that had obtained bonds. The
tables in section 3 summarize the recent experiences of these firms
in obtaining bonds. The tables in section 4 describe the
characteristics of the firms that had not obtained bonds, including
their reasons for not obtaining them. A copy of the questionnaire
used in our survey is included in appendix I.
Judy A. England-Joseph
Director, Housing and Community
Development Issues
SURVEY METHODOLOGY
============================================================ Chapter 1
We selected a simple random sample of 12,000 companies from Dun &
Bradstreet's list of 683,198 firms in the construction industry,
excluding general contractors primarily involved in residential
building construction, as of December 31, 1993. We eliminated firms
working primarily as general contractors for and builders/developers
of single-family residences from the study because they were not as
likely as other firms to be asked to obtain bonds. A summary of the
standard industrial classifications (SIC) of the firms included in
the survey is provided in table 1.1, and the percentage of firms in
the sample that fell into each of these classifications is shown in
table 1.2. These classifications are based on definitions of
industrial activity used by the U.S. Bureau of the Census.
We sent the questionnaire to each firm in the sample. We alerted
recipients by postcard before sending out the survey and mailed up to
two follow-up questionnaires to firms that did not respond to our
initial request. We conducted the survey from February to July 1994,
with follow-up mailings in March and April 1994. As table 1.3 shows,
16.9 percent of the firms in our sample were out of business or were
not doing construction work, or we lacked a current address. Of the
remaining 9,964 firms, 50.2 percent responded to the questionnaire.
From the list of nonrespondents as of May 13, 1994, we randomly
sampled 800 to contact by telephone. We made up to four attempts to
reach each firm by telephone to determine whether the nonrespondents
differed from the respondents in their experiences with bonds. The
responses to this effort are summarized in table 1.4.
We acquired financial data on the sampled firms from Dun &
Bradstreet's Research and Regulatory File. This information included
historical sales data for all of the sampled firms and financial
statements for 3,017 firms. We matched the firms' financial records
with data from the survey. The survey respondents with bonding
experience were more likely than the survey respondents with no
bonding experience and the nonrespondents to have financial
statements on file at Dun & Bradstreet. However, as table 1.5 shows,
financial information was available for only 36.6 percent of the
survey respondents.
DEFINITIONS
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 1:1
We determined the ethnicity and gender of the owners of the firms
from the answers to the following two questions in our questionnaire:
"Is 51% or more of the firm owned by one or more of the
following minority groups: Black or African American, Hispanic,
Asian, American Indian or Native American, or Pacific Islander?"
"Is 51% or more of the firm owned by women?"
We determined the size of the firms by calculating their average
annual construction revenues for 3 years before the date of the
survey. When the revenues for 3 years were not available, we used
the average revenues for 2 years or the revenues for the most recent
year. For the firms that did not answer our question about revenues,
we used Dun & Bradstreet's historical sales data to calculate similar
averages. We determined that these data were reliable indicators of
responses to our questions on revenues. We then grouped the firms
into the following categories:
the smallest firms--those with average annual revenues less than or
equal to $500,000;
medium-size firms--those with average annual revenues over $500,000
and up to $3.5 million;
larger firms--those with average annual revenues over $3.5 million
and up to the maximum allowed for eligibility in SBA's programs
as a small business: $17 million for firms in general building
construction and heavy construction and $7 million for special
trade contractors; and
the largest firms--those with average annual revenues that exceeded
SBA's size standards for small businesses. (Data for these
firms are not included in the tables.)
We considered that a firm had "bonding experience" if it reported
having had one or more of the experiences mentioned in the following
question: "Has your firm ever provided a bid bond, a performance or
payment bond, or had a preapproved bonding line?" We considered that
a firm had recent experience if it had obtained a bond since 1990.
LIMITATIONS OF THE SURVEY DATA
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 1:2
Our results can be generalized to construction firms that would have
answered our survey if we had mailed our questionnaire to all
companies. This is about half of the firms currently in business,
primarily in construction, and identified as such by Dun &
Bradstreet. The firms that would not have responded to our
survey--and to which, therefore, the results cannot be
generalized--are smaller, on average; work more often in special
trades; and are less likely to have financial statements on record
with Dun & Bradstreet than the firms that responded. According to
our telephone survey, these firms are also less likely to have had
bonding experience. Our results also cannot be generalized to the
firms that have gone out of business; the newest/youngest firms,
which have not been in business long enough to be identified by Dun &
Bradstreet; or the firms working primarily as general contractors for
or builders/developers of single-family residences, which we excluded
from our review. Finally, our results cannot be generalized to the
largest firms, that is, those with annual revenues exceeding SBA's
size standards for small businesses.
SAMPLING ERRORS
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 1:2.1
As with all sample surveys, our statistical estimates contain
sampling error--potential error that arises from not collecting data
on all firms. We calculated the amount of sampling error for
estimates of various statistics at the 95-percent confidence level.
This means that if we repeatedly sampled 12,000 firms from the same
Dun & Bradstreet file and performed our survey again, 95 percent of
the samples would yield results within the ranges specified by our
estimates, plus or minus the sampling errors. In calculating
sampling errors, we did not make a correction for sampling from a
finite population. The sampling errors for estimates of statistics
other than percentages (e.g., averages) are reported in the tables.
We do not provide sampling errors for estimates of percentages, but
they can be computed using the formula
s.e. = +/- 1.96 x square root [ (p) x (1-p) / n ]
where p is the percentage of firms having a certain characteristic
and n is the number of firms with and without the characteristic.
Both p and n are provided in the tables.
We tested the differences between subgroups we were interested
in--such as the minority-owned firms and the firms not owned by
minorities--for statistical significance. Statistical significance
means that the differences we observed between subgroups are larger
than would be expected from sampling error. When this occurs, some
phenomenon other than chance is likely to have caused the difference.
Statistical significance is absent when an observed difference
between two subgroups, plus or minus sampling error, yields a range
that includes zero. In this instance, sampling error alone could
explain the difference. It should be noted, however, that the
absence of a statistically significant difference does not mean that
a difference does not exist. The sample size or number of
respondents to a question may not have been sufficient to allow us to
detect a difference. We report the results of the tests for
statistical significance in each table.
Table 1.1
Standard Industrial Classification (SIC)
Codes of Firms in Construction Industry
Included in Survey
---------------------------------- ----------------------------------
Major group 1500: Building cons
----------------------------------------------------------------------
1522 General contractors--residential
buildings other than single-
family
1541 General contractors--industrial
buildings and warehouses
1542 General contractors--
nonresidental buildings other than
industrial buildings and
warehouses
Major group 1600: Heavy constru construction--contractors
----------------------------------------------------------------------
1611 Highway and street construction,
except elevated highways
1622 Bridge, tunnel, and elevated
highway construction
1623 Water, sewer, pipeline, and
communications and power line
construction
1629 Heavy construction not elsewhere
classified
Major group 1700: Construction-contractors
----------------------------------------------------------------------
1711 Plumbing, heating, and air-
conditioning
1721 Painting and paper hanging
1731 Electrical work
1741 Masonry, stone setting, and other
stone work
1742 Plastering, drywall, and
acoustical and insulation work
1743 Terrazzo, tile, marble, and mosaic
work
1751 Carpentry work
1752 Floor laying and other floor work
not elsewhere classified
1761 Roofing, siding, and sheet metal
work
1771 Concrete work
1781 Water well drilling
1791 Structural steel erection
1793 Glass and glazing work
1794 Excavation work
1795 Wrecking and demolition work
1796 Installation or erection of
building equipment not elsewhere
classified
1799 Special trade contractors not
elsewhere classified
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 1.2
Percentage of Firms in Sample Meeting
SBA's Size Standards in Selected
Standard Industrial Classifications
Percent of firms
Standard industrial classification (n=12,000)
-------------------------------------------------- ------------------
Building construction 11.5
Heavy construction 7.4
Special trade construction 81.1
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 1.3
Summary of Responses to Questionnaires
Response category Percent Number
-------------------------------------------------- -------- --------
Respondents\
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Completed questionnaire; 18.5 2 ,225
obtained a bond or had a bonding line
Completed questionnaire; 23.0 2,771
had no bonding experience
Completed some questions; 0.1 12
did not describe bonding experience
Ineligible (no construction 10.9 1,310
revenues since 1990 or
not in construction)
======================================================================
Subtotal 52.5 6,318\a
Nonrespondents
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Out of business, no new forwarding address, or 6.0 726
deceased
Refused 0.4 53
No information on reason for 41.0 4,928
nonresponse
======================================================================
Subtotal 47.5 5,707
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Includes 25 firms that responded anonymously.
Table 1.4
Summary of Responses to Follow-Up
Telephone Interviews
Response category Percent Number
-------------------------------------------------- -------- --------
Respondents
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Completed interview; 14.0 112
provided a bond or had a
bonding line
No bonding experience 22.6 181
======================================================================
Subtotal 36.6 293
Nonrespondents
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Out of business; 29.5 236
disconnected telephone
Refused 3.0 24
No information on reason 30.9 247
for nonresponse
======================================================================
Subtotal 63.4 507
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 1.5
Characteristics of Survey Respondents
and Nonrespondents
Ineligible/out
Characteristic Respondents \a Nonrespondents \b of business
-------------------- ------------------ ------------------ ------------------
Had financial 36.6% 18.6% 12.6%
statement on file (n=5,008) (n=4,981) (n=2,036)
with Dun &
Bradstreet\c
Average revenues\c $1,818,178 $799,716 $297,129
(+/-347,982) (+/-112,883) (+/-43,448)
(n=5,001) (n=4,972) (n=2,026)
Distribution of (n=5,003) (n=4,979) (n=2,035)
revenues\d
Up to $500,000 59.9% 74.9% 87.0%
$500,001 to 32.1% 21.6% 12.4%
$3.5 million
Over $3.5 million 5.4% 2.6% 0.4%
to
SBA's maximum
Over SBA's maximum 2.6% 1.0% 0.1%
Distribution of (n=4,983) (n= 4,981) (n=2,036)
standard industrial
classifications\d
Building 14.3% 9.9% 9.7%
construction
Heavy construction 9.1% 6.6% 5.8%
Special trade 76.6% 83.5% 84.4%
construction
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Includes firms that had had bonding experience, firms that had not
had bonding experience, and firms that responded but did not indicate
their bonding experience.
\b Includes refusals.
\c Differences among all three groups are statistically significant.
\d Differences in distribution by response category are statistically
significant.
Table 1.6
Characteristics of Respondents to
Telephone and Mail Surveys That Met
SBA's Definition of Small Businesses
Characteristic Telephone\ Mail
-------------------------------------- -------------- --------------
Bonding experience (n=289) (n=4,863)
Had bonding experience 37.4% 43.2%
Had no bonding experience 62.6% 56.8%
Gender of owner (n=252) (n=4,634)
Owned by women 8.7% 9.1%
Not owned by women 91.3% 90.9%
Ethnicity of owner (n=252) (n=4,524)
Owned by minority 7.1% 6.9%
Not owned by minority 92.9% 93.1%
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Includes firms with bonding experience and those with no bonding
experience.
Table 1.7
Size of Subgroups That Returned
Questionnaires
Obtained a
bond or had a No bonding
bonding line experience
Subgroup (n=2,225) (n=2,771)
-------------------------------------- -------------- --------------
Respondents, by size of firm
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Smallest (revenues $500,000 and under) 839 2,149
Medium-size (revenues $500,001-$3.5 1,007 598
million)
Larger (revenues over $3.5 million to 254 16
SBA maximum size)
SBA small\a subtotal 2,100 2,763
Largest\b 123 5
Size not reported 2 3
Respondents, by ethnicity of owner and size of firm
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Owned by minority
Smallest 76 121
Medium-size 55 40
Larger 17 1
SBA small subtotal 148 162
Largest 5 0
Size not reported 0 1
======================================================================
Total 153 163
Not owned by minority
Smallest 733 1,791
Medium-size 930 512
Larger 236 12
SBA small subtotal 1,899 2,315
Largest 118 5
Size not reported 2 1
======================================================================
Total 2,019 2,321
Ethnicity not reported 53 287
Respondents, by gender of owner and size of firm
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Owned by women
Smallest 100 148
Medium-size 108 47
Larger 20 0
SBA small subtotal 228 195
Largest 5 0
Size not reported 1 0
Total 234 195
Not owned by women
Smallest 709 1,854
Medium-size 878 522
Larger 233 15
SBA small subtotal 1,820 2,391
Largest 118 5
Size not reported 1 3
======================================================================
Total 1,939 2,399
Gender not reported 52 177
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a "SBA small" includes the smallest, medium-size, and larger firms
shown above; that is, those firms eligible for SBA's programs for
small businesses.
\b Largest firms are those whose revenues are higher than the maximum
allowed for eligibility for SBA's programs.
CHARACTERISTICS OF FIRMS THAT HAD
OBTAINED SURETY BONDS
============================================================ Chapter 2
Forty-three percent of the firms that responded to our survey had at
one time obtained surety bonds or had an approved bonding line. We
estimate that in the universe of firms in our study, the percentage
of firms with this experience is lower than 43 percent but no lower
than 23 percent.
The tables in this section provide estimates about at most the
119,560 (+/- 4,645) firms represented by respondents to our survey
that had obtained bonds. The results in particular tables can be
generalized only to the firms that said they had obtained a bond or
had a bonding line and that provided the information covered in the
table. The approximate number of firms can be estimated by
multiplying the number of firms responding to the question (n) by the
expansion factor, 683,198/12,000. We used the results from the
telephone survey to increase the accuracy of our estimate of the
number of small firms that had obtained bonds. In the tables, we
have provided the statistics, the sampling errors for estimates other
than percentages, and the sample sizes to enable the reader to
calculate the sampling errors for our estimates of percentages using
the formula provided in section 1. In some tables that present
distributions, the columns do not add to 100 percent because of
rounding.
Table 2.1
Characteristics of Firms That Had
Obtained a Bond or Had a Bonding Line
Number
providing
Characteristic information Statistic
-------------------------------------- -------------- --------------
Gender (n=2,048)
Owned by women 11.1%
Not owned by women 88.9%
Ethnicity (n=2,047)
Owned by minority 7.2%
Not owned by minority 92.8%
Size (n=2,100)
Average revenues $1,569,840
(+/-98,680)
Up to $500,000 40.0%
$500,001-$3.5 million 48.0%
Over $3.5 million to SBA's maximum 12.1%
Years in construction (n=2,093) 20.4 (+/-0.7)
years
SIC (n=2,087)
Building construction 20.7%
Heavy construction 14.3%
Special trade construction 65.0%
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 2.2a
Annual Revenues of Firms, by Ethnicity
of Owner
Owned by Not owned by
minority minority
Revenues (n=148) (n=1,899)
-------------------------------------- -------------- --------------
Average\a $1,363,715 $1,608,436
(+/-301,738) (+/-105,785)
Distribution\b
Up to $500,000 51.4% 38.6%
$500,001-$3.5 million 37.2% 49.0%
Over $3.5 million to SBA's maximum 11.5% 12.4%
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Difference by ethnicity is not statistically significant.
\b Differences in distribution by ethnicity are statistically
significant.
Table 2.2b
Annual Revenues of Firms, by Gender of
Owner
Not owned by
Owned by women women
Revenues (n=228) (n=1,820)
------------------------------ ------------------ ------------------
Average $1,398,811 $1,616,428
(+/-329,441) (+/-105,637)
Distribution
Up to $500,000 43.9% 39.0%
$500,001-$3.5 million 47.4% 48.2%
Over $3.5 million to SBA's 8.8% 12.8%
maximum
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Differences in averages and distributions by gender are not
statistically significant.
Table 2.3a
Firms' Average Years of Experience in
Construction, by Size of Firm
Over $3.5
$500,001- million to
Up to $3.5 SBA's All SBA
$500,000 million maximum small firms
Experience (n=833) (n=1,006) (n=254) (n=2,093)
-------------------------- ------------ ---------- ------------ ------------
Average number of years in 18.99 20.07 26.16 20.4
construction (+/-0.89) (+/-0.94) (+/-2.49) (+/-0.7)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Differences between the smallest firms and the firms with average
revenues over $3.5 million and between the medium-size firms and the
firms with average revenues over $3.5 million are statistically
significant.
Table 2.3b
Firms' Average Years of Experience in
Construction, by Ethnicity of Owner
Owned by Not owned by
Experience minority (n=148) minority (n=1,894)
------------------------------ ---------------- --------------------
Average number of years in 14.69 20.83
construction (+/-1.73) (+/-0.70)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Difference by ethnicity is statistically significant.
Table 2.3c
Firms' Average Years of Experience in
Construction, by Gender of Owner
Not owned by
Owned by women women
Experience (n=227) (n=1,816)
---------------------------------- ---------------- ----------------
Average number of years in 18.51 20.68
construction (+/-1.76) (+/-0.71)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Difference by gender is statistically significant.
Table 2.4a
Years of Construction Experience of the
Firm's Most Experienced Person, by Size
of Firm
Over $3.5
$500,001- million to All SBA
Up to $3.5 SBA's small
$500,000 million maximum firms
Years of experience (n=811) (n=990) (n=253) (n=2,054)
---------------------------- ---------- ------------ ------------ ----------
1-3 1.2% \b 0.0% 0.6%
4-6 1.4% 0.9% \b 1.0%
7-9 3.1% 1.8% \b 2.2%
10 or more 94.3% 97.0% 98.4% 96.1%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Differences in distribution by size of firm are statistically
significant.
\b This estimate is omitted because the sampling error is larger than
the estimate, leaving no confidence in the estimate.
Table 2.4b
Years of Construction Experience of the
Firm's Most Experienced Person, by
Ethnicity of Owner
Not owned by
Owned by minority minority
Years of experience (n=145) (n=1,887)
---------------------------- ------------------ --------------------
1-3 \b 0.6%
4-6 \b 1.0%
7-9 3.4% 2.1%
10 or more 93.8% 96.3%
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Differences in distribution by ethnicity are not statistically
significant.
\b This estimate is omitted because the sampling error is larger than
the estimate, leaving no confidence in the estimate.
Table 2.4c
Years of Construction Experience of the
Firm's Most Experienced Person, by
Gender of Owner
Owned by women Not owned by women
Years of experience (n=226) (n=1,806)
---------------------------- ------------------ --------------------
1-3 \b 0.7%
4-6 \b 1.1%
7-9 2.2% 2.2%
10 or more 96.9% 96.0%
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Differences in distribution by gender are not statistically
significant.
\b This estimate is omitted because the sampling error is larger than
the estimate, leaving no confidence in the estimate.
Table 2.5a
Percentage of Firms in Selected Standard
Industrial Classifications, by Size of
Firm
$500,001- Over $3.5 All SBA
Up to $3.5 million to SBA's small
Standard industrial $500,000 million maximum firms
classification (n=836) (n=1,001) (n=250) (n=2,087)
------------------------ ---------- ------------ ---------------- ----------
Building construction 14.4% 22.5% 34.8% 20.7%
Heavy construction 8.5% 15.5% 29.2% 14.3%
contractors
Special trade 77.2% 62.0% 36.0% 65.0%
contractors
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Differences in distribution by size of firm are statistically
significant.
Table 2.5b
Percentage of Firms in Selected Standard
Industrial Classifications, by Ethnicity
of Owner
Not owned by
Standard industrial Owned by minority minority
classification (n=146) (n=1,888)
---------------------------- ------------------ --------------------
Building construction 20.5% 20.7%
Heavy construction 21.9% 14.0%
contractors
Special trade contractors 57.5% 65.3%
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Differences in distribution by ethnicity are statistically
significant.
Table 2.5c
Percentage of Firms in Selected Standard
Industrial Classifications, by Gender of
Owner
Standard industrial Owned by women Not owned by women
classification (n=227) (n=1,809)
---------------------------- ------------------ --------------------
Building construction 19.4% 20.8%
Heavy construction 16.7% 14.3%
contractors
Special trade contractors 63.9% 64.9%
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Differences in distribution by gender are not statistically
significant.
Table 2.6a
Distribution of Firms' Work in 1993
Performed Directly for Owners and
Through Subcontracting, by Size of Firm
$500,001- Over $3.5 All SBA
Up to $3.5 million to SBA's small
$500,000 million maximum firms
Type of work (n=812) (n=998) (n=251) (n= 2,061)
------------------------ ------------ ---------- ---------------- ----------
More direct work for 39.8% 43.6% 46.6% 42.5%
owner
More subcontracting 52.7% 50.5% 49.8% 51.3%
Equal amounts of direct 7.5% 5.9% 3.6% 6.3%
work and subcontracting
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Differences in distribution by size of firm are not statistically
significant.
Table 2.6b
Distribution of Firms' Work in 1993
Performed Directly for Owners and
Through Subcontracting, by Ethnicity of
Owner
Not owned by
Owned by minority minority
Type of work (n=147) (n=1,864)
---------------------------- ------------------ --------------------
More direct work for owner 38.8% 42.7%
More subcontracting 56.5% 50.9%
Equal amounts of direct work 4.8% 6.4%
and subcontracting
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Differences in distribution by ethnicity are not statistically
significant.
Table 2.6c
Distribution of Firms' Work in 1993
Performed Directly for Owners and
Through Subcontracting, by Gender of
Owner
Owned by women Not owned by women
Type of work (n=226) (n=1,785)
---------------------------- ------------------ --------------------
More direct work for owner 46.5% 42.0%
More subcontracting 47.3% 51.7%
Equal amounts of direct work 6.2% 6.4%
and subcontracting
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Differences in distribution by gender are not statistically
significant.
Table 2.7a
Distribution of When Firms Obtained
Their First Bonds, by Size of Firm
$500,001- Over $3.5 All SBA
When first bond or Up to $3.5 million to SBA's small
bonding line was $500,000 million maximum firms
obtained (n=816) (n=993) (n=253) (n=2,062)
------------------------ ---------- ------------ ---------------- ----------
Before 1985 46.7% 49.4% 71.5% 51.1%
1985-1989 25.6% 25.2% 12.6% 23.8%
1990-1992 19.5% 19.5% 12.6% 18.7%
During 1993 8.2% 5.8% 3.2% 6.5%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Differences in distribution by size of firm are statistically
significant.
Table 2.7b
Distribution of When Firms Obtained
Their First Bonds, by Ethnicity of Owner
Not owned by
When first bond or bonding line was Owned by minority minority
obtained (n=144) (n=1,872)
-------------------------------------- ------------------ --------------------
Before 1985 29.9% 53.1%
1985-1989 28.5% 23.5%
1990-1992 29.9% 17.5%
During 1993 11.8% 6.0%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Differences in distribution by ethnicity are statistically
significant.
Table 2.7c
Distribution of When Firms Obtained
Their First Bonds, by Gender of Owner
When first bond or bonding Owned by women Not owned by women
line was obtained (n=223) (n=1,794)
---------------------------- ------------------ --------------------
Before 1985\b 44.8% 52.5%
1985-1989 27.8% 23.1%
1990-1992 19.3% 18.2%
During 1993 8.1% 6.2%
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Differences in distribution by gender are not statistically
significant.
\b Difference in percentages by gender is statistically significant.
Table 2.8a
Percentage of Firms Reporting Net Profit
in 1990-93 for Years in Which They Did
Construction Work, by Size of Firm
Profit Over $3.5
status $500,001-$3.5 million to SBA's All SBA small
by year Up to $500,000 million maximum firms
-------- ---------------- ---------------- ---------------- ----------------
1990 (n=774) (n=961) (n=246) (n=1,981)
Profit 57.4% 65.8% 81.7% 64.5%
No 33.1% 27.5% 16.7% 28.3%
profit
No 9.6% 6.8% 1.6% 7.2%
answer
1991 (n=791) (n=983) (n=251) (n=2,025)
Profit 57.4% 63.1% 78.1% 62.7%
No 33.2% 30.1% 20.3% 30.1%
profit
No 9.4% 6.8% 1.6% 7.2%
answer
1992 (n=801) (n=986) (n=250) (n=2,037)
Profit 56.1% 63.4% 75.6% 62.0%
No 34.6% 30.0% 22.8% 30.9%
profit
No 9.4% 6.6% 1.6% 7.1%
answer
1993 (n=796) (n=990) (n=251) (n=2,037)
Profit 57.4% 64.4% 73.3% 62.8%
No 33.7% 29.1% 25.1% 30.4%
profit
No 8.9% 6.5% 1.6% 6.8%
answer
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Differences in distribution by size of firm are statistically
significant for all years.
Table 2.8b
Percentage of Firms Reporting Net Profit
in 1990-93 for Years in Which They Did
Construction Work, by Ethnicity of Owner
Not owned by
Profit status by year Owned by minority minority
---------------------------- ------------------ --------------------
1990\a (n=131) (n=1,801)
Profit 54.2% 66.2%
No profit 36.6% 28.2%
No answer 9.2% 5.7%
1991\a (n=138) (n=1,839)
Profit 55.1% 64.3%
No profit 35.5% 30.2%
No answer 9.4% 5.5%
1992\b (n=141) (n=1,847)
Profit 62.4% 63.0%
No profit 28.4% 31.6%
No answer 9.2% 5.4%
1993\a (n=144) (n=1,843)
Profit 50.7% 64.8%
No profit 40.3% 30.1%
No answer 9.0% 5.2%
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Differences in distribution by ethnicity are statistically
significant.
\b Differences in distribution by ethnicity are not statistically
significant.
Table 2.8c
Percentage of Firms Reporting Net Profit
in 1990-93 for Years in Which They Did
Construction Work, by Gender of Owner
Profit status by year Owned by women Not owned by women
---------------------------- ------------------ --------------------
1990 (n=209) (n=1,728)
Profit 62.7% 65.7%
No profit 31.1% 28.5%
No answer 6.2% 5.8%
1991 (n=215) (n=1,767)
Profit 57.7% 64.3%
No profit 35.8% 29.9%
No answer 6.5% 5.8%
1992 (n=218) (n=1,774)
Profit 56.4% 63.6%
No profit 37.2% 30.8%
No answer 6.4% 5.6%
1993 (n=225) (n=1,765)
Profit 57.3% 64.6%
No profit 37.3% 29.9%
No answer 5.3% 5.5%
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Differences in distribution by gender are not statistically
significant for any year.
FIRMS' RECENT EXPERIENCE IN
OBTAINING BONDS
============================================================ Chapter 3
Of the firms that had obtained a bond or had a bonding line (i.e.,
were preapproved by a surety company to obtain bonds), 72 percent had
obtained bonds in 1990 or later. The tables in this section provide
estimates about at most the 84,491 (+/- 4,024) firms represented by
the respondents to our survey with recent bonding experience. The
results in particular tables can be generalized only to the firms
that said they had obtained a bond since 1990 and that provided the
information discussed in the table. The approximate number of firms
can be estimated by multiplying the number of firms responding to the
question (n) by the expansion factor, 683,198/12,000. In the tables,
we have provided the statistics, the sampling errors for our
estimates other than percentages, and the sample sizes to enable the
reader to calculate the sampling errors for our estimates of
percentages using the formula provided in section 1. In some tables
that present distributions, the columns do not add to 100 percent
because of rounding.
Table 3.1a
Percentage of Bonded Firms That Had
Obtained a Bond Since 1990, by Size of
Firm
$500,001- Over $3.5 All SBA
Up to $3.5 million to SBA small
$500,000 million maximum firms
(n=816) (n=992) (n=253) (n=2,061)
------------------------ ---------- ------------ ---------------- ----------
Percentage that had 54.8% 79.8% 96.8% 72.0%
obtained a bid,
performance, or payment
bond after January 1,
1990
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Differences by size of firm are statistically significant.
Table 3.1b
Percentage of Bonded Firms That Had
Obtained a Bond Since 1990, by Ethnicity
of Owner
Not owned by
Owned by minority minority
(n=144) (n=1,872)
---------------------------- ------------------ --------------------
Percentage that had obtained 75.7% 72.3%
a bid, performance, or
payment bond after January
1, 1990
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Difference by ethnicity is not statistically significant.
Table 3.1c
Percentage of Bonded Firms That Had
Obtained a Bond Since 1990, by Gender of
Owner
Owned by women Not owned by women
(n=226) (n=1,791)
---------------------------- ------------------ --------------------
Percentage that had obtained 78.3% 71.9%
a bid, performance, or
payment bond after January
1, 1990
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Difference by gender is statistically significant.
Table 3.2
Characteristics of Firms That Had
Obtained a Bond Since 1990
Number
providing
Characteristic information Statistic
------------------------------------------ -------------- ----------
Gender (n=1,463)
Owned by women 12.0%
Not owned by women 88.0%
Ethnicity (n=1,462)
Owned by minority 7.5%
Not owned by minority 92.5%
Size (n=1,483)
Average revenues
$1,943,249
(+/-
126,958)
Up to $500,000 30.1%
$500,001-$3.5 million 53.4%
Over $3.5 million to SBA maximum 16.5%
Years in construction (n=1,481) 19.8
(+/-0.80)
SIC (n=1,474)
Building construction 22.2%
Heavy construction 16.1%
Special trade construction 61.7%
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 3.3a
Percentage of Firms That Had Obtained
Bonds Through Various Sources, by Size
of Firm
$500,001- Over $3.5 All SBA
Up to $3.5 million to SBA small
$500,000 million maximum firms
Source of bonds (n=443) (n=786) (n=244) (n=1,473)
------------------------ ------------ ---------- ---------------- ----------
Agent who was a 56.2% 75.7% 84.8% 71.4%
specialist in surety
bonds
Agent who was not a 19.2% 9.9% 9.0% 12.6%
specialist
Surety company directly 5.2% 2.5% 1.6% 3.2%
Source unknown 19.4% 11.8% 4.5% 12.9%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Differences in distribution by size of firm are statistically
significant.
Table 3.3b
Percentage of Firms That Had Obtained
Bonds Through Various Sources, by
Ethnicity of Owner
Not
owned
by
minori
ty
Owned by minority (n=1,3
Source of bonds (n=108) 45)
------------------------------------------ ------------------ ------
Agent who was a specialist in surety bonds 73.1% 71.4%
Agent who was not a specialist 9.3% 12.7%
Surety company directly 6.5% 2.9%
Source unknown 11.1% 13.0%
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Differences in distribution by ethnicity are not statistically
significant.
Table 3.3c
Percentage of Firms That Had Obtained
Bonds Through Various Sources, by Gender
of Owner
Owned by women Not owned by women
Source of bonds (n=175) (n=1,278)
---------------------------- ------------------ --------------------
Agent who was a specialist 68.0% 72.1%
in surety bonds
Agent who was not a 10.9% 12.6%
specialist
Surety company directly 4.0% 3.1%
Source unknown 17.1% 12.3%
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Differences in distribution by gender are not statistically
significant.
Table 3.4a
Percentage of Firms Obtaining Their
First Bond Between 1990 and 1993 That
Had Requirements Explained in Advance
the First Time They Asked for a Bond, by
Size of Firm
Extent to which $500,001- Over $3.5 All SBA
information was given by Up to $3.5 million to SBA small
agents, brokers, or $500,000 million maximum firms
surety companies (n=171) (n=213) (n=37) (n=421)
------------------------ ------------ ---------- ---------------- ----------
Little or no extent 17.0% 11.3% \b 12.8%
Some extent 15.2% 12.7% 16.2% 14.0%
Moderate extent 29.2% 28.6% 21.6% 28.3%
Great extent 25.7% 32.4% 27.0% 29.2%
Very great extent 12.9% 15.0% 32.4% 15.7%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Differences in distribution by size of firm are statistically
significant.
\b This estimate is omitted because the sampling error is larger than
the estimate, leaving no confidence in the estimate.
Table 3.4b
Percentage of Firms Obtaining Their
First Bond Between 1990 and 1993 That
Had Requirements Explained in Advance
the First Time They Asked for a Bond, by
Ethnicity of Owner
Extent to which information Not owned by
was given by agents, Owned by minority minority
brokers, or surety companies (n=47) (n=363)
---------------------------- ------------------ --------------------
Little or no extent 17.0% 12.4%
Some extent 14.9% 13.8%
Moderate extent 36.2% 27.0%
Great extent 21.3% 30.3%
Very great extent 10.6% 16.5%
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Differences in distribution by ethnicity are not statistically
significant.
Table 3.4c
Percentage of Firms Obtaining Their
First Bond Between 1990 and 1993 That
Had Requirements Explained in Advance
the First Time They Asked for a Bond, by
Gender of Owner
Extent to which information
was given by agents, Owned by women Not owned by women
brokers, or surety companies (n=50) (n=361)
---------------------------- ------------------ --------------------
Little or no extent 10.0% 13.0%
Some extent 10.0% 14.1%
Moderate extent 38.0% 26.6%
Great extent 28.0% 29.9%
Very great extent 14.0% 16.3%
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Differences in distribution by gender are not statistically
significant.
Table 3.5a
Percentage of Firms That Had Used
Government Bonding Assistance Programs,
by Size of Firm
$500,001- Over $3.5 All SBA
Up to $3.5 million to SBA small
$500,000 million maximum firms
Source of bonds (n=444) (n=785) (n=244) (n= 1,473)
------------------------ ------------ ---------- ---------------- ----------
Percentage that had used 14.6% 9.0% 3.7% 9.8%
federal, state, or
local assistance
programs to get a bond
in 1990-93
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Differences in distribution by size of firm are statistically
significant.
Table 3.5b
Percentage of Firms That Had Used
Government Bonding Assistance Programs,
by Ethnicity of Owner
Not owned by
Owned by minority minority
(n=108) (n=1,346)
---------------------------- ------------------ --------------------
Percentage that had used 14.8% 9.4%
federal, state, or local
assistance programs to get
a bond in 1990-93
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Difference by ethnicity is not statistically significant.
Table 3.5c
Percentage of Firms That Had Used
Government Bonding Assistance Programs,
by Gender of Owner
Owned by women Not owned by women
(n=175) (n=1,278)
---------------------------- ------------------ --------------------
Percentage that had used 11.4% 9.4%
federal, state, or local
assistance programs to get
a bond in 1990-93
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Difference by gender is not statistically significant.
Table 3.6
Percentage of Firms That Had Used
Government Bonding Assistance Programs,
by When the Firm Obtained Its First Bond
or Bonding Line
1985- 1990-
Before 89 92 1993 1985-
1985 (n=324 (n=330 (n=113 1993
(n=699) ) ) ) (n=767)
---------------------------------- ---------- ------ ------ ------ --------
Percentage that had used federal, 7% 13.9% 11.5% 11.5% 12.5%
state, or local assistance
programs to get a bond in 1990-
93
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Difference between the firms that had obtained a bond before 1985
and the other firms is statistically significant. Other differences
among firms are not statistically significant.
Table 3.7
Distribution of When Firms Obtained
Their First Bonds, by Whether the Firm
Had or Had Not Used Government Programs
to Obtain a Bond
Had used Had not used
government government
When obtained first bond or programs programs
bonding a line (n=145) (n=1,321)
------------------------------ ------------------ ------------------
Before 1985 33.8% 49.2%
From 1985-89 31.0% 21.1%
From 1990-92 26.2% 22.1%
During 1993 9.0% 7.6%
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Differences in distribution by whether the firm had or had not
used government programs to obtain a bond are statistically
significant.
Table 3.8
Differences Between Firms That Had and
Had Not Used Government Programs to
Obtain Bonds
Had used Had not used
government government
Characteristic programs programs
---------------------------------------- ------------------ ------------------
Average annual revenues $1,056,183 $2,041,737
(+/-211,380) (+/-138,304)
(n=145) (n=1,327)
Average size of largest bond provided in $385,635 $1,214,414
1993 (+/-109,736) (+/-349,768)
(n=110) (n=927)
Average fee paid for performance and 3.10% 2.38%
payment bonds in 1993 (expressed as a (+/-0.56) (+/-0.13)
percentage of the first $100,000 of the (n=113) (n=1,020)
contract amount)
Percent that paid for bid bonds in 1993 68.9% 50.0%
(n=103) (n=846)
Percent that lost an opportunity to bid 35.6% 18.0%
in 1993 because bond request was not (n=132) (n=1,196)
processed in time
Percent that were denied a bond at least 33.6% 20.8%
once (n=143) (n=1,304)
Percent that were required to hire a 10.7% 3.6%
financial management firm, consulting (n=140) (n=1,271)
firm, or CPA selected by the surety
company
Percent that were required to enter into 5.7% 2.4%
an arrangement that gives the surety (n=140) (n=1,271)
company the right to manage the job
being bonded, even when the firm is not
in default
Percent that obtained their first bond 66.2% 50.8%
after 1985 (n=145) (n=1,321)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Differences between the firms that had and had not used government
programs are statistically significant.
Note: The following characteristics were not significantly different
for firms that had and had not used government programs: standard
industrial classification; years of experience in construction;
percentage of revenues in 1993 from bonded work; whether the firm had
a preapproved bonding line and, if so, when it was first approved;
whether the firm was required to provide collateral, establish an
escrow account controlled by the surety company, or purchase
insurance from the bonding agent in order to obtain a bond; and
whether the firm perceived a tightening in the requirements to get a
bond over the last 5 years.
Table 3.9a
Time Taken to Get First Request for Bond
Approved for Firms That Received Their
First Bond in 1990 or Later, by Size of
Firm
$500,001- All SBA
Up to $3.5 Over $3.5 million small
$500,000 million to SBA maximum firms
Number of days (n=143) (n=161) (n=27) (n=331)
---------------------- ------------ ---------- ------------------ ----------
Up to 10 55.2% 49.1% 55.6% 52.3%
11-30 28.0% 29.2% 25.9% 28.4%
More than 30 16.8% 21.7% 18.5% 19.3%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Differences in distribution by size of firm are not statistically
significant.
Table 3.9b
Time Taken to Get First Request for Bond
Approved for Firms That Received Their
First Bond in 1990 or Later, by
Ethnicity of Owner
Not owned by
Owned by minority minority
Number of days (n=39) (n=283)
---------------------------- ------------------ --------------------
Up to 10 46.2% 53.7%
11-30 28.2% 27.9%
More than 30 25.6% 18.4%
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Differences in distribution by ethnicity are not statistically
significant.
Table 3.9c
Time Taken to Get First Request for Bond
Approved for Firms That Received Their
First Bond in 1990 or Later, by Gender
of Owner
Owned by women Not owned by women
Number of days (n=38) (n=286)
---------------------------- ------------------ --------------------
Up to 10 44.7% 53.1%
11-30 34.2% 28.0%
More than 30 21.1% 18.9%
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Differences in distribution by gender are not statistically
significant.
Table 3.10a
Frequency With Which Firms Lost an
Opportunity to Bid in 1993 Because Bond
Request Was Not Processed in Time, by
Size of Firm
$500,001- Over $3.5 All SBA
Up to $3.5 million to SBA small
$500,000 million maximum firms
Frequency (n= 370) (n= 733) (n= 236) (n= 1,339)
------------------------ ------------ ---------- ---------------- ----------
Never 74.6% 80.5% 87.7% 80.1%
1-5 times 21.9% 16.2% 9.7% 16.7%
6-12 times 2.4% 2.0% 1.7% 2.1%
More than 12 times 1.1% 1.2% \b 1.1%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Differences in distribution by size of firm are statistically
significant.
\b This estimate is omitted because the sampling error is larger than
the estimate, leaving no confidence in the estimate.
Table 3.10b
Frequency With Which Firms Lost an
Opportunity to Bid in 1993 Because Bond
Request Was Not Processed in Time, by
Ethnicity of Owner
Not owned by
Owned by minority minority
Frequency (n=98) (n=1,225)
---------------------------- ------------------ --------------------
Never 56.1% 82.2%
1-5 times 36.7% 14.9%
6-12 times 5.1% 1.9%
More than 12 times \b 1.0%
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Differences in distribution by ethnicity are statistically
significant.
\b This estimate is omitted because the sampling error is larger than
the estimate, leaving no confidence in the estimate.
Table 3.10c
Frequency With Which Firms Lost an
Opportunity to Bid in 1993 Because Bond
Request Was Not Processed in Time, by
Gender of Owner
Not
owned
by
women
Owned by women (n=1,1
Frequency (n=164) 60)
------------------------------------------ ------------------ ------
Never 77.4% 80.5%
1-5 times 17.7% 16.6%
6-12 times \b 2.1%
More than 12 times 3.0% 0.9%
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Differences in distribution by gender are not statistically
significant.
\b This estimate is omitted because the sampling error is larger than
the estimate, leaving no confidence in the estimate.
Table 3.11
Time Taken to Approve First Request for
Bonds in 1993 for Firms That Lost an
Opportunity to Bid on a Job Because of
Delays in Processing a Bond Request
Lost at least one Never lost an
opportunity to bid opportunity to bid
in 1993 in 1993
Number of days (n=23) (n=63)
---------------------------- ------------------ --------------------
Up to 10 26.1% 66.7%
11-30 52.2% 23.8%
More than 30 21.7% 9.5%
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Differences in distribution are statistically significant.
Table 3.12a
Percentage of Firms Required to Provide
Various Financial Information in Order
to Get a Bond, by Size of Firm
$500,001- Over $3.5 All SBA
Up to $3.5 million to SBA small
$500,000 million maximum firms
Requirement (n=407) (n=762) (n=242) (n=1,411)
------------------------ ------------ ---------- ---------------- ----------
Report of work on hand/ 72.2% 91.2% 95.9% 86.5%
job status
Personal financial 79.4% 89.5% 89.7% 86.6%
statements
Compilation of financial 72.5% 84.8% 84.7% 81.2%
statements
CPA review of financial 67.6% 82.4% 80.6% 77.8%
statements
Letters of credit/ 59.5% 68.8% 65.3% 65.5%
bankers' acceptances
Corporate tax returns 51.8% 69.3% 64% 63.4%
Personal tax returns 58.2% 58.4% 49.2% 56.8%
CPA audit of financial 44.5% 44.4% 65.7% 48.1%
statements
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Differences by size of firm are statistically significant.
Table 3.12b
Percentage of Firms Required to Provide
Various Financial Information in Order
to Get a Bond, by Ethnicity of Owner
Not owned by
Owned by minority minority
Requirement (n=104) (n=1,296)
---------------------------- ------------------ --------------------
Report of work on hand/job 84.6% 86.7%
status
Personal financial 87.5% 86.6%
statements
Compilation of financial 81.7% 81.2%
statements
CPA review of financial 84.6% 77.4%
statements
Letters of credit/bankers' 63.5% 65.7%
acceptances
Corporate tax returns 71.2% 63%
Personal tax returns\a 76% 55.5%
CPA audit of financial 53.8% 47.6%
statements
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Difference by ethnicity is statistically significant.
Table 3.12c
Percentage of Firms Required to Provide
Various Financial Information in Order
to Get a Bond, by Gender of Owner
Owned by women Not owned by women
Requirement (n=171) (n=1,230)
---------------------------- ------------------ --------------------
Report of work on hand/job 90.6% 86%
status
Personal financial 91.8% 85.9%
statements\a
Compilation of financial 82.5% 81%
statements
CPA review of financial 84.2% 76.9%
statements\a
Letters of credit/bankers' 71.3% 64.8%
acceptances
Corporate tax returns\a 71.3% 62.4%
Personal tax returns 63.2% 55.9%
CPA audit of financial 50.9% 47.6%
statements
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Difference by gender is statistically significant.
Table 3.13a
Percentage of Firms Required to Provide
Selected Financial Information More Than
Once a Year, by Size of Firm
$500,001- Over $3.5 All SBA
Up to $3.5 million to SBA small
Requirement $500,000 million maximum firms
------------------------ ------------ ---------- ---------------- ----------
Report of work on hand/ 48.6% 66.3% 82.1% 67.6%
job status\a (n\= 107)\b (n=415) (n= 179) (n= 701)
Personal financial 20.2% 9.6% 9.1% 11.6%
statements\a (n=178) (n=529) (n=186) (n=893)
Compilation of financial 45.1% 41.9% 61.7% 46.6%
statements\a (n=173) (n=523) (n=183) (n=879)
CPA review of financial 27% 21.6% 27.7% 23.9%
statements (n=174) (n=528) (n=177) (n=879)
Letters of credit/ 15.8% 7.8% 3.9% 8.5%
bankers' acceptances\a (n=114) (n=360) (n=127) (n=601)
Corporate tax returns\a 8.4% 2.5% \c 3.4%
(n=119) (n=398) (n=134) (n=651)
Personal tax returns\a 10.5% \c 4.4% 3.4%
(n=114) (n=320) (n=90) (n=524)
CPA audit of financial 20.6% 12.9% 8.5% 13.3%
statements\a (n=107) (n=241) (n=141) (n=489)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Differences by size of firm are statistically significant.
\b "n" is the total number of firms required to provide the
information monthly, quarterly, twice a year, or annually.
\c This estimate is omitted because the sampling error is larger than
the estimate, leaving no confidence in the estimate.
Table 3.13b
Percentage of Firms Required to Provide
Selected Financial Information More Than
Once a Year, by Ethnicity of Owner
Not owned by
Requirement Owned by minority minority
---------------------------- ------------------ --------------------
Report of work on hand/job 76.5% 66.9%
status (n=51)\a (n=647)
Personal financial 25% 10.4%
statements\b (n=64) (n=823)
Compilation of financial 65.2% 45.2%
statements\b (n=66) (n=808)
CPA review of financial 34.8% 23%
statements\b (n=69) (n=805)
Letters of credit/bankers' 18.4% 7.8%
acceptances\b (n=38) (n=562)
Corporate tax returns \c 3.2%
(n=52) (n=596)
Personal tax returns\b 11.3% 2.6%
(n=53) (n=469)
CPA audit of financial 29.3% 11.9%
statements\b (n=41) (n=445)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a "n" is the total number of firms required to provide the
information monthly, quarterly, twice a year, or annually.
\b Difference by ethnicity is statistically significant.
\c This estimate is omitted because the sampling error is larger than
the estimate, leaving no confidence in the estimate.
Table 3.13c
Percentage of Firms Required to Provide
Selected Financial Information More Than
Once a Year, by Gender of Owner
Requirement Owned by women Not owned by women
---------------------------- ------------------ --------------------
Report of work on hand/job 71.8% 67%
status (n=78)\b (n=621)
Personal financial 16.5% 10.6%
statements (n=115) (n=772)
Compilation of financial 49.5% 46%
statements (n=103) (n=770)
CPA review of financial 25.9% 23.6%
statements (n=116) (n=757)
Letters of credit/bankers' 9.9% 8.1%
acceptances (n=81) (n=518)
Corporate tax returns 5.5% 3.1%
(n=91) (n=557)
Personal tax returns 6.9% 2.7%
(n=72) (n=448)
CPA audit of financial 19.3% 12.1%
statements (n=57) (n=428)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Differences by gender are not statistically significant.
\b "n" is the total number of firms required to provide the
information monthly, quarterly, twice a year, or annually.
Table 3.14a
Amount of Collateral Required of Firms
to Obtain a Bond, by Size of Firm
$500,001- Over $3.5 All SBA
Amount paid for Up to $3.5 million to SBA small
performance and payment $500,000 million maximum firms
bonds (n=416) (n=753) (n=242) (n=1,411)
------------------------ ------------ ---------- ---------------- ----------
Nothing 66.3% 76.1% 83.5% 74.5%
1-50% of contract amount 22.4% 18.6% 12.8% 18.7%
51-100% of contract 8.4% 3.9% 2.9% 5.0%
amount
More than 100% of 2.9% 1.5% \b 1.8%
contract amount
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Differences in distribution by size of firm are statistically
significant.
\b This estimate is omitted because the sampling error is larger than
the estimate, leaving no confidence in the estimate.
Table 3.14b
Amount of Collateral Required of Firms
to Obtain a Bond, by Ethnicity of Owner
Not owned by
Amount paid for performance Owned by minority minority
and payment bonds (n=106) (n=1,292)
---------------------------- ------------------ --------------------
Nothing 63.2% 75.4%
1-50% of contract amount 23.6% 18.3%
51-100% of contract amount 12.3% 4.5%
More than 100% of contract \b 1.9%
amount
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Differences in distribution by ethnicity are statistically
significant.
\b This estimate is omitted because the sampling error is larger than
the estimate, leaving no confidence in the estimate.
Table 3.14c
Amount of Collateral Required of Firms
to Obtain a Bond, by Gender of Owner
Amount paid for performance Owned by women Not owned by women
and payment bonds (n=168) (n=1,230)
---------------------------- ------------------ --------------------
Nothing 71.4% 75.0%
1-50% of contract amount 21.4% 18.1%
51-100% of contract amount 5.4% 5.0%
More than 100% of contract \b 1.8%
amount
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Differences in distribution by gender are not statistically
significant.
\b This estimate is omitted because the sampling error is larger than
the estimate, leaving no confidence in the estimate.
Table 3.15a
Percentage of Firms Asked to Meet
Various Conditions to Obtain a Bond, by
Size of Firm
$500,001- Over $3.5 All SBA
Up to $3.5 million to SBA small
$500,000 million maximum firms
Condition (n=421) (n=759) (n=240) (n= 1,420)
------------------------ ------------ ---------- ---------------- ----------
Hire a financial 5.0% 4.1% 4.2% 4.4%
management firm,
consulting firm, or CPA
selected by the surety
company
Establish an escrow 5.7% 2.2% 2.5% 3.3%
account controlled by
the surety company\a
Enter into arrangement 3.3% 2.5% 2.5% 2.7%
that gives the surety
company the right to
manage the job being
bonded, even when the
firm is not in default
Purchase insurance from 26.8% 14.0% 4.2% 16.1%
the bonding agent\a
At least one of the 36.8% 20.0% 12.1% 23.7%
above four conditions\a
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Differences by size of firm are statistically significant.
Table 3.15b
Percentage of Firms Asked to Meet
Various Conditions to Obtain a Bond, by
Ethnicity of Owner
Not owned by
Owned by minority minority
Condition (n=105) (n=1,303)
---------------------------- ------------------ --------------------
Hire a financial management 9.5% 3.9%
firm, consulting firm, or
CPA selected by the surety
company\a
Establish an escrow account 12.4% 2.6%
controlled by the surety
company\a
Enter into arrangement that 7.6% 2.4%
gives the surety company
the right to manage the job
being bonded, even when the
firm is not in default\a
Purchase insurance from the 21.9% 15.5%
bonding agent
At least one of the above 42.9% 21.9%
four conditions\a
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Difference by ethnicity is statistically significant.
Table 3.15c
Percentage of Firms Asked to Meet
Various Conditions to Obtain a Bond, by
Gender of Owner
Owned by women Not owned by women
Condition (n=165) (n=1,242)
---------------------------- ------------------ --------------------
Hire a financial management 3.0% 4.5%
firm, consulting firm, or
CPA selected by the surety
company
Establish an escrow account 3.6% 3.2%
controlled by the surety
company
Enter into arrangement that 2.4% 2.8%
gives the surety company
the right to manage the job
being bonded, even when the
firm is not in default
Purchase insurance from the 16.4% 15.7%
bonding agent
At least one of the above 23.6% 23.2%
four conditions
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Differences by gender are not statistically significant.
Table 3.16a
Frequency With Which Firms Had Been
Denied Bonds Since 1990, by Size of Firm
$500,001- Over $3.5 All SBA
Up to $3.5 million to SBA small
Number of denials since $500,000 million maximum firms
1990 (n=439) (n=776) (n=245) (n=1,460)
------------------------ ------------ ---------- ---------------- ----------
None 82.0% 76.3% 82.0% 79.0%
1-5 13.9% 19.3% 13.9% 16.8%
6-12 3.4% 3.4% 3.7% 3.4%
More than 12 \b 1.0% \b 0.8%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Differences in distribution by size of firm are not statistically
significant.
\b This estimate is omitted because the sampling error is larger than
the estimate, leaving no confidence in the estimate.
Table 3.16b
Frequency With Which Firms Had Been
Denied Bonds Since 1990, by Ethnicity of
Owner
Not owned by
Owned by minority minority
Number of denials since 1990 (n=107) (n=1,339)
---------------------------- ------------------ --------------------
None 64.5% 80.1%
1-5 27.1% 16.1%
6-12 7.5% 3.1%
More than 12 \b 0.8%
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Differences in distribution by ethnicity are statistically
significant.
\b This estimate is omitted because the sampling error is larger than
the estimate, leaving no confidence in the estimate.
Table 3.16c
Frequency With Which Firms Had Been
Denied Bonds Since 1990, by Gender of
Owner
Owned by women Not owned by women
Number of denials since 1990 (n=173) (n=1,273)
---------------------------- ------------------ --------------------
None 78.0% 79.2%
1-5 16.2% 16.8%
6-12 4.6% 3.2%
More than 12 \b 0.8%
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Differences in distribution by gender are statistically
significant.
\b This estimate is omitted because the sampling error is larger than
the estimate, leaving no confidence in the estimate.
Table 3.17a
Percentage of Firms Reporting Various
Reasons Why They Were Last Denied a
Bond, by Size of Firm
$500,001- Over $3.5 All SBA
Up to $3.5 million to SBA small
$500,000 million maximum firms
Reason\a (n=70) (n=159) (n=41) (n=270)
------------------------ ------------ ---------- ---------------- ----------
Firm's financial status 71.4% 64.8% 65.9% 66.7%
not good enough (net
worth, operating
capital, etc.)
Firm had never done that 28.6% 28.9% 31.7% 29.3%
large a job, never
worked in that location
before, or never done
that kind of work
Not enough time to 22.9% 13.8% 9.8% 15.6%
process the bond
Firm had not done enough 24.3% 11.3% \c 13.7%
bonded work\b
No more bonds until 11.4% 12.6% 19.5% 13.3%
current work completed
Firm not in business 20.0% 8.2% \c 10.4%
long enough\b
Surety company did not 11.4% 8.8% 0% 8.1%
want to bond
subcontractors
Size of bond requested 7.1% 6.9% 9.8% 7.4%
would have required a
change in surety
company
No bonds until claims 5.7% 5.7% 12.2% 6.7%
against firm or legal
disputes were resolved
Firm chose not to make 5.7% 5.7% 9.8% 6.3%
changes in business
practices or meet other
conditions required by
surety
Firm could not obtain 11.4% 4.4% \c 5.9%
government guarantee of
bond (SBA, DOT, etc.)
Firm's key people were 5.7% \c \c 2.2%
not experienced enough
Firm had defaulted on a 0% 0% \c \c
previous job
Other reasons 10.0% 13.2% 14.6% 12.6%
Reasons given were not 12.9% 8.2% 7.3% 9.3%
clear or understandable
No reason given for 0% 0% 0% 0%
denial\d
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Reasons for last denials prior to 1990 are not included.
\b Differences by size of firm are statistically significant.
\c This estimate is omitted because the sampling error is larger than
the estimate, leaving no confidence in the estimate.
\d Some respondents who reported a reason or said the reasons given
were not clear or understandable also said no reasons were given. We
did not include these respondents in this category.
Table 3.17b
Percentage of Firms Reporting Various
Reasons Why They Were Last Denied a
Bond, by Ethnicity of Owner
Not owned by
Owned by minority minority
Reason\a (n=35) (n=234)
---------------------------- ------------------ --------------------
Firm's financial status not 68.6% 66.2%
good enough (net worth,
operating capital, etc.)
Firm had never done that 37.1% 28.2%
large a job, never worked
in that location before, or
never done that kind of
work
Not enough time to process 17.1% 15.4%
the bond
Firm had not done enough 11.4% 13.7%
bonded work
No more bonds until current 31.4% 10.3%
work completed\b
Firm not in business long 17.1% 9.4%
enough
Surety company did not want 14.3% 7.3%
to bond subcontractors
Size of bond requested would 11.4% 6.8%
have required a change in
surety company
No more bonds until claims 14.3% 5.6%
against firm or legal
disputes were resolved
Firm chose not to make \c 6.4%
changes in business
practices or meet other
conditions required by
surety
Firm could not obtain 14.3% 4.7%
government guarantee or
bond (SBA, DOT, etc.)\b
Firm's key people were not 0% 2.6%
experienced enough
Firm had defaulted on a 0% \c
previous job
Other reasons \c 13.7%
Reasons given were not clear 20.0% 7.7%
or understandable\b
No reason given for denial\d 0% 0%
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Reasons for last denials prior to 1990 are not included.
\b Difference by ethnicity is statistically significant.
\c This estimate is omitted because the sampling error is larger than
the estimate, leaving no confidence in the estimate.
\d Some respondents who reported a reason or said the reasons given
were not clear or understandable also said no reasons were given. We
did not include these respondents in this category.
Table 3.17c
Percentage of Firms Reporting Various
Reasons Why They Were Last Denied a
Bond, by Gender of Owner
Owned by women Not owned by women
Reason\a (n=34) (n=234)
---------------------------- ------------------ --------------------
Firm's financial status not 73.5% 65.8%
good enough (net worth,
operating capital, etc.)
Firm had never done that 32.4% 28.6%
large a job, never worked
in that location before, or
never done that kind of
work
Not enough time to process 14.7% 15.8%
the bond
Firm had not done enough \b 15.0%
bonded work
No more bonds until current 17.6% 12.8%
work completed
Firm not in business long \b 10.3%
enough
Surety company did not want \b 8.5%
to bond subcontractors
Size of bond requested would 0% 7.7%
have required a change in
surety company
No bonds until claims \b 6.4%
against firm or legal
disputes were resolved
Firm chose not to make 14.7% 5.1%
changes in business
practices or meet other
conditions required by
surety\c
Firm could not obtain \b 6.0%
government guarantee of
bond (SBA, DOT, etc.)
Firm's key people were not \b 2.1%
experienced enough
Firm had defaulted on a 0% \b
previous job
Other reasons \b 14.1%
Reasons given were not clear \b 10.3%
or understandable
No reason given for denial\d 0% 0%
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Reasons for last denials prior to 1990 are not included.
\b This estimate is omitted because the sampling error is larger than
the estimate, leaving no confidence in the estimate.
\c Difference by gender is statistically significant.
\d Some respondents who reported a reason or said the reasons given
were not clear or understandable also said no reasons were given. We
did not include these respondents in this category.
Table 3.18a
Percentage of Firms That Were Given Oral
or Written Reasons for Their Most Recent
Bond Denial After 1989, by Size of Firm
$500,001- Over $3.5 All SBA
Up to $3.5 million to SBA small
$500,000 million maximum firms
Type of reason given (n=70) (n=159) (n=41) (n=270)
------------------------ ------------ ---------- ---------------- ----------
Oral reasons only 78.6% 86.2% 92.7% 85.2%
At least one written 21.4% 13.8% \b 14.8%
response
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Differences in distribution by size of firm are not statistically
significant.
\b This estimate is omitted because the sampling error is larger than
the estimate, leaving no confidence in the estimate.
Table 3.18b
Percentage of Firms That Were Given Oral
or Written Reasons for Their Most Recent
Bond Denial After 1989, by Ethnicity of
Owner
Not owned by
Owned by minority minority
Type of reason given (n=35) (n=234)
---------------------------- ------------------ --------------------
Oral reasons only 68.6% 87.6%
At least one written 31.4% 12.4%
response
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Differences in distribution by ethnicity are statistically
significant.
Table 3.18c
Percentage of Firms That Were Given Oral
or Written Reasons for Their Most Recent
Bond Denial After 1989, by Gender of
Owner
Owned by women Not owned by women
Type of reason given (n=34) (n=234)
---------------------------- ------------------ --------------------
Oral reasons only 73.5% 86.8%
At least one written 26.5% 13.2%
response
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Differences in distribution by gender are statistically
significant.
Table 3.19a
Time Taken to Deny Last Bond Request for
Firms, by Size of Firm
$500,001- Over $3.5 All SBA
Number of days to get Up to $3.5 million to SBA small
last bond denial in 1990 $500,000 million maximum firms
or later (n=53) (n=110) (n=30) (n=193)
------------------------ ------------ ---------- ---------------- ----------
Up to 10 62.3% 63.6% 60.0% 62.7%
11-30 28.3% 30.0% 33.3% 30.1%
More than 30 9.4% 6.4% \b 7.3%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Differences in distribution by size of firm are not statistically
significant.
\b This estimate is omitted because the sampling error is larger than
the estimate, leaving no confidence in the estimate.
Table 3.19b
Time Taken to Deny Last Bond Request for
Firms, by Ethnicity of Owner
Not owned by
Number of days to get last Owned by minority minority
bond denial in 1990 or later (n=24) (n=168)
---------------------------- ------------------ --------------------
Up to 10 37.5% 66.1%
11-30 45.8% 28.0%
More than 30 16.7% 6.0%
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Differences in distribution by ethnicity are statistically
significant.
Table 3.19c
Time Taken to Deny Last Bond Request for
Firms, by Gender of Owner
Number of days to get last Owned by women Not owned by women
bond denial in 1990 or later (n=24) (n=167)
---------------------------- ------------------ --------------------
Up to 10 58.3% 64.1%
11-30 20.8% 30.5%
More than 30 20.8% 5.4%
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Differences in distribution by gender are statistically
significant.
Table 3.20
Time Taken for Most Recent Denial in
1993 for Firms That Lost an Opportunity
to Bid on a Job Because of Delays in
Processing a Bond Request
Lost at least one Never lost an
opportunity to bid opportunity to bid
in 1993 in 1993
Number of days (n=61) (n=33)
------------------------------ ------------------ ------------------
Up to 10 59.0% 72.7%
11-30 34.4% 21.2%
More than 30 6.6% \b
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Differences in distribution are not statistically significant.
\b This estimate is omitted because the sampling error is larger than
the estimate, leaving no confidence in the estimate.
Table 3.21a
Changes in Bonding Requirements Over the
Last 5 Years, by Size of Firm
$500,001- Over $3.5 All SBA
Up to $3.5 million to SBA small
$500,000 million maximum firms
Change reported (n=383) (n=726) (n=237) (n=1,346)
------------------------ ------------ ---------- ---------------- ----------
Requirements relaxed 11.7% 13.6% 16.5% 13.6%
Requirements tightened 39.4% 46.3% 41.4% 43.5%
Requirements stayed 48.8% 40.1% 42.2% 42.9%
about the same
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Differences in distribution by size of firm are statistically
significant.
Table 3.21b
Changes in Bonding Requirements Over the
Last 5 Years, by Ethnicity of Owner
Not owned by
Owned by minority minority
Change reported (n=101) (n=1,232)
---------------------------- ------------------ --------------------
Requirements relaxed 16.8% 13.2%
Requirements tightened 54.5% 42.7%
Requirements stayed about 28.7% 44.1%
the same
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Differences in distribution by ethnicity are statistically
significant.
Table 3.21c
Changes in Bonding Requirements Over the
Last 5 Years, by Gender of Owner
Owned by women Not owned by women
Change reported (n=162) (n=1,171)
---------------------------- ------------------ --------------------
Requirements relaxed 13.6% 13.6%
Requirements tightened 41.4% 43.6%
Requirements stayed about 45.1% 42.8%
the same
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Differences in distribution by gender are not statistically
significant.
Table 3.22a
Percentage of Firms Reporting Various
Reasons Given by Agents, Brokers, and
Surety Companies to Explain Why They
Tightened up Requirements for Bonds, by
Size of Firm
$500,001- Over $3.5 All SBA
Up to $3.5 million to SBA small
$500,000 million maximum firms
Reason given (n=149) (n=334) (n=98) (n=581)
------------------------ ------------ ---------- ---------------- ----------
Firm requested increase 12.1% 19.5% 17.3% 17.2%
in capacity
Firm's financial 31.5% 39.8% 28.6% 35.8%
strength declined (less
net worth, less
collateral, diversion
of profits to other
business activities,
etc.)
Firm's key personnel \b 4.2% 4.1% 3.3%
changed
Surety company's policy 37.6% 38.9% 42.9% 39.2%
changed
New surety agent or 14.8% 15.6% 16.3% 15.5%
company used
General economic 44.3% 49.4% 49.0% 48.0%
conditions or new
government regulations
Other reasons 3.4% 6.3% 8.2% 5.9%
Reasons given to firm by 9.4% 6.6% 5.1% 7.1%
agent or broker not
clear
No reasons given to firm 6.7% 3.9% \b 4.1%
by agent or broker
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Differences by size of firm are not statistically significant.
\b This estimate is omitted because the sampling error is larger than
the estimate, leaving no confidence in the estimate.
Table 3.22b
Percentage of Firms Reporting Various
Reasons Given by Agents, Brokers, and
Surety Companies to Explain Why They
Tightened up Requirements for Bonds, by
Ethnicity of Owner
Not owned by
Owned by minority minority
Reason given (n=55) (n=522)
---------------------------- ------------------ --------------------
Firm requested increase in 23.6% 16.7%
capacity
Firm's financial strength 58.2% 33.7%
declined (less net worth,
less collateral, diversion
of profits to other
business activities,
etc.)\a
Firm's key personnel changed \b 3.3%
Surety company's policy 30.9% 40.0%
changed
New surety agent or company 16.4% 15.5%
used
General economic conditions 29.1% 50.0%
or new government
regulations\a
Other reasons \b 6.3%
Reasons given to firm by 16.4% 6.1%
agent or broker not clear\a
No reasons given to firm by \b 3.6%
agent or broker
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Difference by ethnicity is statistically significant.
\b This estimate is omitted because the sampling error is larger than
the estimate, leaving no confidence in the estimate.
Table 3.22c
Percentage of Firms Reporting Various
Reasons Given by Agents, Brokers, and
Surety Companies to Explain Why They
Tightened up Requirements for Bonds, by
Gender of Owner
Owned by women Not owned by women
Reason given (n=67) (n=507)
-------------------------------------- ------------------ --------------------
Firm requested increase in capacity 16.4% 17.6%
Firm's financial strength declined 37.3% 35.9%
(less net worth, less collateral,
diversion of profits to other
business activities, etc.)
Firm's key personnel changed \a 3.2%
Surety company's policy changed 38.8% 39.3%
New surety agent or company used 13.4% 16.0%
General economic conditions or new 46.3% 48.1%
government regulations
Other reasons 7.5% 5.7%
Reasons given to firm by agent or 16.4% 5.9%
broker not clear\b
No reasons given to firm by agent or \a 3.9%
broker
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a This estimate is omitted because the sampling error is larger than
the estimate, leaving no confidence in the estimate.
\b Difference by gender is statistically significant.
Table 3.23a
Percentage of Firms Paying Various Types
of Fees for Bid Bonds in 1993, by Size
of Firm
Type of fee paid
---------------- ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------
No fee\b 25.5% 48.6% 70.5% 48.2%
Percentage of 24.0% 15.4% 13.0% 16.7%
contract
amount\b
Up to 2.5%\b 38.0% 51.8% 73.1% 50.9%
More than 2.5% 62.0% 48.2% 26.9% 49.1%
Flat fee for 36.1% 30.4% 25.5% 30.6%
each bid bond\c
Up to $200\c 82.7% 84.1% 94.1% 85.5%
Over $200 17.3% 15.9% 5.9% 14.5%
Annual service 21.2% 16.5% 8.0% 15.7%
fee\b
Up to $200\c 77.3% 66.3% 68.8% 69.8%
Over $200 22.7% 33.7% 31.3% 30.2%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Column totals exceed 100 percent because some firms paid more than
one type of fee.
\b Difference in distribution by size of firm is statistically
significant.
\c Difference in distribution by size of firm is not statistically
significant.
Table 3.23b
Percentage of Firms Paying Various Types
of Fees for Bid Bonds in 1993, by
Ethnicity of Owner
Type of fee paid
-------------------------------------- ------ ------ ------ ------
No fee 40.7% 49.0%
Percentage of contract amount 16.9% 16.7%
Up to 2.5% 60.0% 50.3%
More than 2.5% 40.0% 49.7%
Flat fee for each bid bond 33.9% 30.4%
Up to $200 80.0% 85.8%
Over $200 20.0% 14.2%
Annual service fee 16.9% 15.5%
Up to $200 60.0% 70.1%
Over $200 40.0% 29.9%
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Column totals exceed 100 percent because some firms paid more than
one type of fee.
\b Differences by ethnicity are not statistically significant.
Table 3.23c
Percentage of Firms Paying Various Types
of Fees for Bid Bonds in 1993, by Gender
of Owner
Type of fee paid
------------------------------ -------- -------- -------- --------
No fee\b 44.2% 49.1%
Percentage of contract 13.3% 17.3%
amount\b
Up to 2.5%\c 62.5% 50.0%
More than 2.5% 37.5% 50.0%
Flat fee for each bid bond\d 4 0.8% 28.9%
Up to $200\c 93.9% 83.5%
Over $200 \e 16.5%
Annual service fee\b 1 5.8% 15.6%
Up to $200\c 68.4% 70.3%
Over $200 31.6% 29.7%
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Column totals exceed 100 percent because some firms paid more than
one type of fee.
\b Difference by gender is not statistically significant.
\c Differences in distribution by gender are not statistically
significant.
\d Difference by gender is statistically significant.
\e This estimate is omitted because the sampling error is larger than
the estimate, leaving no confidence in the estimate.
Table 3.24a
Average Fee (Percentage of Contract)
Paid in 1993 for Performance and Payment
Bonds for Contracts up to $100,000, by
Size of Firm
$500,001- All SBA
Up to $3.5 Over $3.5 million small
$500,000 million to SBA maximum firms
(n=265) (n=653) (n=222) (n=1,140)
---------------------- ------------ ---------- ------------------ ----------
Average fee 3.47% 2.31% 1.60% 2.44%
(+/-0.39) (+/-0.14) (+/-0.14) (+/-0.13)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Differences by size of firm are statistically significant.
Table 3.24b
Average Fee (Percentage of Contract)
Paid in 1993 for Performance and Payment
Bonds for Contracts up to $100,000, by
Ethnicity of Owner
Not owned by
Owned by minority minority
(n=77) (n=1,053)
---------------------------- ------------------ --------------------
Average fee 2.70% 2.42%
(+/-0.77) (+/-0.13)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Difference by ethnicity is not statistically significant.
Table 3.24c
Average Fee (Percentage of Contract)
Paid in 1993 for Performance and Payment
Bonds for Contracts up to $100,000, by
Gender of Owner
Owned by women Not owned by women
(n=136) (n=993)
---------------------------- ------------------ --------------------
Average fee 2.07% 2.45%
(+/-0.17) (+/-0.14)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Difference by gender is statistically significant.
Table 3.25
Fees Paid in 1993 for Bid, Performance,
and Payment Bonds, by Standard
Industrial Classification
Special
Building trade
1993 fee construction Heavy construction construction
-------------------------- ------------------ ------------------ ------------
Percentage of firms that 44.4% 41.7% 59.1%
paid for bid bonds\a (n=248) (n=180) (n=513)
Average fee paid for first 2.15 2.06 2.67
$100,000 of contract (+/-0.18) (+/-0.26) (+/-0.20)
amount for performance (n=275) (n=191) (n=666)
and payment bonds,
expressed as a percentage
of contract amount\a
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Differences between the special trade construction and the other
firms are statistically significant.
Table 3.26a
Average Fee (Percentage of Contract)
Paid in 1993 for Performance and Payment
Bonds for Contracts up to $100,000, by
Size of Firm, Standard Industrial
Classification, and Ethnicity of Owner
Not owned by
Average revenues of firm Owned by minority minority
------------------------------ ------------------ ------------------
Up to $500,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Building and heavy 2.81% 3.47%
construction contractors (+/-0.50) (+/-0.86)
(n=10) (n=59)
Special trade contractors 4.28% 3.42%
(+/-3.45) (+/-0.41)
(n=17) (n=174)
$500,001-$3.5 million
Building and heavy 2.13% 2.09%
construction contractors (+/-0.36) (+/-0.13)
(n=16) (n=239)
Special trade contractors 2.55% 2.45%
(+/-1.18) (+/-0.23)
(n=16) (n=373)
Over $3.5 million to SBA
maximum
Building and heavy 1.59% 1.53%
construction contractors (+/-0.47) (+/-0.20)
(n=11) (n=129)
Special trade contractors 2.02% 1.69%
(+/-0.82) (+/-0.24)
(n=6) (n=72)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Differences by ethnicity are not statistically significant.
Table 3.26b
Average Fee (Percentage of Contract)
Paid in 1993 for Performance and Payment
Bonds for Contracts up to $100,000, by
Size of Firm, Standard Industrial
Classification, and Gender of Owner
Average revenues of firm Owned by women Not owned by women
---------------------------- ------------------ --------------------
Up to $500,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Building and heavy 1.92% 3.70%
construction contractors\a (+/-0.55) (+/-0.87)
(n=13) (n=57)
Special trade contractors\a 2.63% 3.44%
(+/-0.51) (+/-0.43)
(n=24) (n=163)
$500,001-$3.5 million
Building and heavy 1.95% 2.10%
construction contractors (+/-0.32) (+/-0.14)
(n=25) (n=230)
Special trade contractors 2.03% 2.52%
(+/-0.28) (+/-0.26)
(n=55) (n=335)
Over $3.5 million to SBA
maximum
Building and heavy 1.64% 1.53%
construction contractors (+/-0.45) (+/-0.21)
(n=14) (n=127)
Special trade contractors 1.92% 1.70%
(+/-1.15) (+/-0.24)
(n=5) (n=73)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Difference by gender is statistically significant.
Table 3.27a
Percentage of 1993 Construction Revenues
Covered by Bonds for Firms, by Size of
Firm
$500,001- Over $3.5 All SBA
Percentage of 1993 Up to $3.5 million to SBA small
revenues from bonded $500,000 million maximum firms
work (n=404) (n=755) (n=232) (n=1,391)
------------------------ ------------ ---------- ---------------- ----------
Average 24.2% 32.4% 48.7% 32.8%
(+/-3.14) (+/-2.41) (+/-4.47) (+/-1.81)
Distribution
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0% 35.6% 18.0% 5.6% 21.1%
1-19% 24.0% 29.9% 21.1% 26.7%
20-39% 12.6% 17.0% 16.8% 15.7%
40-59% 10.9% 10.3% 13.8% 11.1%
60-79% 5.2% 7.5% 12.9% 7.8%
80-99% 5.2% 11.9% 22.8% 11.8%
100% 6.4% 5.3% 6.9% 5.9%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Differences among averages and distributions by size of firm are
statistically significant.
Table 3.27b
Percentage of 1993 Construction Revenues
Covered by Bonds for Firms, by Ethnicity
of Owner
Not owned by
Percentage of 1993 revenues Owned by minority minority
from bonded work (n=104) (n=1,273)
---------------------------- ------------------ --------------------
Average 41.5% 32.2%
(+/-7.38) (+/-1.87)
Distribution
----------------------------------------------------------------------
0% 20.2% 21.2%
1-19% 21.2% 27.0%
20-39% 10.6% 16.0%
40-59% 8.7% 11.2%
60-79% 9.6% 7.7%
80-99% 20.2% 11.2%
100% 9.6% 5.6%
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Differences in averages and distributions by ethnicity are
statistically significant.
Table 3.27c
Percentage of 1993 Construction Revenues
Covered by Bonds for Firms, by Gender of
Owner
Percentage of 1993 revenues Owned by women Not owned by women
from bonded work (n=165) (n=1,212)
---------------------------- ------------------ --------------------
Average 35.7% 32.5%
(+/-5.57) (+/-1.92)
Distribution
----------------------------------------------------------------------
0% 23.0% 20.9%
1-19% 23.0% 26.9%
20-39% 12.1% 16.3%
40-59% 10.9% 11.1%
60-79% 9.7% 7.6%
80-99% 13.9% 11.6%
100% 7.3% 5.7%
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Differences in averages and distributions by gender are not
statistically significant.
Table 3.28
Percentage of 1993 Construction Revenues
Covered by Bonds for Firms, by Standard
Industrial Classification
Average percent of revenues
Standard industrial classification \a
---------------------------------------- ----------------------------
Building construction 39.80%
(t/-3.95)
(n=317)
Heavy construction 49.45%
(+/-5.07)
(n=225)
Special trade construction 25.5%
(+/-2.05)
(n=840)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Differences among firms by standard industrial classification are
statistically significant.
Table 3.29a
Bonding Capacity (Largest Bond) of
Firms, by Size of Firm
$500,001- Over $3.5 All SBA
Up to $3.5 million to SBA small
Year $500,000 million maximum firms
------------------------ ------------ ---------- ---------------- ----------
1990 (n=169) (n=399) (n=165) (n=733)
Average\a $244,772 $3,084,024
(+/- $1,530,272 (+/-507,530) $1,583,641
101,773) (+/- (+/-
1,474,802) 813,703)
Distribution\b
Under $100,000 42.6% 14.0% \c 17.6%
$100,000-$499,999 46.2% 36.8% 10.3% 33.0%
$500,000-$999,999 5.9% 23.3% 13.3% 17.1%
$1,000,000 and over 5.3% 25.8% 75.8% 32.3%
1991 (n=156) (n=391) (n=165) (n=712)
Average\a \c \c $3,054,305
(+/-510,976) $1,686,225
(+/-
861,026)
Distribution\b
Under $100,000 41.0% 15.6% 1.8% 18.0%
$100,000-$499,999 47.4% 35.5% 6.1% 31.3%
$500,000-$999,999 5.8% 22.3% 14.5% 16.9%
$1,000,000 and over 5.8% 26.6% 77.6% 33.8%
1992 (n=187) (n=423) (n=179) (n=789)
Average\a \c $3,377,315
$1,468,204 (+/-579,808) $1,668,616
(+/- (+/-
1,389,801) 769,581)
Distribution\b
Under $100,000 45.5% 13.2% 2.8% 18.5%
$100,000-$499,999 45.5% 36.6% 9.5% 32.6%
$500,000-$999,999 3.7% 21.7% 11.7% 15.2%
$1,000,000 and over 5.3% 28.4% 76.0% 33.7%
1993 (n=268) (n=617) (n=231) (n=1,116)
Average\a,d $276,439 $3,782,612
(+/-79,271) $1,254,340 (+/-646,869) $1,542,829
(+/- (+/-
953,794) 548,778)
Distribution\b
Under $100,000 46.6% 16.7% 2.6% 21.0%
$100,000-$499,999 40.7% 35.8% 12.6% 32.2%
$500,000-$999,999 5.6% 19.9% 10.8% 14.6%
$1,000,000 and over 7.1% 27.6% 74.0% 32.3%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Difference between the smallest firms and the firms with average
revenues over $3.5 million is statistically significant.
\b Differences in distribution by size of firm are statistically
significant.
\c This estimate is omitted because the sampling error is larger than
the estimate, leaving no confidence in the estimate.
\d Difference between the medium-size firms and the firms with
average revenues over $3.5 million is statistically significant.
Table 3.29b
Bonding Capacity (Largest Bond) of
Firms, by Ethnicity of Owner
Not owned by
Year Owned by minority minority
---------------------------- ------------------ --------------------
1990 (n=61) (n=667)
Average $849,431 $1,659,863
(+/-399,956) (+/-893,357)
Distribution
Under $100,000 23.0% 17.1%
$100,000-$499,999 31.1% 33.3%
$500,000-$999,999 23.0% 16.2%
$1,000,000 and over 23.0% 33.4%
1991 (n=55) (n=654)
Average $764,952 1,770,596
(+/-$ 397,536) (+/-936,604)
Distribution
Under $100,000 16.4% 17.9%
$100,000-$499,999 43.6% 30.4%
$500,000-$999,999 18.2% 16.7%
$1,000,000 and over 21.8% 35.0%
1992 (n=65) (n=721)
Average $852,494 $1,748,304
(+/-339,966) (+/-841,446)
Distribution
Under $100,000 20.0% 18.2%
$100,000-$499,999 32.3% 32.7%
$500,000-$999,999 20.0% 14.7%
$1,000,000 and over 27.7% 34.4%
1993 (n=79) (n=1,028)
Average $1,064,159 $1,587,168
(+/-318,259) (+/-595,175)
Distribution
Under $100,000 15.2% 21.4%
$100,000-$499,999 34.2% 31.9%
$500,000-$999,999 12.7% 14.7%
$1,000,000 and over 38.0% 32.0%
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Differences by ethnicity are not statistically significant.
Table 3.29c
Bonding Capacity (Largest Bond) of
Firms, by Gender of Owner
Year Owned by women Not owned by women
---------------------------- ------------------ --------------------
1990 (n=82) (n=644)
Average $769,633 $1,702,718
(+/-285,499) (+/-925,168)
Distribution
Under $100,000 13.4% 17.9%
$100,000-$499,999 39.0% 32.1%
$500,000-$999,999 23.2% 16.3%
$1,000,000 and over 24.4% 33.7%
1991 (n=82) (n=624)
Average $788,748 1,818,766
(+/-$ 295,654) (+/-981,354)
Distribution
Under $100,000 19.5% 17.6%
$100,000-$499,999 36.6% 30.4%
$500,000-$999,999 18.3% 16.7%
$1,000,000 and over 25.6% 35.3%
1992 (n=97) (n=685)
Average $824,472 1,803,605
(+/-$ 264,334) (+/-885,289)
Distribution
Under $100,000 23.7% 17.5%
$100,000-$499,999 33.0% 32.4%
$500,000-$999,999 11.3% 15.8%
$1,000,000 and over 32.0% 34.3%
1993 (n=139) (n=968)
Average $975,626 $1,633,218
(+/-249,112) (+/-631,483)
Distribution
Under $100,000 18.0% 21.3%
$100,000-$499,999 36.0% 31.5%
$500,000-$999,999 15.8% 14.5%
$1,000,000 and over 30.2% 32.7%
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Differences by gender are not statistically significant.
Table 3.30a
Bonding Capacity (Total Program) of
Firms, by Size of Firm
$500,001- Over $3.5 All SBA
Up to $3.5 million to SBA small
Year $500,000 million maximum firms
------------------------ ------------ ---------- ---------------- ----------
1990 (n=186) (n=436) (n=172) (n=794)
Average\a $305,807 $6,874,462
(+/-99,008) $2,978,835 (+/-1,197,281) $3,196,549
(+/- (+/-
2,709,313) 1,517,353)
Distribution\b
Under $100,000 39.8% 7.8% 0.0% 13.6%
$100,000-$499,999 38.7% 26.8% 3.5% 24.6%
$500,000-$999,999 12.4% 17.9% 5.8% 14.0%
$1,000,000 and over 9.1% 47.5% 90.7% 47.9%
1991 (n=172) (n=429) (n=171) (n=772)
Average\a $7,004,657
\d $2,872,090 (+/-1,257,766) $3,349,015
(+/- (+/-
2,747,826) 1,578,856)
Distribution\b
Under $100,000 36.6% 7.5% \d 12.4%
$100,000-$499,999 41.9% 24.2% 2.3% 23.3%
$500,000-$999,999 12.2% 18.9% 4.7% 14.2%
$1,000,000 and over 9.3% 49.4% 92.4% 50.0%
1992 (n=206) (n=462) (n=181) (n=849)
Average\a,c $7,636,781
\d $2,862,378 (+/-1,451,977) $3,587,826
(+/- (+/-
2,548,947) 1,504,098)
Distribution\b
Under $100,000 38.8% 6.5% \d 13.2%
$100,000-$499,999 41.3% 22.9% 3.9% 23.3%
$500,000-$999,999 11.2% 19.5% 3.9% 14.1%
$1,000,000 and over 8.7% 51.1% 91.2% 49.4%
1993 (n=279) (n=634) (n=231) (n=1,144)
Average\a,c $367,208 $7,903,661
(+/- $2,394,450 (+/-1,508,042) $3,012,481
104,196) (+/- (+/-
1,858,457) 1,084,334)
Distribution\b
Under $100,000 41.6% 10.6% 1.7% 16.3%
$100,000-$499,999 39.8% 24.3% 9.1% 25.0%
$500,000-$999,999 8.2% 18.8% 5.2% 13.5%
$1,000,000 and over 10.4% 46.4% 84.0% 45.2%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Difference between the smallest firms and the firms with average
revenues over $3.5 million is statistically significant.
\b Differences in distribution by size of firm are statistically
significant.
\c Difference between the medium-size firms and the firms with
average revenues over $3.5 million is statistically significant.
\d This estimate is omitted because the sampling error is larger than
the estimate, leaving no confidence in the estimate.
Table 3.30b
Bonding Capacity (Total Program) of
Firms, by Ethnicity of Owner
Not owned by
Year Owned by minority minority
---------------------------- ------------------ --------------------
1990 (n=64) (n=725)
Average\a $1,596,537 $3,355,471
(+/-685,669) (+/-1,660,340)
Distribution\b
Under $100,000 23.4% 12.7%
$100,000-$499,999 23.4% 24.7%
$500,000-$999,999 12.5% 13.9%
$1,000,000 and over 40.6% 48.7%
1991 (n=57) (n=712)
Average\a $1,625,849 $3,500,304
(+/-727,110) (+/-1,710,589)
Distribution\c
Under $100,000 14.0% 12.1%
$100,000-$499,999 36.8% 22.3%
$500,000-$999,999 7.0% 14.7%
$1,000,000 and over 42.1% 50.8%
1992 (n=65) (n=781)
Average\a $1,820,176 $3,747,957
(+/-673,358) (+/-1,633,734)
Distribution\b
Under $100,000 13.8% 12.9%
$100,000-$499,999 27.7% 23.0%
$500,000-$999,999 15.4% 14.0%
$1,000,000 and over 43.1% 50.1%
1993 (n=79) (n=1,056)
Average\a $2,290,703 $3,086,073
(+/-735,083) (+/-1,173,345)
Distribution\b
Under $100,000 10.1% 16.8%
$100,000-$499,999 26.6% 24.8%
$500,000-$999,999 16.5% 13.1%
$1,000,000 and over 46.8% 45.4%
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Difference by ethnicity is not statistically significant.
\b Differences in distribution by ethnicity are not statistically
significant.
\c Differences in distribution by ethnicity are statistically
significant.
Table 3.30c
Bonding Capacity (Total Program) of
Firms, by Gender of Owner
Year Owned by women Not owned by women
---------------------------- ------------------ --------------------
1990 (n=89) (n=698)
Average $1,835,467 $3,400,364
(+/-667,287) (+/-1,723,579)
Distribution
Under $100,000 12.4% 13.5%
$100,000-$499,999 27.0% 24.1%
$500,000-$999,999 18.0% 13.5%
$1,000,000 and over 42.7% 49.0%
1991 (n=88) (n=678)
Average $1,878,362 $3,568,052
(+/-682,772) (+/-1,795,146)
Distribution
Under $100,000 14.8% 11.9%
$100,000-$499,999 23.9% 23.0%
$500,000-$999,999 19.3% 13.6%
$1,000,000 and over 42.0% 51.5%
1992 (n=101) (n=741)
Average $1,911,529 $3,848,725
(+/-630,798) (+/-1,720,538)
Distribution
Under $100,000 16.8% 12.4%
$100,000-$499,999 23.8% 23.1%
$500,000-$999,999 16.8% 13.8%
$1,000,000 and over 42.6% 50.7%
1993 (n=139) (n=996)
Average $1,896,534 $3,190,191
(+/-507,795) (+/-1,243,116)
Distribution
Under $100,000 12.2% 16.8%
$100,000-$499,999 29.5% 24.2%
$500,000-$999,999 15.1% 13.3%
$1,000,000 and over 43.2% 45.8%
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Differences in averages and distributions by gender are not
statistically significant.
Table 3.31a
Average Growth in Bonding Capacity From
1990 to 1993, by Size of Firm
Over $3.5 All SBA
Up to $500,001- million to SBA small
$500,000 $3.5 million maximum firms
------------------------ ---------- ------------ ---------------- ----------
Dollar growth in largest \c $152,352 $1,168,330 $402,590
bond\a (n=115) (+/- (+/-631,966) (+/-
66,655) (n=162) 173,805)
(n=348) (n=625)
Dollar growth in total \c \c $2,191,473 $612,110
program\a,b (n=133) (n=385) (+/-1,089,960) (+/-
(n=169) 297,040)
(n=687)
1993/1990 ratio for 2.33 1.94 1.63 1.93
largest bond (+/- (+/-0.26) (+/-0.22) (+/-0.3)
1.40) (n=348) (n=162) (n= 625)
(n=115)
1993/1990 ratio for 2.09 2.26 1.55 2.05
total program (+/- (+/-1.03) (+/-0.24) (+/-
1.15) (n=385) (n=169) 0.62)
(n=133) (n= 687)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Difference between the smallest firms and the firms with revenues
over $3.5 million is statistically significant.
\b Difference between the medium-size firms and the firms with
revenues over $3.5 million is statistically significant.
\c This estimate is omitted because the sampling error is larger than
the estimate, leaving no confidence in the estimate.
Table 3.31b
Average Growth in Bonding Capacity From
1990 to 1993 for Firms, by Ethnicity of
Owner
Not owned by
Owned by minority minority
---------------------------- ------------------ --------------------
Dollar growth in largest \b $421,468
bond (n=48) (+/-188,918)
(n=572)
Dollar growth in total \b $618,718
program (n=48) (+/-318,581)
(n=634)
1993/1990 ratio for largest 4.22 1.75
bond (+/-3.41) (+/-0.16)
(n=48) (n=572)
1993/1990 ratio for total 3.56 1.95
program (+/-3.20) (+/-0.63)
(n=48) (n=634)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Differences by ethnicity are not statistically significant.
\b This estimate is omitted because the sampling error is larger than
the estimate, leaving no confidence in the estimate.
Table 3.31c
Average Growth in Bonding Capacity From
1990 to 1993 for Firms, by Gender of
Owner
Owned by women Not owned by women
---------------------------- ------------------ --------------------
Dollar growth in largest $450,404 $400,337
bond (+/-223,207) (+/-195,594)
(n=69) (n=550)
Dollar growth in total $578,931 $621,689
program (+/-283,895) (+/-334,980)
(n=75) (n=606)
1993/1990 ratio for largest 2.31 1.76
bond (+/-0.79) (+/-0.18)
(n=69) (n=550)
1993/1990 ratio for total \b 1.64
program (n=75) (+/-0.15)
(n=606)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Differences by gender are not statistically significant.
\b This estimate is omitted because the sampling error is larger than
the estimate, leaving no confidence in the estimate.
Table 3.32a
Distribution of Change in Bonding
Capacity (Largest Bond) From 1990 to
1993 for Firms, by Size of Firm
$500,001- Over $3.5 All SBA
Up to $3.5 million to SBA small
$500,000 million maximum firms
Distribution (n=115) (n=348) (n=162) (n=625)
------------------------ ---------- ------------ ---------------- ----------
Decrease in largest bond 13.0% 19.3% 18.5% 17.9%
capacity
No change in largest 54.8% 35.3% 29.6% 37.4%
bond capacity
Increase in largest bond 32.2% 45.4% 51.9% 44.6%
capacity
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Differences in distribution by size of firm are statistically
significant.
Table 3.32b
Distribution of Change in Bonding
Capacity (Largest Bond) From 1990 to
1993 for Firms, by Ethnicity of Owner
Not owned by
Owned by minority minority
Distribution (n=48) (n=572)
---------------------------- ------------------ --------------------
Decrease in largest bond 18.8% 17.7%
capacity
No change in largest bond 25.0% 38.3%
capacity
Increase in largest bond 56.3% 44.1%
capacity
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Differences in distribution by ethnicity are not statistically
significant.
Table 3.32c
Distribution of Change in Bonding
Capacity (Largest Bond) From 1990 to
1993 for Firms, by Gender of Owner
Owned by women Not owned by women
Distribution (n=69) (n=550)
---------------------------- ------------------ --------------------
Decrease in largest bond 14.5% 18.5%
capacity
No change in largest bond 31.9% 37.8%
capacity
Increase in largest bond 53.6% 43.6%
capacity
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Differences in distribution by gender are not statistically
significant.
Table 3.33a
Distribution of Change in Bonding
Capacity (Total Program) From 1990 to
1993 for Firms, by Size of Firm
$500,001- Over $3.5 All SBA
Up to $3.5 million to SBA small
$500,000 million maximum firms
Distribution (n=133) (n=385) (n=169) (n=687)
------------------------ ---------- ------------ ---------------- ----------
Decrease in total bond 12.0% 14.3% 13.0% 13.5%
capacity
No change in total bond 58.6% 43.1% 36.1% 44.4%
capacity
Increase in total bond 29.3% 42.6% 50.9% 42.1%
capacity
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Differences in distribution by size of firm are statistically
significant.
Table 3.33b
Distribution of Change in Bonding
Capacity (Total Program) From 1990 to
1993 for Firms, by Ethnicity of Owner
Not owned by
Owned by minority minority
Distribution (n=48) (n=634)
---------------------------- ------------------ --------------------
Decrease in total bond 16.7% 13.1%
capacity
No change in total bond 29.2% 45.4%
capacity
Increase in total bond 54.2% 41.5%
capacity
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Differences in distribution by ethnicity are not statistically
significant.
Table 3.33c
Distribution of Change in Bonding
Capacity (Total Program) From 1990 to
1993 for Firms, by Gender of Owner
Owned by women Not owned by women
Distribution (n=75) (n=606)
---------------------------- ------------------ --------------------
Decrease in total bond 10.7% 14.0%
capacity
No change in total bond 37.3% 45.0%
capacity
Increase in total bond 52.0% 40.9%
capacity
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Differences in distribution by gender are not statistically
significant.
Table 3.34a
Percentage of Firms With Preapproved
Bonding Line, by Size of Firm
$500,001- Over $3.5
Up to $3.5 million to SBA All SBA
$500,000 million maximum small firms
(n=430) (n=770) (n=240) (n=1,440)
---------------------- ---------- ------------ ---------------- ------------
Had preapproved 42.6% 69.9% 82.1% 63.8%
bonding line
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Differences by size of firm are statistically significant.
Table 3.34b
Percentage of Firms With Preapproved
Bonding Line, by Ethnicity of Owner
Not owned by
Owned by minority minority
(n=108) (n=1,315)
---------------------------- ------------------ --------------------
Had preapproved bonding line 55.6% 64.6%
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Difference by ethnicity is not statistically significant.
Table 3.34c
Percentage of Firms With Preapproved
Bonding Line, by Gender of Owner
Owned by women Not owned by women
(n=174) (n=1,251)
---------------------------- ------------------ --------------------
Had preapproved bonding line 67.8% 63.4%
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Difference by gender is not statistically significant.
Table 3.35a
Distribution of When Firms Obtained
Their First Preapproved Bonding Line, by
Size of Firm
$500,001- Over $3.5 All SBA
Up to $3.5 million to SBA small
Type of bonding $500,000 million maximum firms
experience (n=163) (n=473) (n=144) (n=780)
------------------------ ------------ ---------- ---------------- ----------
Before ever needing a 38.0% 37.4% 38.9% 37.8%
bond
With first approved bond 44.2% 25.4% 18.8% 28.1%
for a specific job
After completing one or 14.1% 25.8% 24.3% 23.1%
a few bonded jobs
After completing many 3.7% 11.4% 18.1% 11.0%
bonded jobs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Differences in distribution by size of firm are statistically
significant.
Table 3.35b
Distribution of When Firms Obtained
Their First Preapproved Bonding Line, by
Ethnicity of Owner
Not owned by
Owned by minority minority
Type of bonding experience (n=56) (n=717)
---------------------------- ------------------ --------------------
Before ever needing a bond 28.6% 38.6%
With first approved bond for 44.6% 26.6%
a specific job
After completing one or a 12.5% 24.0%
few bonded jobs
After completing many bonded 14.3% 10.7%
jobs
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Differences in distribution by ethnicity are statistically
significant.
Table 3.35c
Distribution of When Firms Obtained
Their First Preapproved Bonding Line, by
Gender of Owner
Owned by women Not owned by women
Type of bonding experience (n=99) (n=675)
---------------------------- ------------------ --------------------
Before ever needing a bond 46.5% 36.7%
With first approved bond for 28.3% 27.6%
a specific job
After completing one or a 18.2% 24.0%
few bonded jobs
After completing many bonded 7.1% 11.7%
jobs
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Differences in distribution by gender are not statistically
significant.
Table 3.36a
Size of Bonds Obtained by Firms in 1993,
by Size of Firm
500,001- Over $3.5 All SBA
Up to $3.5 million to SBA small
Size of bond $500,000 million maximum firms
------------------------ ------------ ---------- ---------------- ----------
Average bond\a $108,370 $460,048 $984,724 $511,564
(+/- (+/- (+/-247,363) (+/-
34,710) 418,589) (n=189) 246,687)
(n=162) (n=468) (n=819)
Distribution\b
Under $100,000 67.9% 33.5% 11.1% 35.2%
$100,000-$499,999 27.2% 49.1% 36.0% 41.8%
$500,000-$999,999 3.7% 12.8% 21.7% 13.1%
$1,000,000 and over \c 4.5% 31.2% 10.0%
Average size of largest $228,043 $794,695 $2,607,974
bond\a,d 7 (+/-1,862) (+/- (+/-24,347) $1,033,733
(n=268) 4 77,329) (n=231) 2 (+/-
(n=618) 5 90,030)
(n=1,117)
Distribution\b
Under $100,000 51.9% 20.9% 4.8% 25.0%
$100,000-$499,999 38.4% 42.2% 15.6% 35.8%
$500,000-$999,999 4.5% 19.9% 16.0% 15.4%
$1,000,000 and over 5.2% 17.0% 63.6% 23.8%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Difference between the smallest firms and the firms with average
revenues over $3.5 million is statistically significant.
\b Differences in distribution by size of firm are statistically
significant.
\c This estimate is omitted because the sampling error is larger than
the estimate, leaving no confidence in the estimate.
\d Difference between the medium-size firms and the firms with
average revenues over $3.5 million is statistically significant.
Table 3.36b
Size of Bond Obtained by Firms in 1993,
by Ethnicity of Owner
Not owned by
Size of bond Owned by minority minority
---------------------------- ------------------ --------------------
Average bond $377,388 $525,161
(+/-134,496) (+/-267,046)
(n=57) (n=756)
Distribution
Under $100,000 31.6% 35.2%
$100,000-$499,999 36.8% 42.2%
$500,000-$999,999 21.1% 12.6%
$1,000,000 and over 10.5% 10.1%
Average size of largest bond $897,560 $1,047,655
(+/-253,670) (+/-314,174)
(n=79) (n=1,029)
Distribution
Under $100,000 19.0% 25.5%
$100,000-$499,999 35.4% 35.7%
$500,000-$999,999 13.9% 15.5%
$1,000,000 and over 31.6% 23.3%
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Differences in averages and distributions by ethnicity are not
statistically significant.
Table 3.36c
Size of Bond Obtained by Firms in 1993,
by Gender of Owner
Size of bond Owned by women Not owned by women
---------------------------- ------------------ --------------------
Average bond $259,709 $548,316
(+/-86,003) (+/-280,689)
(n=95) (n=719)
Distribution
Under $100,000 38.9% 34.2%
$100,000-$499,999 47.4% 41.3%
$500,000-$999,999 6.3% 14.0%
$1,000,000 and over 7.4% 10.4%
Average size of largest bond $708,421 $1,085,086
(+/-202,105) (+/-332,904)
(n=139) (n=969)
Distribution
Under $100,000 20.9% 25.4%
$100,000-$499,999 44.6% 34.5%
$500,000-$999,999 15.1% 15.6%
$1,000,000 and over 19.4% 24.6%
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Differences in averages and distributions by gender are not
statistically significant.
Table 3.37a
Average Financial Status of Firms That
Had Financial Statements on File With
Dun & Bradstreet, by Size of Firm
$500,000- Over $3.5 All SBA
Indicator of financial Up to $3.5 million to SBA small
status in 1993 $500,000 million maximum firms
------------------------ ------------ ---------- ---------------- ----------
Indicator of financial $500,001- Over $3.5 All SBA
status in 1993 Up to $3.5 million to SBA small
$500,000 million maximum firms
Net worth\b,c,d $188,891 $362,888 $1,185,954 $527,722
(+/- (+/- (+/-284,122) (+/-
70,075) 67,107) (n=91) 85,861)
(n=61) (n=238) (n=390)
Working capital\b,c,d $96,891 $201,932 $701,041 $301,961
(+/- (+/- (+/-161,968) (+/-
51,377) 31,124) (n=91) 47,885)
(n=61) (n=238) (n=390)
Age of accounts 59.3 60.5 59.9 60.2
receivable (days) (+/-16.8) (+/-8.2) (+/-6.9) (+/-5.8)
(n=42) (n=174) (n=71) (n=287)
Quick ratio\d 3.3 3.1 1.6 2.8
(+/-1.7) (+/-1.1) (+/-0.3) (+/-0.7)
(n=59) (n=232) (n=90) (n=381)
Current ratio\c,d 5.1 4.0 2.0 3.7
(+/-2.5) (+/-1.2) (+/-0.3) (+/-0.8)
(n=59) (n=236) (n=91) (n=386)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a The number of survey respondents in each group from left to right
is 447, 792, 245, and 1,484. Financial data were not available for
the majority of the firms. The fewest data--9.4% of the responding
firms--were available for the smallest firms' age of accounts
receivable.
\b Difference between the smallest firms and the medium-size firms is
statistically significant.
\c Difference between the smallest firms and the firms with average
revenues over $3.5 million is statistically significant.
\d Difference between the medium-size firms and the firms with
average revenues over $3.5 million is statistically significant.
Source: GAO's analysis of Dun & Bradstreet's data.
Table 3.37b
Average Financial Status of Firms That
Had Financial Statements on File With
Dun & Bradstreet, by Ethnicity of Owner
Indicator of financial Owned by Not owned by
status in 1993 minorities minorities
---------------------------- ------------------ --------------------
Net worth $431,593 $538,478
(+/-190,255) (+/-91,496)
(n=22) (n=363)
Working capital $279,811 $305,895
(+/-165,271) (+/-50,554)
(n=22) (n=363)
Age of accounts receivable 60.7 60.1
(+/-17.0) (+/-6.1)
(n=17) (n=267)
Quick ratio 1.5 2.8
(+/-0.4) (+/-0.8)
(n=21) (n=355)
Current ratio 1.8 3.8%
(+/-0.4) (+/-0.9)
(n=21) (n=360)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a The number of survey respondents in each group is 109 for the
firms owned by minorities and 1,354 for the firms not owned by
minorities. Financial data were not available for the majority of
the firms. The fewest data--15.6% of the responding firms--were
available for the age of accounts receivable for the firms owned by
minorities.
\b Differences by ethnicity are not statistically significant.
Source: GAO's analysis of Dun & Bradstreet's data.
Table 3.37c
Average Financial Status of Firms That
Had Financial Statements on File With
Dun & Bradstreet, by Gender of Owner
Indicator of financial
status in 1993 Owned by women Not owned by women
---------------------------- ------------------ --------------------
Net worth\b $397,244 $549,298
(+/-110,775) (+/-97,398)
(n=48) (n=339)
Working capital\b $261,579 $309,296
(+/-108,120) (+/-53,020)
(n=48) (n=339)
Age of accounts receivable\c 76.0 57.9
(+/-15.0) (+/-6.2)
(n=38) (n=248)
Quick ratio\b 3.1 2.7
(+/-2.4) (+/-0.8)
(n=48) (n=330)
Current ratio\b 3.8 3.7
(+/-2.6) (+/-0.9)
(n=48) (n=335)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a The number of survey respondents in each group is 177 for the
firms owned by women and 1,287 for the firms not owned by women.
Financial data were not available for the majority of the firms. The
fewest data--19.3% of responding firms--were available for the age of
accounts receivable of the firms not owned by women.
\b Difference by gender is not statistically significant.
\c Difference by gender is statistically significant.
Source: GAO's analysis of Dun & Bradstreet's data.
CHARACTERISTICS OF FIRMS THAT HAD
NOT OBTAINED BONDS
============================================================ Chapter 4
Fifty-seven percent of the firms that responded to our survey had
never obtained a surety bond or had a preapproved bonding line. We
estimate that in the universe of firms in our study, the percentage
is higher than this, but no higher than 77 percent.
The tables in this section provide estimates about at most the
157,306 (+/- 5,146) firms represented by the respondents to our
survey that had never provided a bond or had a bonding line. The
results in particular tables can be generalized only to the firms
that said they had never obtained a bond or had a bonding line and
that provided the information discussed in the table. The
approximate number of firms can be estimated by multiplying the
number of firms responding to the question (n) by the expansion
factor, 683,198/12,000. In the tables we have provided the
statistics, the sampling errors for our estimates other than
percentages, and the sample sizes to enable the reader to calculate
sampling errors for our estimates of percentages using the formula
provided in section 1. In some tables that present distributions,
the columns do not add to 100 percent because of rounding.
Table 4.1
Characteristics of Firms With No Bonding
Experience
Number providing
Characteristic information Statistic
------------------------------ ------------------ ------------------
Gender (n=2,586)
Owned by women 7.5%
Not owned by women 92.5%
Ethnicity (n=2,477)
Owned by minorities 6.5%
Not owned by minorities 93.5%
Size (n=2,763)
Average revenues $391,129
(+/-24,199)
Up to $500,000 77.8%
$500,001-$3.5 million 21.6%
Over $3.5 million to SBA 0.6%
maximum
Years in construction (n=2,662) 15.3
(+/-0.4)
SIC (n=2,756)
Building construction 9.1%
Heavy construction 4.6%
Special trade construction 86.3%
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 4.2a
Firms' Average Years of Experience in
Construction, by Size of Firm
$500,001- Over $3.5 All SBA
Up to $3.5 million to SBA small
$500,000 million maximum firms
Experience (n=2,059) (n=588) (n=15) (n=2,662)
------------------------ ------------ ---------- ---------------- ----------
Average number of years 15.13 15.97 21.33 15.35
in construction (+/-0.48) (+/-1.01) (+/-12.15) (+/-0.44)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Differences by size of firm are not statistically significant.
Table 4.2b
Firms' Average Years of Experience in
Construction, by Ethnicity of Owner
Not owned by
Owned by minority minority
Experience (n=158) (n=2,278)
---------------------------- ------------------ --------------------
Average number of years in 13.33 15.34
construction (+/-1.43) (+/-0.48)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Difference by ethnicity is statistically significant.
Table 4.2c
Average Years of Experience in
Construction of Firms, by Gender of
Owner
Owned by women Not owned by women
Experience (n=192) (n=2,350)
---------------------------- ------------------ --------------------
Average number of years in 13.09 15.44
construction (+/-1.86) (+/-0.46)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Difference by gender is statistically significant.
Table 4.3a
Percentage of Firms in Selected Standard
Industrial Classifications, by Size of
Firm
$500,001- Over $3.5 All SBA
Up to $3.5 million to SBA small
Standard industrial $500,000 million maximum firms
classification (n=2,143) (n= 598) (n=15) (n=2,756)
------------------------ ------------ ---------- ---------------- ----------
Building construction 7.0% 15.4% 60.0% 9.1%
Heavy construction 4.4% 5.4% 0% 4.6%
contractors
Special trade 88.6% 79.3% 40.0% 86.3%
contractors
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Differences in distribution by size of firm are statistically
significant.
Table 4.3b
Percentage of Firms in Selected Standard
Industrial Classifications, by Ethnicity
of Owner
Not owned by
Standard industrial Owned by minority minority
classification (n=161) (n=2,311)
---------------------------- ------------------ --------------------
Building construction 12.4% 9.2%
Heavy construction 3.7% 4.6%
contractors
Special trade contractors 83.9% 86.2%
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Differences in distribution by ethnicity are not statistically
significant.
Table 4.3c
Percentage of Firms in Selected Standard
Industrial Classifications, by Gender of
Owner
Standard industrial Owned by women Not owned by women
classification (n=194) (n=2,385)
---------------------------- ------------------ --------------------
Building construction 6.7% 9.4%
Heavy construction 11.3% 4.0%
contractors
Special trade contractors 82.0% 86.6%
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Differences in distribution by gender are statistically
significant.
Table 4.4a
Distribution of Firms' Work in 1993
Performed Directly for Owners and
Through Subcontracting, by Size of Firm
All
SBA
$500,001- Over $3.5 small
Up to $3.5 million to SBA firms
$500,000 million maximum (n=2,5
Type of work (n=1,987) (n=564) (n=15) 66)
---------------------------- ------------ ---------- ---------------- ------
More direct work for owner 38.6% 38.1% 46.7% 38.5%
More subcontracting 55.0% 55.7% 53.3% 55.1%
Equal amounts of direct work 6.4% 6.2% 0% 6.4%
and subcontracting
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Differences in distribution by size of firm are not statistically
significant.
Table 4.4b
Distribution of Firms' Work in 1993
Performed Directly for Owners and
Through Subcontracting, by Ethnicity of
Owner
Not owned by
Owned by minority minority
Type of work (n=154) (n=2,203)
---------------------------- ------------------ --------------------
More direct work for owner 43.5% 38.4%
More subcontracting 52.6% 55.2%
Equal amounts of direct work
and subcontracting 3.9% 6.4%
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Differences in distribution by ethnicity are not statistically
significant.
Table 4.4c
Distribution of Firms' Work in 1993
Performed Directly for Owners and
Through Subcontracting, by Gender of
Owner
Owned by women Not owned by women
Type of work (n=184) (n=2,278)
------------------------ ------------------ ------------------------
More direct work for 35.9% 38.8%
owner
More subcontracting 59.8% 54.7%
Equal amounts of direct
work and subcontracting 4.3% 6.5%
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Differences in distribution by gender are not statistically
significant.
Table 4.5a
Percentage of Firms Reporting Various
Reasons for Not Obtaining Bonds Since
1990, by Size of Firm
$500,001- Over $3.5 All SBA
Up to $3.5 million to SBA small
$500,000 million maximum firms
Reason (n=2,016) (n=574) (n=14) (n=2,604)
------------------------ ------------ ---------- ---------------- ----------
Not asked to provide 83.2% 74.9% 57.1% 81.2%
bonds since 1990 or
does not bid on bonded
jobs\a
Surety company's 16.3% 23.7% 35.7% 18.0%
requirements to get
bonds were too
burdensome for firm\a
Financial commitment 15.6% 20.4% 28.6% 16.7%
required to get bonds
is more than firm has
wanted\a
Firm could not afford 12.7% 16.4% 28.6% 13.6%
the cost of preparing
financial information
for the surety
company\a
Believed the firm would 11.2% 15.9% 28.6% 12.3%
not be able to get
bonds so did not ask
for them\a
Fees charged by surety 11.1% 12.9% \b 11.4%
companies make it
unprofitable for firm
to do bonded work
Use or have used cash 3.7% 8.7% \b 4.9%
instead of bonds\a
Perform work in 7.7% 11.0% \b 8.4%
partnership or as a
joint venture with a
firm that is/was
bonded\a
Requests for bonds were 3.2% 3.7% \b 3.3%
denied
Use or have used letter 1.6% 2.6% \b 1.8%
from surety company
saying firm is bondable
Other reasons 5.4% 5.2% 0% 5.3%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Differences by size of firm are statistically significant.
\b This estimate is omitted because the sampling error is larger than
the estimate, leaving no confidence in the estimate.
Table 4.5b
Percentage of Firms Reporting Various
Reasons for Not Obtaining Bonds Since
1990, by Ethnicity of Owner
Not owned by
Owned by minority minority
Reason (n=157) (n=2,244)
-------------------------------------- ------------------ --------------------
Not asked to provide bonds since 1990 73.2% 81.7%
or does not bid on bonded jobs\a
Surety company's requirements to get 17.8% 18.1%
bonds were too burdensome for firm
Financial commitment required to get 17.8% 16.7%
bonds is more than firm has wanted
Firm could not afford the cost of 16.6% 13.5%
preparing financial information for
the surety company
Believed the firm would not be able to 17.8% 11.6%
get bonds so did not ask for them\a
Fees charged by surety companies make 12.1% 11.4%
it unprofitable for firm to do bonded
work
Use or have used cash instead of 9.6% 4.8%
bonds\a
Perform work in partnership or as a 8.9% 8.5%
joint venture with a firm that is/
was bonded
Requests for bonds were denied 6.4% 3.3%
Use or have used letter from surety 2.5% 1.9%
company saying firm is bondable
Other reasons 7.6% 5.2%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Difference by ethnicity is statistically significant.
Table 4.5c
Percentage of Firms Reporting Various
Reasons for Not Obtaining Bonds Since
1900, by Gender of Owner
Owned by women Not owned by women
Reason (n=187) (n=2,321)
-------------------------------------- ------------------ --------------------
Not asked to provide bonds since 1990 70.6% 82.4%
or does not bid on bonded jobs\a
Surety company's requirements to get 23.0% 17.7%
bonds were too burdensome for firm
Financial commitment required to get 20.9% 16.2%
bonds is more than firm has wanted
Firm could not afford the cost of 16.0% 13.5%
preparing financial information for
the surety company
Believed the firm would not be able to 18.2% 11.8%
get bonds so did not ask for them\a
Fees charged by surety companies make 13.9% 11.2%
it unprofitable for firm to do bonded
work
Use or have used cash instead of bonds 3.2% 5.0%
Perform work in partnership or a as 13.4% 8.1%
joint venture with a firm that is/
was bonded\a
Requests for bonds were denied 3.7% 3.3%
Use or have used letter from surety \b 1.9%
company saying firm is bondable
Other reasons 6.4% 5.0%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Difference by gender is statistically significant.
\b This estimate is omitted because the sampling error is larger than
the estimate, leaving no confidence in the estimate.
Table 4.6a
Percentage of Firms That Had
Requirements Explained in Advance the
First Time They Asked for a Bond, by
Size of Firm
Extent to which $500,001- Over $3.5 All SBA
information was given by Up to $3.5 million to SBA small
agents, brokers, or $500,000 million maximum firms
surety companies (n=1,993) (n=563) (n=15) (n=2,571)
------------------------ ------------ ---------- ---------------- ----------
Little or no extent 4.4% 6.4% 0.0% 4.8%
Some extent 4.9% 7.1% \b 5.4%
Moderate extent 4.3% 7.6% 26.7% 5.2%
Great extent 2.9% 6.4% \b 3.7%
Very great extent 0.9% 1.2% \b 1.0%
Did not remember 2.9% 2.0% 0.0% 2.7%
Never asked for a bond 79.7% 69.3% 53.3% 77.3%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Differences in distribution by size of firm are statistically
significant.
\b This estimate is omitted because the sampling error is larger than
the estimate, leaving no confidence in the estimate.
Table 4.6b
Percentage of Firms That Had
Requirements Explained in Advance the
First Time They Asked for a Bond, by
Ethnicity of Owner
Extent to which information Not owned by
was given by agents, Owned by minority minority
brokers, or surety companies (n=156) (n=2,246)
---------------------------- ------------------ --------------------
Little or no extent 6.4% 4.6%
Some extent 4.5% 5.3%
Moderate extent 3.8% 5.2%
Great extent 7.1% 3.5%
Very great extent \b 0.9%
Did not remember 2.6% 2.5%
Never asked for a bond 74.4% 77.9%
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Differences in distribution by ethnicity are not statistically
significant.
\b This estimate is omitted because the sampling error is larger than
the estimate, leaving no confidence in the estimate.
Table 4.6c
Percentage of Firms That Had
Requirements Explained in Advance the
First Time They Asked for a Bond, by
Gender of Owner
Extent to which information
was given by agents, Owned by women Not owned by women
brokers, or surety companies (n=189) (n=2,319)
---------------------------- ------------------ --------------------
Little or no extent 5.8% 4.6%
Some extent 4.8% 5.3%
Moderate extent 6.3% 4.9%
Great extent 6.9% 3.3%
Very great extent \b 0.9%
Did not remember \b 2.6%
Never asked for a bond 74.1% 78.4%
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Differences in distribution by gender are not statistically
significant.
\b This estimate is omitted because the sampling error is larger than
the estimate, leaving no confidence in the estimate.
Table 4.7a
Frequency With Which Firms That Had
Asked for a Bond Have Been Denied Bonds
Since 1990, by Size of Firm
$500,001- Over $3.5 All SBA
Up to $3.5 million to SBA small
Number of denials since $500,000 million maximum firms
1990 (n=251) (n=105) (n=3) (n=359)
------------------------ ------------ ---------- ---------------- ----------
None 78.9% 73.3% 66.7% 77.2%
1-5 17.1% 25.7% 0.0% 19.5%
6-12 2.4% 0.0% \b 1.9%
More than 12 1.6% \b 0.0% 1.4%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Differences in distribution by size of firm are statistically
significant.
\b This estimate is omitted because the sampling error is larger than
the estimate, leaving no confidence in the estimate.
Table 4.7b
Frequency With Which Firms That Had
Asked for a Bond Have Been Denied Bonds
Since 1990, by Ethnicity of Owner
Number of denials Owned by minority Not owned by minority
since 1990 (n=25) (n=319)
---------------------- ---------------------- ----------------------
None 72.0% 77.7%
1-5 20.0% 19.4%
6-12 \b 1.3%
More than 12 0.0% 1.6%
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Differences in distribution by ethnicity are not statistically
significant.
\b This estimate is omitted because the sampling error is larger than
the estimate, leaving no confidence in the estimate.
Table 4.7c
Frequency With Which Firms That Had
Asked for a Bond Have Been Denied Bonds
Since 1990, by Gender of Owner
Owned by women Not owned by women
Number of denials since 1990 (n=32) (n=319)
---------------------------- ------------------ --------------------
None 65.6% 78.4%
1-5 28.1% 18.5%
6-12 \b 1.6%
More than 12 0.0% 1.6%
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Differences in distribution by gender are not statistically
significant.
\b This estimate is omitted because the sampling error is larger than
the estimate, leaving no confidence in the estimate.
(See figure in printed edition.)Appendix I
NATIONAL SURVEY OF CONSTRUCTION
COMPANIES' EXPERIENCES GETTING
BID, PERFORMANCE AND PAYMENT BONDS
============================================================ Chapter 4
(See figure in printed edition.)
(See figure in printed edition.)
(See figure in printed edition.)
(See figure in printed edition.)