Preliminary analysis prepared independently by House Strategies Group LLC from public data. Not affiliated with or endorsed by the City of Boston. Figures illustrate analytical approach and are subject to revision with primary data. Not a procurement-disparity finding.

Module · Experience requirements

Experience requirements as a barrier

A disparity study examines the barriers that keep capable firms out of public work. One of the most documented is the firm-experience requirement: a gate that scores firms on accumulated prior-study counts and can lock out qualified teams. This module sets out what it measures, the federal and disparity-study precedent for crediting the experience of a firm's people, and a scan of how often procurements actually allow it. Whether the City's own RFP gates on firm-level study counts is unknown until the solicitation documents, which sit behind the City's Supplier Portal, are reviewed. The principle stands either way: evaluate the named team's record, not the letterhead.

What a firm-experience requirement actually measures

A firm-experience requirement screens on a track record that accumulates through relationships, referrals, and the access to win a first contract. Economists call that social capital, and it is distinct from the human capital, the talent, that performs the work. Glenn Loury's distinction in The Anatomy of Racial Inequality is the frame: discrimination in contract, the formal denial of opportunity, is largely unlawful and largely addressed; discrimination in contact, the informal networks that decide who gets the first chance, is the durable barrier. A no-substitute firm-experience rule imports that contact barrier into the procurement itself. Whether the City of Boston's disparity-study RFP gates on firm-level study counts is an open question until the gated RFP text is reviewed. The principle does not wait on the answer: evaluate the named team's record, not the letterhead.

Largely addressed
Discrimination in contract

The formal, codified denial of opportunity in market transactions. Civil-rights law now reaches most of it.

The durable barrier
Discrimination in contact

The informal, legal networks that decide who is introduced, mentored, and given the first chance to build a record.

Glenn Loury, The Anatomy of Racial Inequality (2002).

The precedent

Crediting personnel experience is established practice

The idea that an individual's experience, including experience earned at other firms, should count toward a firm's qualification is not novel. In two areas of federal law it is already binding, and the disparity-study field recommends it directly.

SBA joint-venture experience rule
13 C.F.R. 125.8(e)

When a small-business joint venture bids, the agency must consider the experience held individually by each partner and may not require the small member to meet the full corporate-experience bar alone. GAO enforced this in AttainX, Inc. (B-421216, 2023).

Source
SBA past-performance rule (NDAA FY2021 §868)
13 C.F.R. 125.11; 87 Fed. Reg. 44563

A small firm lacking its own prime record may use the past performance it earned as a joint-venture member or first-tier subcontractor, and the contracting officer must consider it. Congress and SBA adopted the premise that capable firms are blocked for lack of a prime track record.

Source
FAR proposal-evaluation rules
48 C.F.R. 15.305(a)(2)(iii)-(iv)

Evaluations should take into account the experience of key personnel and predecessor firms, and a firm with no past-performance record may not be rated unfavorably for lacking one (the neutral rating).

Source
GAO bid-protest line
Sigmatech, Inc., B-417589 (2019)

Where a solicitation evaluates the offeror's experience and does not prohibit it, the agency may credit the experience of proposed individual personnel, because such experience predicts future performance.

Source
Disparity-study standard practice
King County Disparity Study 2024 (Colette Holt & Associates)

The author of the national-standard methodology recommends reviewing experience requirements to reduce them to the lowest level necessary, including by recognizing work performed for other governments and private-sector clients. Courts treat firm experience as an outcome of discrimination, not neutral merit (Concrete Works v. Denver, 321 F.3d 950, 983).

Source
Federal DBE race-neutral remedy menu
49 C.F.R. 26.51(b)

The federal DBE rule lists race-neutral means agencies must use, and courts reciting the menu name excessive experience requirements alongside bonding and restrictive specifications as canonical barriers to remove.

Source

A working model clause

New York City Department of Design and ConstructionConstruction prequalification (PQL)

In the event the Applicant is an entity which was formed within the last consecutive five years, the DDC may, in determining compliance with the special experience requirements, consider prior projects completed by the principal(s) of the firm while such principals were affiliated with another entity.

The clause carries ownership-percentage conditions (a controlling principal must hold a 51% interest), the integrity safeguard that lets a new firm credit its people's outside experience without letting a shell firm rent a resume.

How often procurements allow it

Hand-classified sample of 21 solicitations, by whether personnel experience may satisfy firm experience

Source: Federal Acquisition Regulation; U.S. Small Business Administration (13 C.F.R. parts 124, 125); U.S. Government Accountability Office bid-protest decisions; King County Disparity Study 2024 (Colette Holt & Associates); NYC DDC prequalification; 49 C.F.R. part 26. Hand-classified sample of peer-jurisdiction solicitations compiled June 2026; scan predates and is independent of the Boston engagement.

Sought
24
solicitations
Classified
21
with a clear clause
Allow it
29%
≈ share
The pattern is the finding
Across the peer market, whether personnel experience counts is decided by category and drafting, not principle. It is reliably allowed in architecture and engineering and in qualifications-based selection, where the federal SF330 form records each person's total career experience including years at other firms. It is firm-only or silent in general consulting and most construction, the categories where the experience bar bites hardest. The mechanism is established and proven; it is simply not the default outside A and E. None of this describes Boston specifically: it describes the national market of public solicitations within which any buyer, Boston included, drafts its own.
Read as directional
Illustrative, hand-classified sample of openly downloadable peer solicitations from jurisdictions across the country (21 classifiable of 24 sought), biased toward web-accessible documents, compiled in June 2026 during preparation of HSG's July 2026 Fairfax County disparity-study proposal. It is not a scan of Boston solicitations, and whether the City of Boston's own RFP gates on firm-level study counts remains open until the gated RFP text is reviewed. Read the proportions as directional; the categorical pattern is the durable finding.
A race-neutral, opportunity-focused remedy
Reducing firm-experience minimums to the lowest level the work requires, and letting key-personnel, teaming, and predecessor experience satisfy them, is a remedy that widens the field without lowering quality. It is capability-based and race-neutral on its face, which is also what makes it durable after Students for Fair Admissions.

Why it belongs in this study

The federal DBE rule and the leading disparity-study methodology both name excessive experience requirements as a barrier addressable by race-neutral means. Measuring that barrier, and recommending a proportionate fix, is core disparity-study work, not an aside. We first fielded this argument in our July 2026 Fairfax County proposal; it applies with equal force to the City's Event ID EV00017483 solicitation.