49 C.F.R. § 26.1
What are the objectives of this part?
This part seeks to achieve several objectives:
(a) To ensure nondiscrimination in the award and administration of DOT-assisted contracts in the Department's highway, transit, and airport financial assistance programs;
(b) To create a level playing field on which DBEs can compete fairly for DOT-assisted contracts;
(c) To ensure that the Department's DBE program operates in a nondiscriminatory manner and without regard to race or sex, while maximizing efficiency of service;
(d) To ensure that only firms that fully meet this part's eligibility standards are permitted to participate as DBEs;
(e) To help remove barriers to the participation of DBEs in DOT-assisted contracts;
(f) To promote the use of DBEs in all types of federally assisted contracts and procurement activities conducted by recipients.
(g) To assist the development of firms that can compete successfully in the marketplace outside the DBE program; and
(h) To provide appropriate flexibility to recipients of Federal financial assistance in establishing and providing opportunities for DBEs.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 14
cases (5 in the last 5 years), 2002–2026 · leading case: Associated Gen. Contractors of Am., San Diego Chapter, Inc. v. California Dep't of Transp., 713 F.3d 1187 (9th Cir. 2013).
Associated Gen. Contractors of Am., San Diego Chapter, Inc. v. California Dep't of Transp., 713 F.3d 1187 (9th Cir. 2013). “See 49 C.F.R. § 26.1 et seq. The regulations define “disadvantaged business enterprises” as small businesses owned or controlled by “socially and economically disadvantaged” individuals.”
United States v. Stamatios Kousisis, 82 F.4th 230 (3rd Cir. 2023). “49 C.F.R. § 26.1 . The agency explicitly states that the initiative aims to “remedy ongoing discrimination and the continuing effects of past discrimination in federally-assisted highway, transit, airport, and highway safety financial assistance transportation contracting…”
Gibson & Assocs., Inc. v. State, Dep't of Transp. & Dev., 68 So. 3d 1128 (La. Ct. App. 2011). “49 C.F.R. § 26.1 (a), (b) & (e). [3] Pursuant to Standard Specification § 102.”
United States v. Stamatios Kousisis, 66 F.4th 406 (3rd Cir. 2023). “49 C.F.R. § 26.1 . The agency explicitly states that the initiative aims to “remedy ongoing discrimination and the continuing effects of past discrimination in federally-assisted highway, transit, airport, and highway safety financial assistance transportation contracting…”
South Florida Chapter of the Associated Gen. Contractors v. Broward Cnty., 544 F. Supp. 2d 1336 (S.D. Fla. 2008). “49 C.F.R. § 26.1 . The regulations go on to provide a detailed, step-by-step process through which recipients of the federal funds 2 are required to set and reach goals for DBE participation in funded projects.”
Best Wood Judge Firewood & Tree Serv. v. United States Dep't of Transp., 784 F. Supp. 2d 1059 (E.D. Wis. 2011). “” 49 C.F.R. § 26.1 . Part 26 applies to recipients of certain federal USDOT funds.”
DCCCA1, Inc. v. Diversified Prod. Indus., Ltd. CA1/2 (Cal. Ct. App. 2016). “The objectives of those regulations include, inter alia, “[t]o ensure nondiscrimination in the award and administration of DOT-assisted contracts” (49 C.F.R. 26.1(a)), “[t]o create a level playing field on which DBEs can compete fairly for DOT-assisted contracts” (49 C.”
RBG Plastic, LLC v. Disability:In (S.D. Fla. 2024). “”’) (quoting 49 C.F.R. § 26.1 ; citing 49 C.F.R. § 23.”
In Re Union Paving & Constr. Co., Inc. Contract: Route 7 Kearny Drainage Improvements (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2024). “" Bidders were advised that the DBE requirements under 49 C.F.R. §§ 26.1 - .109 "applie[d] to this agreement," and reiterated the "DOT reserve[d] its rights to reject any and all bids in accordance with N.”
United States v. Spectrum Painting Corp. (S.D.N.Y. 2020). “” 49 C.F.R. § 26.1 . The scheme in this action frustrated the Government’s ability to pursue those aims, and diverted Government funds that might have gone to contractors whose participation in the Brooklyn Bridge and Queens Plaza projects would have advanced the DBE…”
Untitled Texas Attorney Gen. Opinion: KP-0505 (Tex. Att'y Gen. 2026). “702; 49 C.F.R. §§ 26.1–Pt. 26, App. D. Aiming to award “state or federally funded contracts[] .”
Associated Gen. Contractors v. California Dep't of Transp. (9th Cir. 2013). “See 49 C.F.R. § 26.1 et. seq. The regulations define “disadvantaged business enterprises” as small businesses owned or controlled by “socially and economically disadvantaged” individuals.”
— 49 C.F.R. § 26.1(a) — 1 case
DCCCA1, Inc. v. Diversified Prod. Indus., Ltd. CA1/2 (Cal. Ct. App. 2016). “The objectives of those regulations include, inter alia, “[t]o ensure nondiscrimination in the award and administration of DOT-assisted contracts” (49 C.F.R. 26.1(a)), “[t]o create a level playing field on which DBEs can compete fairly for DOT-assisted contracts” (49 C.”
— 49 C.F.R. § 26.1(b) — 1 case
DCCCA1, Inc. v. Diversified Prod. Indus., Ltd. CA1/2 (Cal. Ct. App. 2016). “The objectives of those regulations include, inter alia, “[t]o ensure nondiscrimination in the award and administration of DOT-assisted contracts” (49 C.F.R. 26.1(a)), “[t]o create a level playing field on which DBEs can compete fairly for DOT-assisted contracts” (49 C.”
— 49 C.F.R. § 26.1(e) — 1 case
DCCCA1, Inc. v. Diversified Prod. Indus., Ltd. CA1/2 (Cal. Ct. App. 2016). “The objectives of those regulations include, inter alia, “[t]o ensure nondiscrimination in the award and administration of DOT-assisted contracts” (49 C.F.R. 26.1(a)), “[t]o create a level playing field on which DBEs can compete fairly for DOT-assisted contracts” (49 C.”
— 49 C.F.R. § 26.1(f) — 1 case
DCCCA1, Inc. v. Diversified Prod. Indus., Ltd. CA1/2 (Cal. Ct. App. 2016). “The objectives of those regulations include, inter alia, “[t]o ensure nondiscrimination in the award and administration of DOT-assisted contracts” (49 C.F.R. 26.1(a)), “[t]o create a level playing field on which DBEs can compete fairly for DOT-assisted contracts” (49 C.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.