MGM Springfield is preparing for the development of a new casino project with an $800 million price tag. The casino operator is currently searching for construction companies to begin work on the project and have committed to contracting with many minority or women-owned companies.

It was announced that MGM Springfield will be scheduling appointment-only interviews for today and tomorrow with companies that offer construction services. The owners of said companies are either women or minorities. It was reported that last month, the operator met with a veteran-owned construction company, speaking with representatives on the project.

To be considered for the project, the contractors must be minority or women-owned in at least 51% of the company. The company must also have the proper certifications from local agencies in Massachusetts including the Massachusetts Supplier Diversity Office.

MGM is set to create the new casino after earning a deal with the city of Springfield. With the deal, MGM agreed to create at least 2,000 jobs in construction with more than 15% going to women, 8% awarded to veterans, and almost 7% to minorities.

The company has pledged to create 3,000 long-term jobs of which over 2,000 will be full-time positions as the casino opens. MGM has also promised that at least 35% of those workers will be locals of Springfield.

The new casino in Springfield originally had an opening day of 2017, in the fall, but the company has now asked for an extension. A year extension has been asked for due to the rehabilitation of the viaduct of Interstate 91, which is located in the vicinity.

One Response

  1. Roger Clegg, Ctr for Equal Opportunity

    (deleted)

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

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.