MWBE Director Lawsuit Surfaces as St. Louis County Debates Contractor Requirements

Date Posted: March 12, 2026

Posted In: Discussion,

Procurement code overhaul could extend minority contracting rules to incentivized development projects

by Tom Finan, Executive Director, Construction Forum

A lawsuit filed by the director of St. Louis County’s Minority and Women-Owned Business Enterprise (MWBE) program is drawing new attention to an ongoing debate over how the county oversees contractor participation and enforces inclusion requirements on public projects.

Nathaniel (Nate) Adams, who has served as the county’s MWBE director since 2021, filed suit March 4 in St. Louis County Circuit Court alleging retaliation after he raised concerns about how the county administers its minority contracting program and advocated for making the office independent from procurement.

The case, Nathaniel Adams v. St. Louis County, Missouri, alleges the county reprimanded Adams and suspended him without pay after he testified before the County Council and discussed proposed changes to the county’s procurement code.

Adams claims his statements were protected disclosures under Missouri’s public employee whistleblower statute.

The lawsuit arrives as St. Louis County considers a sweeping overhaul of its procurement rules that could significantly reshape how MWBE participation requirements apply to both public projects and private developments receiving tax incentives.

Procurement Code Rewrite

The proposal at the center of the debate is Substitute Bill No. 1 for Bill 182, which would repeal and replace the county’s entire Chapter 107 purchasing code.

The new procurement code would establish a comprehensive framework governing how St. Louis County purchases goods and services, awards construction contracts and enforces participation by minority- and women-owned businesses.

The legislation keeps the MWBE program within the county’s Division of Procurement but sets detailed compliance rules for contractors and developers working on county-funded or incentivized projects.

The proposal also includes expanded labor standards, apprenticeship requirements and procurement transparency provisions.

Participation Plans Required

One of the most significant provisions for the construction industry is a requirement that bidders submit a detailed MWBE utilization plan at the time of bid.

That plan must identify:

• Minority and women-owned subcontractors
• Scope of work for each firm
• Contract value
• Percentage of participation.

Failure to submit required documentation can render a bid non-responsive.

The ordinance also requires signed notices of intent from each listed subcontractor, confirming their commitment to perform work on the project.

These provisions are designed to prevent a longstanding problem in public contracting: prime contractors listing minority subcontractors during bidding but failing to actually use them during construction.

Could Apply to Incentivized Development

Another provision drawing attention would extend certain procurement requirements to projects receiving public incentives.

The ordinance broadly defines “public project” to include developments receiving:

• tax increment financing
• tax abatements
• county bond financing
• other forms of public development incentives.

That could bring MWBE participation requirements into private development projects that receive public subsidies.

The idea has generated debate among elected officials, labor organizations and developers.

Labor Support, Development Concerns

Supporters say the proposal would ensure public incentives produce broader economic benefits.

“If our taxpayers are going to be spending tax dollars or forgoing tax dollars we would otherwise be bringing in, then we need to have a concrete benefit,” said Clint McBride, a lobbyist for Laborers’ Local 101 who helped craft the measure.

The proposal would also encourage apprenticeship opportunities and workforce participation by minority contractors and workers.

But some council members have warned that expanding MWBE requirements to incentivized projects could complicate development.

Republican Councilman Mark Harder said additional requirements could discourage projects from moving forward.

“This would be a huge game-changer and may totally stop any kind of new development in the region if this goes forward,” Harder said.

Others have questioned whether the county has authority to impose new requirements on tax increment financing projects governed by state law.

Lawsuit Raises Structural Questions

Adams’ lawsuit adds another layer to the discussion by raising questions about how the MWBE program is structured inside county government.

The petition says Adams advocated separating the MWBE office from the county’s procurement department because the two functions have different missions.

Procurement focuses on purchasing goods and services at the lowest cost, the lawsuit argues, while MWBE programs exist primarily to enforce civil rights protections and expand opportunities for minority contractors.

Adams alleges that after raising those concerns with the County Council and discussing proposed ordinance language, county officials reprimanded him, revoked telework privileges and later suspended him without pay.

The county has not yet responded to the allegations in court.

Implications for Contractors

For contractors and subcontractors working in the region, the outcome of both the lawsuit and the procurement code rewrite could shape how public projects are delivered in St. Louis County.

If the ordinance moves forward largely as written, contractors could face:

• stricter documentation requirements for minority participation
• expanded MWBE rules on incentivized developments
• stronger apprenticeship and labor compliance requirements.

Those changes would place St. Louis County among a growing number of jurisdictions tying public incentives and procurement policies to workforce inclusion and participation goals.

For now, the debate continues both in the County Council chamber and in the courtroom.