Availability Analysis

Back to HR Glossary

Availability Analysis is a statistical analysis conducted by US federal contractors as part of their Affirmative Action Program (AAP) to estimate the percentage of women, minorities, individuals with disabilities, and protected veterans available for employment in each job group. Mandated by 41 CFR Part 60-2 (EO 11246), Part 60-300 (VEVRAA), and Part 60-741 (Section 503). Also called: workforce availability analysis, AAP availability determination.

Image showing the meaning of Availability Analysis

Why availability analysis matters

Availability analysis is the central numerical exercise in a written Affirmative Action Program. Without it, the contractor cannot identify whether women, minorities, individuals with disabilities, or protected veterans are underutilized in specific job groups – and therefore cannot set the placement goals that drive the contractor’s affirmative action obligations. OFCCP desk audits and on-site reviews focus heavily on availability analysis methodology, supporting data, and the placement goals derived from it. A weak availability analysis is an audit finding that can lead to conciliation agreements, debarment from federal contracts, and back-pay liability.

Summarise this post with:

chatgptChatgpt perplexityPerplexity geminiGemini grokGrok claudeClaude

Who must conduct an availability analysis

Under Executive Order 11246, federal contractors and subcontractors with 50 or more employees and federal contracts of $50,000 or more must develop and maintain written AAPs for each establishment. The AAP must include availability analysis, utilization analysis, and placement goals. Section 503 (disability) and VEVRAA (veterans) apply similar AAP requirements at a $15,000 threshold and $150,000 threshold respectively, though Section 503 and VEVRAA AAPs use a different methodology – single national utilization goals rather than job-group-by-job-group availability.

Important update: OFCCP enforcement scope has shifted under recent executive action. Contractors should consult current OFCCP guidance and counsel to confirm their current obligations, as the regulatory landscape on federal contractor affirmative action has been actively in flux in 2025-2026.

The 2-factor availability methodology

OFCCP regulations (41 CFR 60-2.14) require contractors to consider two factors when determining availability for each job group:

Factor 1: External availability

The percentage of women and minorities with requisite skills in the reasonable recruitment area. ‘Reasonable recruitment area’ is defined by the geographic area from which the contractor reasonably can recruit for the job group, considering the role’s level and skill requirements. For entry-level production roles this might be a county; for senior management or specialised technical roles it might be national. The standard external data source is the US Census Bureau’s EEO Tabulation, which provides occupational data by race, ethnicity, and gender at various geographies.

Factor 2: Internal availability

The percentage of women and minorities among those promotable, transferable, and trainable within the contractor’s organisation – the ‘feeder pool.’ Feeder pool is the job group(s) from which the contractor reasonably draws candidates into the job group being analysed.

Weighting the two factors

The contractor must apply a reasoned weighting between Factor 1 and Factor 2 based on the role. Entry-level roles weigh Factor 1 (external) heavily; senior roles drawing from internal feeders weigh Factor 2 (internal) heavily. The weighting must be documented and consistent across analysis cycles.

Worked example

Job group: Sales Manager. Reasonable recruitment area: National. Feeder pool: Sales Representative job group.

  • Factor 1 – External (national Census EEO data for sales managers): 38% women, 22% minorities.
  • Factor 2 – Internal (Sales Rep feeder pool): 45% women, 30% minorities.
  • Weighting: 60% external, 40% internal (the contractor hires roughly 60% externally for this job group).
  • Availability for women: (38% x 0.6) + (45% x 0.4) = 22.8% + 18.0% = 40.8%.
  • Availability for minorities: (22% x 0.6) + (30% x 0.4) = 13.2% + 12.0% = 25.2%.

These availability percentages are then compared against the contractor’s actual workforce composition in the Sales Manager job group to determine utilization or underutilization.

Availability vs utilization analysis

DimensionAvailability analysisUtilization analysis
Question answeredWhat percentage of qualified workers in the recruitment area / feeder pool are women / minorities?What percentage of incumbents in the job group are women / minorities?
Data sourceExternal (Census EEO Tabulation) + internal feeder poolInternal – current workforce by job group
OutputAvailability percentage by demographic group, by job groupComparison of actual incumbents vs availability
Triggers next stepSets the benchmarkWhere actual < availability, sets a placement goal
Regulatory citation41 CFR 60-2.1441 CFR 60-2.15 (utilization), 60-2.16 (placement goals)

Both are required components of the written AAP under EO 11246.

Placement goals: the output

Where utilization analysis shows that women or minorities are employed at a percentage less than would reasonably be expected based on availability, the contractor sets a ‘placement goal’ equal to the availability percentage. Placement goals are not quotas; they are targets for good-faith effort and benchmark for measuring progress.

Worked continuation: If availability for women in Sales Manager is 40.8% and the contractor’s actual workforce in that job group is 28% women, the contractor sets a placement goal of 40.8% for women in Sales Manager, and develops action-oriented programs to recruit and promote toward that goal.

Common OFCCP audit findings on availability analysis

  • Unjustified weighting between Factor 1 and Factor 2. Weighting must be documented and reasoned, not chosen to produce favourable availability numbers.
  • Reasonable recruitment area too narrow or too broad. If the contractor actually recruits regionally but defines recruitment area as the local county, availability and utilization analyses are skewed.
  • Outdated census data. Using EEO Tabulation data from a decennial census that is significantly stale produces misleading availability.
  • Incorrect job group construction. Job groups should aggregate similar opportunities (similar wage, content, qualifications). Over-aggregating hides disparities; under-aggregating creates sample-size noise.
  • Feeder pool misalignment. If the feeder pool used in Factor 2 is not actually the source of promotions into the analyzed job group, the availability calculation is invalid.
  • Missing supporting documentation. The contractor must maintain documentation supporting the availability methodology.
  • Failure to update annually. AAPs are annual documents; availability analysis must be refreshed for the current AAP year.

Data sources for availability analysis

  • US Census Bureau EEO Tabulation. The standard external data source – occupational data by race, ethnicity, and gender at multiple geographies. Released roughly every five years.
  • American Community Survey (ACS). Annual updates to occupational data at multiple geographies – used to refresh between EEO Tabulation releases.
  • Bureau of Labor Statistics OES. Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics.
  • Internal HRIS data. For Factor 2 (feeder pool) – current incumbents in feeder job groups by demographic.

Section 503 (disability) and VEVRAA (veterans) – different methodology

Section 503 and VEVRAA AAPs do not use the 2-factor job-group-by-job-group availability methodology of Executive Order 11246:

  • Section 503 (disability): Uses a single national utilization goal of 7% individuals with disabilities for each job group (or workforce-wide for contractors with 100 or fewer employees).
  • VEVRAA (veterans): Uses a single national ‘hiring benchmark’ for protected veterans, currently 5.4% (updated annually by OFCCP based on BLS data).

See job relatedness for the companion EEOC framework, and job classification for how AAP job groups are structured.

Frequently asked questions

Availability analysis is a statistical analysis required of US federal contractors as part of their Affirmative Action Program, estimating the percentage of women, minorities, individuals with disabilities, and protected veterans available for employment in each job group given qualifications and reasonable recruitment area. It establishes the benchmark against which actual workforce composition is compared in utilization analysis.

Under Executive Order 11246, US federal contractors and subcontractors with 50+ employees and federal contracts of $50,000+ must develop written AAPs containing availability analysis for each establishment. Section 503 and VEVRAA impose similar AAP requirements at $15,000 and $150,000 thresholds respectively, with different methodology.

OFCCP regulations require two factors: Factor 1 – external availability of qualified workers in the reasonable recruitment area, typically using US Census Bureau EEO Tabulation data; Factor 2 – internal availability among those promotable, transferable, and trainable within the contractor’s feeder pool. The two factors are weighted based on the role and combined into an overall availability percentage.

Availability analysis estimates what percentage of qualified workers in the labour market are women or minorities. Utilization analysis compares the contractor’s actual workforce composition against that availability benchmark. Where utilization is less than availability, the contractor sets a placement goal equal to availability and develops action-oriented programs.

No. OFCCP regulations explicitly state that placement goals are not quotas. They are targets for good-faith effort and benchmarks for measuring progress. The contractor is required to make reasonable efforts to achieve them but is not penalised for failure to meet them if good-faith effort is documented.

The standard external source is the US Census Bureau EEO Tabulation, providing occupational data by race, ethnicity, and gender at various geographies. American Community Survey provides annual updates. BLS Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics provides detailed counts. For internal feeder pool data, the contractor uses its own HRIS demographic data on incumbents in feeder job groups.

The geographic area from which the contractor reasonably can recruit for the job group, considering the role’s level and skill requirements. For entry-level production roles this might be a county or metro area. For senior management or highly specialised technical roles it might be national or international. The reasonable recruitment area must be documented and defensible as reflecting actual recruiting practice.

Unjustified weighting between Factor 1 and Factor 2 (must be reasoned, not outcome-motivated), reasonable recruitment area too narrow or broad, outdated census data, incorrect job group construction (over-aggregating hides disparities), feeder pool misalignment (Factor 2 feeder pool doesn’t reflect actual promotion sources), missing supporting documentation, and failure to update the AAP annually.