Under constructionThis deployment is live for testing only. Data, features, and findings may change without notice. To contribute — code, tips, corrections, or legal review — info@lexdoge.org.
SourcesBudget PDF· 2h|Legistar· 18m|Open Data· 47m|KPPA Pension· 4d|EMMA Bonds· 1dBuildsha256:dev·Next ingest: 23m
/ anomalies · fy26

Anomaly Flags

live · /api/v1/anomalies
This page lists patterns in Lexington-Fayette's public financial records that don't look like the typical pattern — things like a budget line that jumped sharply year-over-year, or one vendor receiving several contracts in a short window. Hovering over the underlined terms below pulls up a plain-English definition. These are starting questions, not accusations. Most flagged items have legitimate explanations; the point is to make patterns visible so citizens can ask informed questions.
Total flags
503
Patterns the system has surfaced for citizen review. Not accusations — starting questions.
High-severity
317
63% of all flags. Highest statistical strength — most likely to be worth a closer look.
Most common pattern
367
— hover for definition.
Latest sweep
May 27, 2026
The system runs detection daily and republishes anything new. Idempotent — duplicates ignored.
⚠ observations, not accusations
Anomaly flags are generated by automated analysis of public financial data. They identify patterns that deviate from expected distributions and warrant further review. Flagged items may have legitimate explanations. No allegation of wrongdoing is intended or implied. Any flag that names an individual person is held for human before publishing.
sort
severity
type
reset
showing 1–50 of 503 flags
sorted by severity · page 1 of 11
50 flags · on this page
sorted by severity
schools_clean_audit_cash_burn · May 27, 2026
Fayette County Public Schools FY2024: cash balance dropped $90,000,000 (15% of general-fund revenue) while audit was 'unqualified (clean)' Fayette County Public Schools's end-of-year cash balance fell from $235,000,000 to $145,000,000 in FY2024 — a drop of $90,000,000, or 15% of that year's general-fund revenue. The audit firm issued an unqualified ('clean') opinion in the same year. Clean audits and severe liquidity stress can coexist: the audit attests to fair presentation under GAAP, not to operating sustainability. When the two diverge by this much, the next fiscal cycle commonly surfaces the strain. Source: KDE district financial reports. Tier 2: aggregate fiscal observation, no individual characterization.
plain englishEnd-of-year cash dropped from $235,000,000 to $145,000,000. The audit firm signed a "unqualified (clean)" opinion in the same year. A clean audit attests to fair presentation under accounting rules; it does not certify that the school district has enough cash to operate the following year. The two can diverge — and when they do, the next fiscal cycle is usually where it surfaces.
[sources & evidence ▸]
sources & evidence · schools_clean_audit_cash_burnhash:d06059f1…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
cash_burn
90,000,000
fiscal_year
2,024
audit_opinion
unqualified (clean)
district_name
Fayette County Public Schools
district_slug
fcps
cash_balance_eoy
145,000,000
prior_cash_balance
235,000,000
burn_fraction_of_gf
0.1458670988654781
general_fund_revenue
617,000,000
Every flag is a starting question, not a conclusion. The links above lead to the same public records the detector read — go look, and tell us if our reading is wrong (info@lexdoge.org).
schools_kora_compliance_streak · May 27, 2026
Fayette County Public Schools: 5 open-records violations in last 24 months (total 7 since 2019) Kentucky Attorney General decisions have found Fayette County Public Schools in violation of the Open Records Act or Open Meetings Act 5 times in the trailing 24 months — a structural pattern, not a one-off. Decision IDs in this window: 26-OMD-009, 25-ORD-003, 25-ORD-037, OAG 25-07, 24-ORD-163, 23-ORD-093. Citizens and journalists who file requests with this district experience the compliance pattern as denials, delays, and the need to appeal to the AG. The dashboard tracks this rolling-window count so a re-occurrence of the pattern is surfaced automatically. Source: ag.ky.gov OROM index. Tier 2: aggregate institutional observation, no individual characterization.
plain englishCitizens and journalists who file Open Records Act requests with this district have run into denials, delays, or appeals at least 5 times in the last 24 months. Over the full window the count is 7 (going back to 2019). The Kentucky Attorney General — not the district — is the one ruling against the district. This is what a structural transparency-compliance issue looks like, not a one-off.
[sources & evidence ▸]
sources & evidence · schools_kora_compliance_streakhash:0e5ffa5b…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
fiscal_year
2,026
latest_year
2,026
district_name
Fayette County Public Schools
district_slug
fcps
earliest_year
2,019
violation_ids
26-OMD-009 25-ORD-003 25-ORD-037 OAG 25-07 24-ORD-163 23-ORD-093 19-ORD-177
violations_24mo
5
violations_total
7
Every flag is a starting question, not a conclusion. The links above lead to the same public records the detector read — go look, and tell us if our reading is wrong (info@lexdoge.org).
opeb_discount_rate_sensitivity · May 27, 2026
OPEB net position would swing up to $17,386,782 under a 1% discount-rate move (FY2024) LFUCG's net retiree-health-benefit (OPEB) position is currently a $2,713,959 surplus at the FY2024 discount rate (5.99% non-hazardous, 6.02% hazardous). A 1-percentage-point decrease in the rate would shift the position by $14,765,912; a 1-point increase would shift it by $17,386,782 in the opposite direction. Source: ACFR pp.113–114 (GASB-75 OPEB sensitivity tables). Tier 2: aggregate actuarial observation.
plain englishLexington's retiree-health-benefit position currently shows a $2,713,959 surplus (FY2024). That number depends on a future-cost discount rate near 6% — if the rate falls one percentage point, the surplus shifts by $14,765,912 in the wrong direction. The comfortable headline rests on a single assumption — that's worth a citizen knowing.
[sources & evidence ▸]
sources & evidence · opeb_discount_rate_sensitivityhash:80c3e8e8…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
max_swing
17,386,782
fiscal_year
2,024
discount_rate_hz
0.0602
discount_rate_nh
0.0599
net_opeb_liability
-2,713,959
swing_1pct_decrease
14,765,912
swing_1pct_increase
-17,386,782
general_fund_balance
—
swing_fraction_of_gf
—
Every flag is a starting question, not a conclusion. The links above lead to the same public records the detector read — go look, and tell us if our reading is wrong (info@lexdoge.org).
pension_contribution_volatility · May 27, 2026
CERS contribution rate decreased 3.12 percentage points FY2024→FY2025 (23.57% → 20.45% of payroll) LFUCG's payment to the County Employees' Retirement System (CERS) for FY2025 was 20.45% of covered payroll ($28,197,560 on $137,894,274), compared to 23.57% the prior year — a 3.12-percentage-point decrease. Pension contribution rates are set by the Kentucky General Assembly via KRS §78.635 and applied to whatever payroll the city actually runs; sharp year-over-year shifts in the *effective* rate typically reflect either a Frankfort phase-in completing, a one-time refund of an overpayment, or a rapid change in headcount/wages that dilutes or concentrates the fixed actuarial obligation. Source: ACFR RSI Schedule of Government Contributions. Tier 2: aggregate fiscal observation, no individual characterization.
plain englishIn FY2025 the city paid 20.4% of payroll into the state pension system, versus 23.6% the year before — that's $28,197,560 on a $137,894,274 payroll. The rate the city owes is set by Frankfort and applied to whatever payroll Lexington actually runs, so the *dollar* bill moves with hiring even when the *rate* doesn't. Swings either direction are worth a citizen knowing about.
[sources & evidence ▸]
sources & evidence · pension_contribution_volatilityhash:d4d4c04e…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
delta_pp
-3.1200000000000006
prior_fy
2,024
direction
decrease
prior_paid
30,540,088
fiscal_year
2,025
current_paid
28,197,560
current_payroll
137,894,274
current_required
31,035,454
prior_pct_payroll
0.2357
current_pct_payroll
0.2045
Every flag is a starting question, not a conclusion. The links above lead to the same public records the detector read — go look, and tell us if our reading is wrong (info@lexdoge.org).
pension_contribution_volatility · May 27, 2026
CERS contribution rate increased 2.38 percentage points FY2022→FY2023 (21.84% → 24.22% of payroll) LFUCG's payment to the County Employees' Retirement System (CERS) for FY2023 was 24.22% of covered payroll ($28,138,782 on $116,194,096), compared to 21.84% the prior year — a 2.38-percentage-point increase. Pension contribution rates are set by the Kentucky General Assembly via KRS §78.635 and applied to whatever payroll the city actually runs; sharp year-over-year shifts in the *effective* rate typically reflect either a Frankfort phase-in completing, a one-time refund of an overpayment, or a rapid change in headcount/wages that dilutes or concentrates the fixed actuarial obligation. Source: ACFR RSI Schedule of Government Contributions. Tier 2: aggregate fiscal observation, no individual characterization.
plain englishIn FY2023 the city paid 24.2% of payroll into the state pension system, versus 21.8% the year before — that's $28,138,782 on a $116,194,096 payroll. The rate the city owes is set by Frankfort and applied to whatever payroll Lexington actually runs, so the *dollar* bill moves with hiring even when the *rate* doesn't. Swings either direction are worth a citizen knowing about.
[sources & evidence ▸]
sources & evidence · pension_contribution_volatilityhash:3085bd27…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
delta_pp
2.379999999999999
prior_fy
2,022
direction
increase
prior_paid
23,713,304
fiscal_year
2,023
current_paid
28,138,782
current_payroll
116,194,096
current_required
24,282,853
prior_pct_payroll
0.2184
current_pct_payroll
0.2422
Every flag is a starting question, not a conclusion. The links above lead to the same public records the detector read — go look, and tell us if our reading is wrong (info@lexdoge.org).
pension_contribution_volatility · May 27, 2026
CERS contribution rate increased 1.65 percentage points FY2021→FY2022 (20.19% → 21.84% of payroll) LFUCG's payment to the County Employees' Retirement System (CERS) for FY2022 was 21.84% of covered payroll ($23,713,304 on $108,580,370), compared to 20.19% the prior year — a 1.65-percentage-point increase. Pension contribution rates are set by the Kentucky General Assembly via KRS §78.635 and applied to whatever payroll the city actually runs; sharp year-over-year shifts in the *effective* rate typically reflect either a Frankfort phase-in completing, a one-time refund of an overpayment, or a rapid change in headcount/wages that dilutes or concentrates the fixed actuarial obligation. Source: ACFR RSI Schedule of Government Contributions. Tier 2: aggregate fiscal observation, no individual characterization.
plain englishIn FY2022 the city paid 21.8% of payroll into the state pension system, versus 20.2% the year before — that's $23,713,304 on a $108,580,370 payroll. The rate the city owes is set by Frankfort and applied to whatever payroll Lexington actually runs, so the *dollar* bill moves with hiring even when the *rate* doesn't. Swings either direction are worth a citizen knowing about.
[sources & evidence ▸]
sources & evidence · pension_contribution_volatilityhash:1739f4fd…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
delta_pp
1.6500000000000015
prior_fy
2,021
direction
increase
prior_paid
19,311,623
fiscal_year
2,022
current_paid
23,713,304
current_payroll
108,580,370
current_required
22,697,391
prior_pct_payroll
0.2019
current_pct_payroll
0.2184
Every flag is a starting question, not a conclusion. The links above lead to the same public records the detector read — go look, and tell us if our reading is wrong (info@lexdoge.org).
pension_contribution_volatility · May 27, 2026
CERS contribution rate increased 3.07 percentage points FY2018→FY2019 (15.88% → 18.95% of payroll) LFUCG's payment to the County Employees' Retirement System (CERS) for FY2019 was 18.95% of covered payroll ($16,718,583 on $88,234,162), compared to 15.88% the prior year — a 3.07-percentage-point increase. Pension contribution rates are set by the Kentucky General Assembly via KRS §78.635 and applied to whatever payroll the city actually runs; sharp year-over-year shifts in the *effective* rate typically reflect either a Frankfort phase-in completing, a one-time refund of an overpayment, or a rapid change in headcount/wages that dilutes or concentrates the fixed actuarial obligation. Source: ACFR RSI Schedule of Government Contributions. Tier 2: aggregate fiscal observation, no individual characterization.
plain englishIn FY2019 the city paid 18.9% of payroll into the state pension system, versus 15.9% the year before — that's $16,718,583 on a $88,234,162 payroll. The rate the city owes is set by Frankfort and applied to whatever payroll Lexington actually runs, so the *dollar* bill moves with hiring even when the *rate* doesn't. Swings either direction are worth a citizen knowing about.
[sources & evidence ▸]
sources & evidence · pension_contribution_volatilityhash:eeb28316…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
delta_pp
3.0700000000000003
prior_fy
2,018
direction
increase
prior_paid
14,162,524
fiscal_year
2,019
current_paid
16,718,583
current_payroll
88,234,162
current_required
21,120,711
prior_pct_payroll
0.1588
current_pct_payroll
0.1895
Every flag is a starting question, not a conclusion. The links above lead to the same public records the detector read — go look, and tell us if our reading is wrong (info@lexdoge.org).
pension_contribution_volatility · May 27, 2026
CERS contribution rate decreased 4.64 percentage points FY2016→FY2017 (20.14% → 15.50% of payroll) LFUCG's payment to the County Employees' Retirement System (CERS) for FY2017 was 15.50% of covered payroll ($13,767,651 on $88,823,610), compared to 20.14% the prior year — a 4.64-percentage-point decrease. Pension contribution rates are set by the Kentucky General Assembly via KRS §78.635 and applied to whatever payroll the city actually runs; sharp year-over-year shifts in the *effective* rate typically reflect either a Frankfort phase-in completing, a one-time refund of an overpayment, or a rapid change in headcount/wages that dilutes or concentrates the fixed actuarial obligation. Source: ACFR RSI Schedule of Government Contributions. Tier 2: aggregate fiscal observation, no individual characterization.
plain englishIn FY2017 the city paid 15.5% of payroll into the state pension system, versus 20.1% the year before — that's $13,767,651 on a $88,823,610 payroll. The rate the city owes is set by Frankfort and applied to whatever payroll Lexington actually runs, so the *dollar* bill moves with hiring even when the *rate* doesn't. Swings either direction are worth a citizen knowing about.
[sources & evidence ▸]
sources & evidence · pension_contribution_volatilityhash:f97a811c…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
delta_pp
-4.64
prior_fy
2,016
direction
decrease
prior_paid
16,954,959
fiscal_year
2,017
current_paid
13,767,651
current_payroll
88,823,610
current_required
13,388,248
prior_pct_payroll
0.2014
current_pct_payroll
0.155
Every flag is a starting question, not a conclusion. The links above lead to the same public records the detector read — go look, and tell us if our reading is wrong (info@lexdoge.org).
May 27, 2026
Two near-identical contracts to Smith Contractors within 0 day(s) ($14,534,226 ≈ $14,597,578) Two contracts to Smith Contractors of essentially the same amount ($14,534,225.81 on 2014-04-22 and $14,597,577.56 on 2014-04-22, departments Unknown / Unknown) appear within 0 day(s). The pattern can indicate a duplicate award, a two-installment payment correctly entered as two records, or a legitimate same-week renewal. Warrants review against the underlying contract documents. Tier 2: vendor-named observation.
plain englishVendor "Smith Contractors" was paid twice in a short window for almost the same amount. Most often this is a routine data-entry duplicate caught by the city's own controls — but the public record should show it either way.
[sources & evidence ▸]
sources & evidence · duplicate_paymenthash:7a7e620f…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
date_a
2014-04-22
date_b
2014-04-22
vendor
Smith Contractors
amount_a
14,534,225.81
amount_b
14,597,577.56
days_apart
0
contract_ids
646737e5-f7f7-47f8-ad5d-f76da445c195 b075a4da-8d11-4209-814b-1e0696c0a753
department_a
Unknown
department_b
Unknown
Every flag is a starting question, not a conclusion. The links above lead to the same public records the detector read — go look, and tell us if our reading is wrong (info@lexdoge.org).
May 27, 2026
Two near-identical contracts to Mitchell Construction Management within 0 day(s) ($165,265 ≈ $165,465) Two contracts to Mitchell Construction Management of essentially the same amount ($165,265.00 on 2015-06-17 and $165,465.00 on 2015-06-17, departments Unknown / Unknown) appear within 0 day(s). The pattern can indicate a duplicate award, a two-installment payment correctly entered as two records, or a legitimate same-week renewal. Warrants review against the underlying contract documents. Tier 2: vendor-named observation.
plain englishVendor "Mitchell Construction Management" was paid twice in a short window for almost the same amount. Most often this is a routine data-entry duplicate caught by the city's own controls — but the public record should show it either way.
[sources & evidence ▸]
sources & evidence · duplicate_paymenthash:1d4d00d5…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
date_a
2015-06-17
date_b
2015-06-17
vendor
Mitchell Construction Management
amount_a
165,265
amount_b
165,465
days_apart
0
contract_ids
00b51496-db35-4515-9136-9e4a285b840a 0e78677a-c76e-4de9-a3cc-461f59700cc1
department_a
Unknown
department_b
Unknown
Every flag is a starting question, not a conclusion. The links above lead to the same public records the detector read — go look, and tell us if our reading is wrong (info@lexdoge.org).
May 27, 2026
Two near-identical contracts to Judy Construction Co. within 0 day(s) ($5,601,901 ≈ $5,601,901) Two contracts to Judy Construction Co. of essentially the same amount ($5,601,900.58 on 2017-01-27 and $5,601,900.58 on 2017-01-27, departments Unknown / Unknown) appear within 0 day(s). The pattern can indicate a duplicate award, a two-installment payment correctly entered as two records, or a legitimate same-week renewal. Warrants review against the underlying contract documents. Tier 2: vendor-named observation.
plain englishVendor "Judy Construction Co." was paid twice in a short window for the same exact amount. Most often this is a routine data-entry duplicate caught by the city's own controls — but the public record should show it either way.
[sources & evidence ▸]
sources & evidence · duplicate_paymenthash:224a4798…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
date_a
2017-01-27
date_b
2017-01-27
vendor
Judy Construction Co.
amount_a
5,601,900.58
amount_b
5,601,900.58
days_apart
0
contract_ids
cd30ffc1-0a4e-4e64-9275-e9e9d2defe45 f73ebe33-26d2-4959-a5cc-f1ff37688211
department_a
Unknown
department_b
Unknown
Every flag is a starting question, not a conclusion. The links above lead to the same public records the detector read — go look, and tell us if our reading is wrong (info@lexdoge.org).
May 27, 2026
Two near-identical contracts to GRW Engineers within 0 day(s) ($25,000 ≈ $25,000) Two contracts to GRW Engineers of essentially the same amount ($25,000.00 on 2017-08-07 and $25,000.00 on 2017-08-07, departments Unknown / Unknown) appear within 0 day(s). The pattern can indicate a duplicate award, a two-installment payment correctly entered as two records, or a legitimate same-week renewal. Warrants review against the underlying contract documents. Tier 2: vendor-named observation.
plain englishVendor "GRW Engineers" was paid twice in a short window for the same exact amount. Most often this is a routine data-entry duplicate caught by the city's own controls — but the public record should show it either way.
[sources & evidence ▸]
sources & evidence · duplicate_paymenthash:ee344571…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
date_a
2017-08-07
date_b
2017-08-07
vendor
GRW Engineers
amount_a
25,000
amount_b
25,000
days_apart
0
contract_ids
0b7287b7-2cd2-4fb9-96f0-71fe7fded239 df2b7f59-7012-48b6-b4e3-bd8a811c936b
department_a
Unknown
department_b
Unknown
Every flag is a starting question, not a conclusion. The links above lead to the same public records the detector read — go look, and tell us if our reading is wrong (info@lexdoge.org).
May 27, 2026
Two near-identical contracts to Churchill McGee within 0 day(s) ($6,377,831 ≈ $6,384,554) Two contracts to Churchill McGee of essentially the same amount ($6,377,831.18 on 2015-08-28 and $6,384,553.54 on 2015-08-28, departments Unknown / Unknown) appear within 0 day(s). The pattern can indicate a duplicate award, a two-installment payment correctly entered as two records, or a legitimate same-week renewal. Warrants review against the underlying contract documents. Tier 2: vendor-named observation.
plain englishVendor "Churchill McGee" was paid twice in a short window for almost the same amount. Most often this is a routine data-entry duplicate caught by the city's own controls — but the public record should show it either way.
[sources & evidence ▸]
sources & evidence · duplicate_paymenthash:48dfdff4…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
date_a
2015-08-28
date_b
2015-08-28
vendor
Churchill McGee
amount_a
6,377,831.18
amount_b
6,384,553.54
days_apart
0
contract_ids
01cc6ae6-4d21-464e-b26f-0bfc19e728c9 1109e64a-7aff-405e-b300-81d82e788874
department_a
Unknown
department_b
Unknown
Every flag is a starting question, not a conclusion. The links above lead to the same public records the detector read — go look, and tell us if our reading is wrong (info@lexdoge.org).
May 27, 2026
WSP USA: 2 contracts within 90 days totaling $442,000 The vendor WSP USA received 2 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $442,000. When the combined value crosses a procurement-approval threshold but each individual award stays below it, the pattern is classically called 'contract splitting' and warrants further review against the procurement code and any justifications. The pattern can also reflect legitimate phased work or multiple unrelated services with the same vendor. Tier 2: vendor-named observation, no individual characterization.
plain englishVendor "WSP USA" received 2 separate contracts inside a 90-day window that, combined, would normally require open competitive bidding. Often this reflects separate legitimate projects — sometimes it reflects a single project broken up to avoid extra review.
[sources & evidence ▸]
sources & evidence · contract_splittinghash:9fc7decc…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
WSP USA
contracts
{"id":"08700a60-ba0f-40a7-801d-a2affd3e7d09","date":"2019-10-28","amount":220000,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"31962bd9-b4e0-42ac-8f89-e164d4fa0691","date":"2020-01-06","amount":222000,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
442,000
contract_count
2
Every flag is a starting question, not a conclusion. The links above lead to the same public records the detector read — go look, and tell us if our reading is wrong (info@lexdoge.org).
May 27, 2026
W. Principles: 2 contracts within 90 days totaling $3,973,370 The vendor W. Principles received 2 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $3,973,370. When the combined value crosses a procurement-approval threshold but each individual award stays below it, the pattern is classically called 'contract splitting' and warrants further review against the procurement code and any justifications. The pattern can also reflect legitimate phased work or multiple unrelated services with the same vendor. Tier 2: vendor-named observation, no individual characterization.
plain englishVendor "W. Principles" received 2 separate contracts inside a 90-day window that, combined, would normally require open competitive bidding. Often this reflects separate legitimate projects — sometimes it reflects a single project broken up to avoid extra review.
[sources & evidence ▸]
sources & evidence · contract_splittinghash:31f216ba…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
W. Principles
contracts
{"id":"f4271f62-b2a1-4996-aa45-722e56fc3aa1","date":"2025-03-05","amount":3129369.98,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"c6ba756e-f3b6-4500-90d6-565ccc513a3f","date":"2025-04-07","amount":844000,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
3,973,369.98
contract_count
2
Every flag is a starting question, not a conclusion. The links above lead to the same public records the detector read — go look, and tell us if our reading is wrong (info@lexdoge.org).
May 27, 2026
W. Principles: 3 contracts within 90 days totaling $7,083,040 The vendor W. Principles received 3 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $7,083,040. When the combined value crosses a procurement-approval threshold but each individual award stays below it, the pattern is classically called 'contract splitting' and warrants further review against the procurement code and any justifications. The pattern can also reflect legitimate phased work or multiple unrelated services with the same vendor. Tier 2: vendor-named observation, no individual characterization.
plain englishVendor "W. Principles" received 3 separate contracts inside a 90-day window that, combined, would normally require open competitive bidding. Often this reflects separate legitimate projects — sometimes it reflects a single project broken up to avoid extra review.
[sources & evidence ▸]
sources & evidence · contract_splittinghash:c9cff0f8…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
W. Principles
contracts
{"id":"fa4f2071-c11a-47a5-8f02-7278c30f771e","date":"2025-01-29","amount":3109669.98,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"f4271f62-b2a1-4996-aa45-722e56fc3aa1","date":"2025-03-05","amount":3129369.98,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"c6ba756e-f3b6-4500-90d6-565ccc513a3f","date":"2025-04-07","amount":844000,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
7,083,039.96
contract_count
3
Every flag is a starting question, not a conclusion. The links above lead to the same public records the detector read — go look, and tell us if our reading is wrong (info@lexdoge.org).
May 27, 2026
Wood Connection: 2 contracts within 90 days totaling $104,692 The vendor Wood Connection received 2 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $104,692. When the combined value crosses a procurement-approval threshold but each individual award stays below it, the pattern is classically called 'contract splitting' and warrants further review against the procurement code and any justifications. The pattern can also reflect legitimate phased work or multiple unrelated services with the same vendor. Tier 2: vendor-named observation, no individual characterization.
plain englishVendor "Wood Connection" received 2 separate contracts inside a 90-day window that, combined, would normally require open competitive bidding. Often this reflects separate legitimate projects — sometimes it reflects a single project broken up to avoid extra review.
[sources & evidence ▸]
sources & evidence · contract_splittinghash:5a03d315…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Wood Connection
contracts
{"id":"5cce41bb-551b-4e3a-8e7f-789729872449","date":"2014-04-28","amount":60092,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"3f207a02-7f04-4294-bbbb-b3c37d4f548a","date":"2014-06-03","amount":44600,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
104,692
contract_count
2
Every flag is a starting question, not a conclusion. The links above lead to the same public records the detector read — go look, and tell us if our reading is wrong (info@lexdoge.org).
May 27, 2026
Woodall Construction Co.: 2 contracts within 90 days totaling $316,394 The vendor Woodall Construction Co. received 2 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $316,394. When the combined value crosses a procurement-approval threshold but each individual award stays below it, the pattern is classically called 'contract splitting' and warrants further review against the procurement code and any justifications. The pattern can also reflect legitimate phased work or multiple unrelated services with the same vendor. Tier 2: vendor-named observation, no individual characterization.
plain englishVendor "Woodall Construction Co." received 2 separate contracts inside a 90-day window that, combined, would normally require open competitive bidding. Often this reflects separate legitimate projects — sometimes it reflects a single project broken up to avoid extra review.
[sources & evidence ▸]
sources & evidence · contract_splittinghash:9782ea4c…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Woodall Construction Co.
contracts
{"id":"f14a6573-7b65-4367-9244-d65793b6e384","date":"2019-05-01","amount":138704.74,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"b1ed8543-1ef1-459c-9de1-b1d01be1b2f7","date":"2019-07-30","amount":177689.3,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
316,394.04
contract_count
2
Every flag is a starting question, not a conclusion. The links above lead to the same public records the detector read — go look, and tell us if our reading is wrong (info@lexdoge.org).
May 27, 2026
Woodall Construction Co.: 2 contracts within 90 days totaling $316,394 The vendor Woodall Construction Co. received 2 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $316,394. When the combined value crosses a procurement-approval threshold but each individual award stays below it, the pattern is classically called 'contract splitting' and warrants further review against the procurement code and any justifications. The pattern can also reflect legitimate phased work or multiple unrelated services with the same vendor. Tier 2: vendor-named observation, no individual characterization.
plain englishVendor "Woodall Construction Co." received 2 separate contracts inside a 90-day window that, combined, would normally require open competitive bidding. Often this reflects separate legitimate projects — sometimes it reflects a single project broken up to avoid extra review.
[sources & evidence ▸]
sources & evidence · contract_splittinghash:d03eecad…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Woodall Construction Co.
contracts
{"id":"6f5d8ada-794b-4a29-a38f-4b9903834f08","date":"2018-10-05","amount":177689.3,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"a37dc828-b36a-4ce9-b656-56e6e9982864","date":"2018-10-05","amount":138704.74,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
316,394.04
contract_count
2
Every flag is a starting question, not a conclusion. The links above lead to the same public records the detector read — go look, and tell us if our reading is wrong (info@lexdoge.org).
May 27, 2026
Woodall Construction Co.: 2 contracts within 90 days totaling $304,098 The vendor Woodall Construction Co. received 2 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $304,098. When the combined value crosses a procurement-approval threshold but each individual award stays below it, the pattern is classically called 'contract splitting' and warrants further review against the procurement code and any justifications. The pattern can also reflect legitimate phased work or multiple unrelated services with the same vendor. Tier 2: vendor-named observation, no individual characterization.
plain englishVendor "Woodall Construction Co." received 2 separate contracts inside a 90-day window that, combined, would normally require open competitive bidding. Often this reflects separate legitimate projects — sometimes it reflects a single project broken up to avoid extra review.
[sources & evidence ▸]
sources & evidence · contract_splittinghash:24e620a9…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Woodall Construction Co.
contracts
{"id":"e02890b9-f088-4255-bd04-1e3867b825c3","date":"2018-05-11","amount":130609.14,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"84e004d0-d7f1-44ec-b8ec-5503d2ca8550","date":"2018-06-15","amount":173489.3,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
304,098.44
contract_count
2
Every flag is a starting question, not a conclusion. The links above lead to the same public records the detector read — go look, and tell us if our reading is wrong (info@lexdoge.org).
May 27, 2026
Woodall Construction Co.: 2 contracts within 90 days totaling $4,172,711 The vendor Woodall Construction Co. received 2 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $4,172,711. When the combined value crosses a procurement-approval threshold but each individual award stays below it, the pattern is classically called 'contract splitting' and warrants further review against the procurement code and any justifications. The pattern can also reflect legitimate phased work or multiple unrelated services with the same vendor. Tier 2: vendor-named observation, no individual characterization.
plain englishVendor "Woodall Construction Co." received 2 separate contracts inside a 90-day window that, combined, would normally require open competitive bidding. Often this reflects separate legitimate projects — sometimes it reflects a single project broken up to avoid extra review.
[sources & evidence ▸]
sources & evidence · contract_splittinghash:419f13fa…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Woodall Construction Co.
contracts
{"id":"d397247f-9602-4913-9417-3a3ec38f0899","date":"2012-04-04","amount":422020.08,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"e0ef93b2-188b-43ee-bae3-b17440613e5f","date":"2012-06-08","amount":3750690.6,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
4,172,710.68
contract_count
2
Every flag is a starting question, not a conclusion. The links above lead to the same public records the detector read — go look, and tell us if our reading is wrong (info@lexdoge.org).
May 27, 2026
Woodall Construction Co.: 2 contracts within 90 days totaling $4,096,392 The vendor Woodall Construction Co. received 2 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $4,096,392. When the combined value crosses a procurement-approval threshold but each individual award stays below it, the pattern is classically called 'contract splitting' and warrants further review against the procurement code and any justifications. The pattern can also reflect legitimate phased work or multiple unrelated services with the same vendor. Tier 2: vendor-named observation, no individual characterization.
plain englishVendor "Woodall Construction Co." received 2 separate contracts inside a 90-day window that, combined, would normally require open competitive bidding. Often this reflects separate legitimate projects — sometimes it reflects a single project broken up to avoid extra review.
[sources & evidence ▸]
sources & evidence · contract_splittinghash:eab0643e…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Woodall Construction Co.
contracts
{"id":"ac0e74e6-9358-436c-b7f7-e057e5237ca4","date":"2012-02-29","amount":3674372.29,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"d397247f-9602-4913-9417-3a3ec38f0899","date":"2012-04-04","amount":422020.08,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
4,096,392.37
contract_count
2
Every flag is a starting question, not a conclusion. The links above lead to the same public records the detector read — go look, and tell us if our reading is wrong (info@lexdoge.org).
May 27, 2026
Woodall Construction Co.: 3 contracts within 90 days totaling $7,752,277 The vendor Woodall Construction Co. received 3 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $7,752,277. When the combined value crosses a procurement-approval threshold but each individual award stays below it, the pattern is classically called 'contract splitting' and warrants further review against the procurement code and any justifications. The pattern can also reflect legitimate phased work or multiple unrelated services with the same vendor. Tier 2: vendor-named observation, no individual characterization.
plain englishVendor "Woodall Construction Co." received 3 separate contracts inside a 90-day window that, combined, would normally require open competitive bidding. Often this reflects separate legitimate projects — sometimes it reflects a single project broken up to avoid extra review.
[sources & evidence ▸]
sources & evidence · contract_splittinghash:849ae99d…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Woodall Construction Co.
contracts
{"id":"19476a5d-e98f-4d84-a7cc-91b2ec7f7113","date":"2012-02-07","amount":3655884.57,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"ac0e74e6-9358-436c-b7f7-e057e5237ca4","date":"2012-02-29","amount":3674372.29,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"d397247f-9602-4913-9417-3a3ec38f0899","date":"2012-04-04","amount":422020.08,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
7,752,276.94
contract_count
3
Every flag is a starting question, not a conclusion. The links above lead to the same public records the detector read — go look, and tell us if our reading is wrong (info@lexdoge.org).
May 27, 2026
Wiser Strategies: 2 contracts within 90 days totaling $335,000 The vendor Wiser Strategies received 2 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $335,000. When the combined value crosses a procurement-approval threshold but each individual award stays below it, the pattern is classically called 'contract splitting' and warrants further review against the procurement code and any justifications. The pattern can also reflect legitimate phased work or multiple unrelated services with the same vendor. Tier 2: vendor-named observation, no individual characterization.
plain englishVendor "Wiser Strategies" received 2 separate contracts inside a 90-day window that, combined, would normally require open competitive bidding. Often this reflects separate legitimate projects — sometimes it reflects a single project broken up to avoid extra review.
[sources & evidence ▸]
sources & evidence · contract_splittinghash:41ed8886…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Wiser Strategies
contracts
{"id":"8f4e268f-57fb-453c-9a58-2c402ed4b30d","date":"2021-03-22","amount":275000,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"e1c683e9-b507-4ca2-a77a-7c4312130248","date":"2021-03-22","amount":60000,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
335,000
contract_count
2
Every flag is a starting question, not a conclusion. The links above lead to the same public records the detector read — go look, and tell us if our reading is wrong (info@lexdoge.org).
May 27, 2026
Watson Furniture Group: 2 contracts within 90 days totaling $609,703 The vendor Watson Furniture Group received 2 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $609,703. When the combined value crosses a procurement-approval threshold but each individual award stays below it, the pattern is classically called 'contract splitting' and warrants further review against the procurement code and any justifications. The pattern can also reflect legitimate phased work or multiple unrelated services with the same vendor. Tier 2: vendor-named observation, no individual characterization.
plain englishVendor "Watson Furniture Group" received 2 separate contracts inside a 90-day window that, combined, would normally require open competitive bidding. Often this reflects separate legitimate projects — sometimes it reflects a single project broken up to avoid extra review.
[sources & evidence ▸]
sources & evidence · contract_splittinghash:51e40815…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Watson Furniture Group
contracts
{"id":"298f6ee6-6e52-442b-81c2-e49d8cc2dfea","date":"2016-06-03","amount":302384.8,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"4bddc008-0dbf-4360-9be2-e2ba66891be1","date":"2016-06-16","amount":307318.4,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
609,703.2
contract_count
2
Every flag is a starting question, not a conclusion. The links above lead to the same public records the detector read — go look, and tell us if our reading is wrong (info@lexdoge.org).
May 27, 2026
Watson Furniture Group: 3 contracts within 90 days totaling $899,540 The vendor Watson Furniture Group received 3 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $899,540. When the combined value crosses a procurement-approval threshold but each individual award stays below it, the pattern is classically called 'contract splitting' and warrants further review against the procurement code and any justifications. The pattern can also reflect legitimate phased work or multiple unrelated services with the same vendor. Tier 2: vendor-named observation, no individual characterization.
plain englishVendor "Watson Furniture Group" received 3 separate contracts inside a 90-day window that, combined, would normally require open competitive bidding. Often this reflects separate legitimate projects — sometimes it reflects a single project broken up to avoid extra review.
[sources & evidence ▸]
sources & evidence · contract_splittinghash:cb59bda7…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Watson Furniture Group
contracts
{"id":"380bc51d-023e-4066-bd1a-3417ac196354","date":"2016-05-17","amount":289837.2,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"298f6ee6-6e52-442b-81c2-e49d8cc2dfea","date":"2016-06-03","amount":302384.8,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"4bddc008-0dbf-4360-9be2-e2ba66891be1","date":"2016-06-16","amount":307318.4,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
899,540.4
contract_count
3
Every flag is a starting question, not a conclusion. The links above lead to the same public records the detector read — go look, and tell us if our reading is wrong (info@lexdoge.org).
May 27, 2026
VeBridge Holdings: 2 contracts within 90 days totaling $78,500 The vendor VeBridge Holdings received 2 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $78,500. When the combined value crosses a procurement-approval threshold but each individual award stays below it, the pattern is classically called 'contract splitting' and warrants further review against the procurement code and any justifications. The pattern can also reflect legitimate phased work or multiple unrelated services with the same vendor. Tier 2: vendor-named observation, no individual characterization.
plain englishVendor "VeBridge Holdings" received 2 separate contracts inside a 90-day window that, combined, would normally require open competitive bidding. Often this reflects separate legitimate projects — sometimes it reflects a single project broken up to avoid extra review.
[sources & evidence ▸]
sources & evidence · contract_splittinghash:d58dea9a…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
VeBridge Holdings
contracts
{"id":"e638cdc5-17c8-44c8-b923-4f1402e2e279","date":"2015-06-26","amount":60000,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"db1df45f-f091-41de-a8d7-3b065dba113e","date":"2015-06-26","amount":18500,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
78,500
contract_count
2
Every flag is a starting question, not a conclusion. The links above lead to the same public records the detector read — go look, and tell us if our reading is wrong (info@lexdoge.org).
May 27, 2026
Vanhook Enterprises: 2 contracts within 90 days totaling $936,432 The vendor Vanhook Enterprises received 2 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $936,432. When the combined value crosses a procurement-approval threshold but each individual award stays below it, the pattern is classically called 'contract splitting' and warrants further review against the procurement code and any justifications. The pattern can also reflect legitimate phased work or multiple unrelated services with the same vendor. Tier 2: vendor-named observation, no individual characterization.
plain englishVendor "Vanhook Enterprises" received 2 separate contracts inside a 90-day window that, combined, would normally require open competitive bidding. Often this reflects separate legitimate projects — sometimes it reflects a single project broken up to avoid extra review.
[sources & evidence ▸]
sources & evidence · contract_splittinghash:b0577426…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Vanhook Enterprises
contracts
{"id":"af58cd61-5a93-4ee3-8a9d-ced0d0a0759c","date":"2016-06-14","amount":465530.04,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"af346f7a-c200-4f4b-9453-5199c3b0669b","date":"2016-09-01","amount":470901.98,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
936,432.02
contract_count
2
Every flag is a starting question, not a conclusion. The links above lead to the same public records the detector read — go look, and tell us if our reading is wrong (info@lexdoge.org).
May 27, 2026
Untold Content: 2 contracts within 90 days totaling $552,070 The vendor Untold Content received 2 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $552,070. When the combined value crosses a procurement-approval threshold but each individual award stays below it, the pattern is classically called 'contract splitting' and warrants further review against the procurement code and any justifications. The pattern can also reflect legitimate phased work or multiple unrelated services with the same vendor. Tier 2: vendor-named observation, no individual characterization.
plain englishVendor "Untold Content" received 2 separate contracts inside a 90-day window that, combined, would normally require open competitive bidding. Often this reflects separate legitimate projects — sometimes it reflects a single project broken up to avoid extra review.
[sources & evidence ▸]
sources & evidence · contract_splittinghash:7b0a390c…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Untold Content
contracts
{"id":"febcb81a-7732-44ee-bfd0-a916aa475471","date":"2022-05-26","amount":380172,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"e7acd3f4-717d-428a-82c1-231afd2ffdac","date":"2022-05-26","amount":171898,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
552,070
contract_count
2
Every flag is a starting question, not a conclusion. The links above lead to the same public records the detector read — go look, and tell us if our reading is wrong (info@lexdoge.org).
May 27, 2026
Unique Security: 2 contracts within 90 days totaling $6,770,096 The vendor Unique Security received 2 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $6,770,096. When the combined value crosses a procurement-approval threshold but each individual award stays below it, the pattern is classically called 'contract splitting' and warrants further review against the procurement code and any justifications. The pattern can also reflect legitimate phased work or multiple unrelated services with the same vendor. Tier 2: vendor-named observation, no individual characterization.
plain englishVendor "Unique Security" received 2 separate contracts inside a 90-day window that, combined, would normally require open competitive bidding. Often this reflects separate legitimate projects — sometimes it reflects a single project broken up to avoid extra review.
[sources & evidence ▸]
sources & evidence · contract_splittinghash:1ee2e3ac…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Unique Security
contracts
{"id":"bb647be7-eec8-4018-9ce4-50a3cd020a54","date":"2018-06-20","amount":3376475.33,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"8f5e648f-ec4f-4f79-ba0a-a68009613054","date":"2018-09-17","amount":3393620.33,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
6,770,095.66
contract_count
2
Every flag is a starting question, not a conclusion. The links above lead to the same public records the detector read — go look, and tell us if our reading is wrong (info@lexdoge.org).
May 27, 2026
Unique Security: 3 contracts within 90 days totaling $10,192,937 The vendor Unique Security received 3 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $10,192,937. When the combined value crosses a procurement-approval threshold but each individual award stays below it, the pattern is classically called 'contract splitting' and warrants further review against the procurement code and any justifications. The pattern can also reflect legitimate phased work or multiple unrelated services with the same vendor. Tier 2: vendor-named observation, no individual characterization.
plain englishVendor "Unique Security" received 3 separate contracts inside a 90-day window that, combined, would normally require open competitive bidding. Often this reflects separate legitimate projects — sometimes it reflects a single project broken up to avoid extra review.
[sources & evidence ▸]
sources & evidence · contract_splittinghash:3786e4cd…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Unique Security
contracts
{"id":"8c71764b-7fb4-4fc6-94a9-91a8039d04a4","date":"2018-06-20","amount":3422840.86,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"bb647be7-eec8-4018-9ce4-50a3cd020a54","date":"2018-06-20","amount":3376475.33,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"8f5e648f-ec4f-4f79-ba0a-a68009613054","date":"2018-09-17","amount":3393620.33,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
10,192,936.52
contract_count
3
Every flag is a starting question, not a conclusion. The links above lead to the same public records the detector read — go look, and tell us if our reading is wrong (info@lexdoge.org).
May 27, 2026
Triton Services: 2 contracts within 90 days totaling $475,941 The vendor Triton Services received 2 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $475,941. When the combined value crosses a procurement-approval threshold but each individual award stays below it, the pattern is classically called 'contract splitting' and warrants further review against the procurement code and any justifications. The pattern can also reflect legitimate phased work or multiple unrelated services with the same vendor. Tier 2: vendor-named observation, no individual characterization.
plain englishVendor "Triton Services" received 2 separate contracts inside a 90-day window that, combined, would normally require open competitive bidding. Often this reflects separate legitimate projects — sometimes it reflects a single project broken up to avoid extra review.
[sources & evidence ▸]
sources & evidence · contract_splittinghash:19ffb412…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Triton Services
contracts
{"id":"6ad32387-1cf3-413a-a514-08e4b2d0d9fb","date":"2013-07-08","amount":234570,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"81ef7727-8bc6-4ee4-b579-9073c50e9cba","date":"2013-08-05","amount":241371,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
475,941
contract_count
2
Every flag is a starting question, not a conclusion. The links above lead to the same public records the detector read — go look, and tell us if our reading is wrong (info@lexdoge.org).
May 27, 2026
Triton Services: 3 contracts within 90 days totaling $549,701 The vendor Triton Services received 3 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $549,701. When the combined value crosses a procurement-approval threshold but each individual award stays below it, the pattern is classically called 'contract splitting' and warrants further review against the procurement code and any justifications. The pattern can also reflect legitimate phased work or multiple unrelated services with the same vendor. Tier 2: vendor-named observation, no individual characterization.
plain englishVendor "Triton Services" received 3 separate contracts inside a 90-day window that, combined, would normally require open competitive bidding. Often this reflects separate legitimate projects — sometimes it reflects a single project broken up to avoid extra review.
[sources & evidence ▸]
sources & evidence · contract_splittinghash:4e4dbf22…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Triton Services
contracts
{"id":"70ba921f-99fc-4fc2-ac02-de0a00e9818f","date":"2013-07-08","amount":73760,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"6ad32387-1cf3-413a-a514-08e4b2d0d9fb","date":"2013-07-08","amount":234570,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"81ef7727-8bc6-4ee4-b579-9073c50e9cba","date":"2013-08-05","amount":241371,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
549,701
contract_count
3
Every flag is a starting question, not a conclusion. The links above lead to the same public records the detector read — go look, and tell us if our reading is wrong (info@lexdoge.org).
May 27, 2026
Triton Services: 4 contracts within 90 days totaling $782,196 The vendor Triton Services received 4 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $782,196. When the combined value crosses a procurement-approval threshold but each individual award stays below it, the pattern is classically called 'contract splitting' and warrants further review against the procurement code and any justifications. The pattern can also reflect legitimate phased work or multiple unrelated services with the same vendor. Tier 2: vendor-named observation, no individual characterization.
plain englishVendor "Triton Services" received 4 separate contracts inside a 90-day window that, combined, would normally require open competitive bidding. Often this reflects separate legitimate projects — sometimes it reflects a single project broken up to avoid extra review.
[sources & evidence ▸]
sources & evidence · contract_splittinghash:9472653c…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Triton Services
contracts
{"id":"fffd1152-9ba6-466e-ab6f-8264d3119af2","date":"2013-06-06","amount":232495,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"70ba921f-99fc-4fc2-ac02-de0a00e9818f","date":"2013-07-08","amount":73760,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"6ad32387-1cf3-413a-a514-08e4b2d0d9fb","date":"2013-07-08","amount":234570,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"81ef7727-8bc6-4ee4-b579-9073c50e9cba","date":"2013-08-05","amount":241371,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
782,196
contract_count
4
Every flag is a starting question, not a conclusion. The links above lead to the same public records the detector read — go look, and tell us if our reading is wrong (info@lexdoge.org).
May 27, 2026
Triton Services: 5 contracts within 90 days totaling $1,008,996 The vendor Triton Services received 5 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $1,008,996. When the combined value crosses a procurement-approval threshold but each individual award stays below it, the pattern is classically called 'contract splitting' and warrants further review against the procurement code and any justifications. The pattern can also reflect legitimate phased work or multiple unrelated services with the same vendor. Tier 2: vendor-named observation, no individual characterization.
plain englishVendor "Triton Services" received 5 separate contracts inside a 90-day window that, combined, would normally require open competitive bidding. Often this reflects separate legitimate projects — sometimes it reflects a single project broken up to avoid extra review.
[sources & evidence ▸]
sources & evidence · contract_splittinghash:c72ad8a8…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Triton Services
contracts
{"id":"2e239422-a11a-4cd5-8431-1df53e75af88","date":"2013-05-14","amount":226800,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"fffd1152-9ba6-466e-ab6f-8264d3119af2","date":"2013-06-06","amount":232495,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"70ba921f-99fc-4fc2-ac02-de0a00e9818f","date":"2013-07-08","amount":73760,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"6ad32387-1cf3-413a-a514-08e4b2d0d9fb","date":"2013-07-08","amount":234570,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"81ef7727-8bc6-4ee4-b579-9073c50e9cba","date":"2013-08-05","amount":241371,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
1,008,996
contract_count
5
Every flag is a starting question, not a conclusion. The links above lead to the same public records the detector read — go look, and tell us if our reading is wrong (info@lexdoge.org).
May 27, 2026
Triton Services: 3 contracts within 90 days totaling $677,735 The vendor Triton Services received 3 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $677,735. When the combined value crosses a procurement-approval threshold but each individual award stays below it, the pattern is classically called 'contract splitting' and warrants further review against the procurement code and any justifications. The pattern can also reflect legitimate phased work or multiple unrelated services with the same vendor. Tier 2: vendor-named observation, no individual characterization.
plain englishVendor "Triton Services" received 3 separate contracts inside a 90-day window that, combined, would normally require open competitive bidding. Often this reflects separate legitimate projects — sometimes it reflects a single project broken up to avoid extra review.
[sources & evidence ▸]
sources & evidence · contract_splittinghash:96a4aa4b…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Triton Services
contracts
{"id":"42408844-211e-4725-9e92-3cc0117067d6","date":"2013-04-03","amount":218440,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"2e239422-a11a-4cd5-8431-1df53e75af88","date":"2013-05-14","amount":226800,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"fffd1152-9ba6-466e-ab6f-8264d3119af2","date":"2013-06-06","amount":232495,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
677,735
contract_count
3
Every flag is a starting question, not a conclusion. The links above lead to the same public records the detector read — go look, and tell us if our reading is wrong (info@lexdoge.org).
May 27, 2026
Tri-State Roofing and Sheet Metal Co.: 2 contracts within 90 days totaling $480,298 The vendor Tri-State Roofing and Sheet Metal Co. received 2 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $480,298. When the combined value crosses a procurement-approval threshold but each individual award stays below it, the pattern is classically called 'contract splitting' and warrants further review against the procurement code and any justifications. The pattern can also reflect legitimate phased work or multiple unrelated services with the same vendor. Tier 2: vendor-named observation, no individual characterization.
plain englishVendor "Tri-State Roofing and Sheet Metal Co." received 2 separate contracts inside a 90-day window that, combined, would normally require open competitive bidding. Often this reflects separate legitimate projects — sometimes it reflects a single project broken up to avoid extra review.
[sources & evidence ▸]
sources & evidence · contract_splittinghash:0df647f5…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Tri-State Roofing and Sheet Metal Co.
contracts
{"id":"9cb88631-ba54-4764-826c-2cf6f96a8e1a","date":"2017-06-12","amount":225249,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"66a0c961-2dcb-49b6-894d-9e82d7014ac0","date":"2017-07-03","amount":255049,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
480,298
contract_count
2
Every flag is a starting question, not a conclusion. The links above lead to the same public records the detector read — go look, and tell us if our reading is wrong (info@lexdoge.org).
May 27, 2026
Tribute Contracting & Consultants: 2 contracts within 90 days totaling $9,179,448 The vendor Tribute Contracting & Consultants received 2 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $9,179,448. When the combined value crosses a procurement-approval threshold but each individual award stays below it, the pattern is classically called 'contract splitting' and warrants further review against the procurement code and any justifications. The pattern can also reflect legitimate phased work or multiple unrelated services with the same vendor. Tier 2: vendor-named observation, no individual characterization.
plain englishVendor "Tribute Contracting & Consultants" received 2 separate contracts inside a 90-day window that, combined, would normally require open competitive bidding. Often this reflects separate legitimate projects — sometimes it reflects a single project broken up to avoid extra review.
[sources & evidence ▸]
sources & evidence · contract_splittinghash:3736e0cd…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Tribute Contracting & Consultants
contracts
{"id":"5f6b8ec0-7f40-49a3-a0ac-187005e42717","date":"2018-04-04","amount":2767032,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"873bf717-f632-4a6a-92c1-c3f0a0fa1ad0","date":"2018-05-25","amount":6412416,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
9,179,448
contract_count
2
Every flag is a starting question, not a conclusion. The links above lead to the same public records the detector read — go look, and tell us if our reading is wrong (info@lexdoge.org).
May 27, 2026
Todd Johnson Contracting: 2 contracts within 90 days totaling $1,660,961 The vendor Todd Johnson Contracting received 2 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $1,660,961. When the combined value crosses a procurement-approval threshold but each individual award stays below it, the pattern is classically called 'contract splitting' and warrants further review against the procurement code and any justifications. The pattern can also reflect legitimate phased work or multiple unrelated services with the same vendor. Tier 2: vendor-named observation, no individual characterization.
plain englishVendor "Todd Johnson Contracting" received 2 separate contracts inside a 90-day window that, combined, would normally require open competitive bidding. Often this reflects separate legitimate projects — sometimes it reflects a single project broken up to avoid extra review.
[sources & evidence ▸]
sources & evidence · contract_splittinghash:ed6c780d…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Todd Johnson Contracting
contracts
{"id":"18c9eb67-f843-4191-b151-f356b6770272","date":"2012-09-21","amount":184631.05,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"7aa4f9fc-5ee4-4999-98a3-db45c44037e2","date":"2012-11-12","amount":1476330.16,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
1,660,961.21
contract_count
2
Every flag is a starting question, not a conclusion. The links above lead to the same public records the detector read — go look, and tell us if our reading is wrong (info@lexdoge.org).
May 27, 2026
Tennis Technology: 2 contracts within 90 days totaling $76,915 The vendor Tennis Technology received 2 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $76,915. When the combined value crosses a procurement-approval threshold but each individual award stays below it, the pattern is classically called 'contract splitting' and warrants further review against the procurement code and any justifications. The pattern can also reflect legitimate phased work or multiple unrelated services with the same vendor. Tier 2: vendor-named observation, no individual characterization.
plain englishVendor "Tennis Technology" received 2 separate contracts inside a 90-day window that, combined, would normally require open competitive bidding. Often this reflects separate legitimate projects — sometimes it reflects a single project broken up to avoid extra review.
[sources & evidence ▸]
sources & evidence · contract_splittinghash:b2968616…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Tennis Technology
contracts
{"id":"29ca2a13-ca05-4ebd-9a8d-12116e8523c3","date":"2015-04-28","amount":55554,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"43bf4c74-ac59-4a54-b050-368203576c7b","date":"2015-06-11","amount":21361,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
76,915
contract_count
2
Every flag is a starting question, not a conclusion. The links above lead to the same public records the detector read — go look, and tell us if our reading is wrong (info@lexdoge.org).
May 27, 2026
Strand Associates: 2 contracts within 90 days totaling $405,480 The vendor Strand Associates received 2 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $405,480. When the combined value crosses a procurement-approval threshold but each individual award stays below it, the pattern is classically called 'contract splitting' and warrants further review against the procurement code and any justifications. The pattern can also reflect legitimate phased work or multiple unrelated services with the same vendor. Tier 2: vendor-named observation, no individual characterization.
plain englishVendor "Strand Associates" received 2 separate contracts inside a 90-day window that, combined, would normally require open competitive bidding. Often this reflects separate legitimate projects — sometimes it reflects a single project broken up to avoid extra review.
[sources & evidence ▸]
sources & evidence · contract_splittinghash:c99273fa…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Strand Associates
contracts
{"id":"18acebd8-ad13-4f5a-9801-6c310b34a8e1","date":"2024-08-21","amount":150000,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"75275b2d-e09b-4aca-aa97-f01d1ac2c5c8","date":"2024-11-04","amount":255480,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
405,480
contract_count
2
Every flag is a starting question, not a conclusion. The links above lead to the same public records the detector read — go look, and tell us if our reading is wrong (info@lexdoge.org).
May 27, 2026
Strand Associates: 2 contracts within 90 days totaling $373,280 The vendor Strand Associates received 2 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $373,280. When the combined value crosses a procurement-approval threshold but each individual award stays below it, the pattern is classically called 'contract splitting' and warrants further review against the procurement code and any justifications. The pattern can also reflect legitimate phased work or multiple unrelated services with the same vendor. Tier 2: vendor-named observation, no individual characterization.
plain englishVendor "Strand Associates" received 2 separate contracts inside a 90-day window that, combined, would normally require open competitive bidding. Often this reflects separate legitimate projects — sometimes it reflects a single project broken up to avoid extra review.
[sources & evidence ▸]
sources & evidence · contract_splittinghash:4ae46d7c…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Strand Associates
contracts
{"id":"ebe6b5a4-8000-4602-918f-8213510611ed","date":"2024-06-07","amount":223280,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"18acebd8-ad13-4f5a-9801-6c310b34a8e1","date":"2024-08-21","amount":150000,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
373,280
contract_count
2
Every flag is a starting question, not a conclusion. The links above lead to the same public records the detector read — go look, and tell us if our reading is wrong (info@lexdoge.org).
May 27, 2026
Strand Associates: 2 contracts within 90 days totaling $339,590 The vendor Strand Associates received 2 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $339,590. When the combined value crosses a procurement-approval threshold but each individual award stays below it, the pattern is classically called 'contract splitting' and warrants further review against the procurement code and any justifications. The pattern can also reflect legitimate phased work or multiple unrelated services with the same vendor. Tier 2: vendor-named observation, no individual characterization.
plain englishVendor "Strand Associates" received 2 separate contracts inside a 90-day window that, combined, would normally require open competitive bidding. Often this reflects separate legitimate projects — sometimes it reflects a single project broken up to avoid extra review.
[sources & evidence ▸]
sources & evidence · contract_splittinghash:f76cf89f…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Strand Associates
contracts
{"id":"809c960c-888e-4140-af93-d57f5119f95d","date":"2024-04-19","amount":116310,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"ebe6b5a4-8000-4602-918f-8213510611ed","date":"2024-06-07","amount":223280,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
339,590
contract_count
2
Every flag is a starting question, not a conclusion. The links above lead to the same public records the detector read — go look, and tell us if our reading is wrong (info@lexdoge.org).
May 27, 2026
Strand Associates: 2 contracts within 90 days totaling $1,360,643 The vendor Strand Associates received 2 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $1,360,643. When the combined value crosses a procurement-approval threshold but each individual award stays below it, the pattern is classically called 'contract splitting' and warrants further review against the procurement code and any justifications. The pattern can also reflect legitimate phased work or multiple unrelated services with the same vendor. Tier 2: vendor-named observation, no individual characterization.
plain englishVendor "Strand Associates" received 2 separate contracts inside a 90-day window that, combined, would normally require open competitive bidding. Often this reflects separate legitimate projects — sometimes it reflects a single project broken up to avoid extra review.
[sources & evidence ▸]
sources & evidence · contract_splittinghash:6e9d52ad…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Strand Associates
contracts
{"id":"b59bce8e-11b9-480d-bf62-ddf52cb10561","date":"2024-02-05","amount":1244333,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"809c960c-888e-4140-af93-d57f5119f95d","date":"2024-04-19","amount":116310,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
1,360,643
contract_count
2
Every flag is a starting question, not a conclusion. The links above lead to the same public records the detector read — go look, and tell us if our reading is wrong (info@lexdoge.org).
May 27, 2026
Strand Associates: 2 contracts within 90 days totaling $1,344,333 The vendor Strand Associates received 2 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $1,344,333. When the combined value crosses a procurement-approval threshold but each individual award stays below it, the pattern is classically called 'contract splitting' and warrants further review against the procurement code and any justifications. The pattern can also reflect legitimate phased work or multiple unrelated services with the same vendor. Tier 2: vendor-named observation, no individual characterization.
plain englishVendor "Strand Associates" received 2 separate contracts inside a 90-day window that, combined, would normally require open competitive bidding. Often this reflects separate legitimate projects — sometimes it reflects a single project broken up to avoid extra review.
[sources & evidence ▸]
sources & evidence · contract_splittinghash:b679dcbe…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Strand Associates
contracts
{"id":"63b3253a-c1ea-4052-964c-49069d09f58c","date":"2023-12-04","amount":100000,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"b59bce8e-11b9-480d-bf62-ddf52cb10561","date":"2024-02-05","amount":1244333,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
1,344,333
contract_count
2
Every flag is a starting question, not a conclusion. The links above lead to the same public records the detector read — go look, and tell us if our reading is wrong (info@lexdoge.org).
May 27, 2026
Strand Associates: 2 contracts within 90 days totaling $507,870 The vendor Strand Associates received 2 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $507,870. When the combined value crosses a procurement-approval threshold but each individual award stays below it, the pattern is classically called 'contract splitting' and warrants further review against the procurement code and any justifications. The pattern can also reflect legitimate phased work or multiple unrelated services with the same vendor. Tier 2: vendor-named observation, no individual characterization.
plain englishVendor "Strand Associates" received 2 separate contracts inside a 90-day window that, combined, would normally require open competitive bidding. Often this reflects separate legitimate projects — sometimes it reflects a single project broken up to avoid extra review.
[sources & evidence ▸]
sources & evidence · contract_splittinghash:3ce556a7…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Strand Associates
contracts
{"id":"20cd5235-8361-45bf-8fd2-febcf7d323f4","date":"2022-06-22","amount":275000,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"b0f08abc-48ed-40ca-80ad-2f6df096d19b","date":"2022-09-07","amount":232870,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
507,870
contract_count
2
Every flag is a starting question, not a conclusion. The links above lead to the same public records the detector read — go look, and tell us if our reading is wrong (info@lexdoge.org).
May 27, 2026
Strand Associates: 2 contracts within 90 days totaling $1,415,374 The vendor Strand Associates received 2 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $1,415,374. When the combined value crosses a procurement-approval threshold but each individual award stays below it, the pattern is classically called 'contract splitting' and warrants further review against the procurement code and any justifications. The pattern can also reflect legitimate phased work or multiple unrelated services with the same vendor. Tier 2: vendor-named observation, no individual characterization.
plain englishVendor "Strand Associates" received 2 separate contracts inside a 90-day window that, combined, would normally require open competitive bidding. Often this reflects separate legitimate projects — sometimes it reflects a single project broken up to avoid extra review.
[sources & evidence ▸]
sources & evidence · contract_splittinghash:f2aebaa1…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Strand Associates
contracts
{"id":"0c0f1527-5446-44b3-bb29-9fbdd7090011","date":"2022-04-18","amount":1140374,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"20cd5235-8361-45bf-8fd2-febcf7d323f4","date":"2022-06-22","amount":275000,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
1,415,374
contract_count
2
Every flag is a starting question, not a conclusion. The links above lead to the same public records the detector read — go look, and tell us if our reading is wrong (info@lexdoge.org).
May 27, 2026
Strand Associates: 2 contracts within 90 days totaling $1,190,258 The vendor Strand Associates received 2 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $1,190,258. When the combined value crosses a procurement-approval threshold but each individual award stays below it, the pattern is classically called 'contract splitting' and warrants further review against the procurement code and any justifications. The pattern can also reflect legitimate phased work or multiple unrelated services with the same vendor. Tier 2: vendor-named observation, no individual characterization.
plain englishVendor "Strand Associates" received 2 separate contracts inside a 90-day window that, combined, would normally require open competitive bidding. Often this reflects separate legitimate projects — sometimes it reflects a single project broken up to avoid extra review.
[sources & evidence ▸]
sources & evidence · contract_splittinghash:611a349b…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Strand Associates
contracts
{"id":"df94978c-cdc3-483f-9a49-33859d6abb66","date":"2017-02-03","amount":1030774,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"7c49da38-15ab-4851-b7e8-983b7675df11","date":"2017-03-30","amount":159484,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
1,190,258
contract_count
2
Every flag is a starting question, not a conclusion. The links above lead to the same public records the detector read — go look, and tell us if our reading is wrong (info@lexdoge.org).
May 27, 2026
Strand Associates: 3 contracts within 90 days totaling $1,795,893 The vendor Strand Associates received 3 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $1,795,893. When the combined value crosses a procurement-approval threshold but each individual award stays below it, the pattern is classically called 'contract splitting' and warrants further review against the procurement code and any justifications. The pattern can also reflect legitimate phased work or multiple unrelated services with the same vendor. Tier 2: vendor-named observation, no individual characterization.
plain englishVendor "Strand Associates" received 3 separate contracts inside a 90-day window that, combined, would normally require open competitive bidding. Often this reflects separate legitimate projects — sometimes it reflects a single project broken up to avoid extra review.
[sources & evidence ▸]
sources & evidence · contract_splittinghash:85dc7be4…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Strand Associates
contracts
{"id":"1614999d-7b10-4945-b584-4422a5d400ac","date":"2017-01-30","amount":605635,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"df94978c-cdc3-483f-9a49-33859d6abb66","date":"2017-02-03","amount":1030774,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"7c49da38-15ab-4851-b7e8-983b7675df11","date":"2017-03-30","amount":159484,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
1,795,893
contract_count
3
Every flag is a starting question, not a conclusion. The links above lead to the same public records the detector read — go look, and tell us if our reading is wrong (info@lexdoge.org).
May 27, 2026
Strand Associates: 2 contracts within 90 days totaling $3,212,100 The vendor Strand Associates received 2 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $3,212,100. When the combined value crosses a procurement-approval threshold but each individual award stays below it, the pattern is classically called 'contract splitting' and warrants further review against the procurement code and any justifications. The pattern can also reflect legitimate phased work or multiple unrelated services with the same vendor. Tier 2: vendor-named observation, no individual characterization.
plain englishVendor "Strand Associates" received 2 separate contracts inside a 90-day window that, combined, would normally require open competitive bidding. Often this reflects separate legitimate projects — sometimes it reflects a single project broken up to avoid extra review.
[sources & evidence ▸]
sources & evidence · contract_splittinghash:0737c099…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Strand Associates
contracts
{"id":"46308715-88c2-460c-9ae6-25128430bc2e","date":"2015-06-22","amount":286600,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"7cf1245f-af21-4240-87bb-c6349fea92d0","date":"2015-08-21","amount":2925500,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
3,212,100
contract_count
2
Every flag is a starting question, not a conclusion. The links above lead to the same public records the detector read — go look, and tell us if our reading is wrong (info@lexdoge.org).