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 51–100 of 503 flags
sorted by severity · page 2 of 11
50 flags · on this page
sorted by severity
May 27, 2026
Strand Associates: 2 contracts within 90 days totaling $214,320 The vendor Strand Associates received 2 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $214,320. 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:7e4c6b91…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Strand Associates
contracts
{"id":"39856452-844f-43c5-8414-30dd0f06821f","date":"2014-12-16","amount":139320,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"df992a2f-36cb-4598-be19-c4cfffccbe9b","date":"2014-12-29","amount":75000,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
214,320
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
Stantec Consulting Services: 2 contracts within 90 days totaling $369,000 The vendor Stantec Consulting Services received 2 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $369,000. 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 "Stantec Consulting 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:74054614…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Stantec Consulting Services
contracts
{"id":"0b17a68d-0f04-450e-8754-8fc9e29af3e1","date":"2020-02-06","amount":94000,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"d13bb8d8-dff2-486d-aa39-f6aa52681f6c","date":"2020-04-29","amount":275000,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
369,000
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
Solid Rock Construction Services: 2 contracts within 90 days totaling $523,748 The vendor Solid Rock Construction Services received 2 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $523,748. 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 "Solid Rock Construction 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:7fc41cb1…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Solid Rock Construction Services
contracts
{"id":"3022d58c-871c-4553-8f5f-98fc501c4c42","date":"2016-08-02","amount":261874.24,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"ded11738-c792-4467-bbb0-2dc12df7bc52","date":"2016-09-22","amount":261874.24,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
523,748.48
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
Smith Contractors: 2 contracts within 90 days totaling $29,131,803 The vendor Smith Contractors received 2 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $29,131,803. 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 "Smith Contractors" 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:9847c096…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Smith Contractors
contracts
{"id":"b075a4da-8d11-4209-814b-1e0696c0a753","date":"2014-04-22","amount":14534225.81,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"646737e5-f7f7-47f8-ad5d-f76da445c195","date":"2014-04-22","amount":14597577.56,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
29,131,803.37
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
Smith Contractors: 3 contracts within 90 days totaling $43,567,195 The vendor Smith Contractors received 3 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $43,567,195. 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 "Smith Contractors" 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:32b009c2…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Smith Contractors
contracts
{"id":"010f3ea2-c39f-4c13-8cbe-8c7c34f00c4a","date":"2014-03-14","amount":14435391.34,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"b075a4da-8d11-4209-814b-1e0696c0a753","date":"2014-04-22","amount":14534225.81,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"646737e5-f7f7-47f8-ad5d-f76da445c195","date":"2014-04-22","amount":14597577.56,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
43,567,194.71
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
Smith Contractors: 4 contracts within 90 days totaling $43,877,195 The vendor Smith Contractors received 4 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $43,877,195. 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 "Smith Contractors" 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:a152d2cf…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Smith Contractors
contracts
{"id":"6b86cf89-0157-4856-a7d2-9defd867768d","date":"2014-02-14","amount":310000,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"010f3ea2-c39f-4c13-8cbe-8c7c34f00c4a","date":"2014-03-14","amount":14435391.34,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"b075a4da-8d11-4209-814b-1e0696c0a753","date":"2014-04-22","amount":14534225.81,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"646737e5-f7f7-47f8-ad5d-f76da445c195","date":"2014-04-22","amount":14597577.56,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
43,877,194.71
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
Smith Contractors: 5 contracts within 90 days totaling $45,024,095 The vendor Smith Contractors received 5 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $45,024,095. 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 "Smith Contractors" 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:12d39763…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Smith Contractors
contracts
{"id":"f3f3b086-c9cd-41c0-8c8c-ebc3361ab5d9","date":"2014-02-04","amount":1146900,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"6b86cf89-0157-4856-a7d2-9defd867768d","date":"2014-02-14","amount":310000,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"010f3ea2-c39f-4c13-8cbe-8c7c34f00c4a","date":"2014-03-14","amount":14435391.34,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"b075a4da-8d11-4209-814b-1e0696c0a753","date":"2014-04-22","amount":14534225.81,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"646737e5-f7f7-47f8-ad5d-f76da445c195","date":"2014-04-22","amount":14597577.56,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
45,024,094.71
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
Smith Contractors: 2 contracts within 90 days totaling $2,185,900 The vendor Smith Contractors received 2 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $2,185,900. 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 "Smith Contractors" 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:22d18f6b…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Smith Contractors
contracts
{"id":"d97004cf-6a10-43ad-9b2a-c6a026237cda","date":"2012-10-25","amount":1039000,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"257b689c-3918-4477-9d73-8d0e00845890","date":"2012-11-26","amount":1146900,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
2,185,900
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
Smith Contractors: 3 contracts within 90 days totaling $15,628,623 The vendor Smith Contractors received 3 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $15,628,623. 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 "Smith Contractors" 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:911fd8f7…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Smith Contractors
contracts
{"id":"38eb4551-52b9-41e9-9f53-c22efba70ab5","date":"2012-10-02","amount":13442723,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"d97004cf-6a10-43ad-9b2a-c6a026237cda","date":"2012-10-25","amount":1039000,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"257b689c-3918-4477-9d73-8d0e00845890","date":"2012-11-26","amount":1146900,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
15,628,623
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
Smith Contractors: 3 contracts within 90 days totaling $19,342,723 The vendor Smith Contractors received 3 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $19,342,723. 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 "Smith Contractors" 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:d714c16f…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Smith Contractors
contracts
{"id":"7c34bd70-1654-4284-8143-95413c7aa97d","date":"2012-08-06","amount":4861000,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"38eb4551-52b9-41e9-9f53-c22efba70ab5","date":"2012-10-02","amount":13442723,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"d97004cf-6a10-43ad-9b2a-c6a026237cda","date":"2012-10-25","amount":1039000,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
19,342,723
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
Siemens Healthcare Diagnostics: 2 contracts within 90 days totaling $454,588 The vendor Siemens Healthcare Diagnostics received 2 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $454,588. 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 "Siemens Healthcare Diagnostics" 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:3326e20c…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Siemens Healthcare Diagnostics
contracts
{"id":"e2345a5c-a121-4ade-9a46-801b02aad365","date":"2017-06-13","amount":227293.87,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"966b216b-3cb4-4c17-943a-df5e2a209ff1","date":"2017-09-05","amount":227293.87,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
454,587.74
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
Sensabaugh Design and Construction: 2 contracts within 90 days totaling $389,550 The vendor Sensabaugh Design and Construction received 2 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $389,550. 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 "Sensabaugh Design and Construction" 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:9cf769fe…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Sensabaugh Design and Construction
contracts
{"id":"9b9a6ad8-fb83-4f8f-9511-f9feb98b412e","date":"2012-05-11","amount":192275,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"fd8367cf-ac0a-45e2-bc5f-118a905ffcd2","date":"2012-06-20","amount":197275,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
389,550
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
Seagrave Fire Apparatus: 2 contracts within 90 days totaling $2,850,737 The vendor Seagrave Fire Apparatus received 2 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $2,850,737. 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 "Seagrave Fire Apparatus" 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:331ad156…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Seagrave Fire Apparatus
contracts
{"id":"01e3e6f1-28c4-4fcb-b688-09af027c5a53","date":"2023-03-06","amount":1869224,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"03b0c22e-12d5-454c-9376-c733f6d1957e","date":"2023-03-07","amount":981513,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
2,850,737
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
Seagrave Fire Apparatus: 3 contracts within 90 days totaling $4,493,420 The vendor Seagrave Fire Apparatus received 3 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $4,493,420. 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 "Seagrave Fire Apparatus" 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:e3227b87…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Seagrave Fire Apparatus
contracts
{"id":"1723ec50-811a-4422-8018-815555eda0d8","date":"2023-01-24","amount":1642683,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"01e3e6f1-28c4-4fcb-b688-09af027c5a53","date":"2023-03-06","amount":1869224,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"03b0c22e-12d5-454c-9376-c733f6d1957e","date":"2023-03-07","amount":981513,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
4,493,420
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
Schaefer Contracting: 2 contracts within 90 days totaling $404,422 The vendor Schaefer Contracting received 2 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $404,422. 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 "Schaefer 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:03609b02…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Schaefer Contracting
contracts
{"id":"4e014938-e5b5-4716-9f91-fe6c51468299","date":"2015-11-17","amount":188851,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"f534199d-4207-41fb-bbb9-c621753d0796","date":"2015-12-08","amount":215571,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
404,422
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
Schaefer Contracting: 3 contracts within 90 days totaling $587,705 The vendor Schaefer Contracting received 3 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $587,705. 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 "Schaefer Contracting" 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:f6acdeef…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Schaefer Contracting
contracts
{"id":"5588ba6d-9f6b-49e3-b596-5500c54d9fd0","date":"2015-10-12","amount":183283,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"4e014938-e5b5-4716-9f91-fe6c51468299","date":"2015-11-17","amount":188851,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"f534199d-4207-41fb-bbb9-c621753d0796","date":"2015-12-08","amount":215571,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
587,705
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
Schaefer Contracting: 4 contracts within 90 days totaling $763,379 The vendor Schaefer Contracting received 4 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $763,379. 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 "Schaefer Contracting" 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:73db7f5b…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Schaefer Contracting
contracts
{"id":"5e9c1a7c-d336-459d-8ec5-8b4c62a7be9f","date":"2015-09-28","amount":175674,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"5588ba6d-9f6b-49e3-b596-5500c54d9fd0","date":"2015-10-12","amount":183283,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"4e014938-e5b5-4716-9f91-fe6c51468299","date":"2015-11-17","amount":188851,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"f534199d-4207-41fb-bbb9-c621753d0796","date":"2015-12-08","amount":215571,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
763,379
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
Routeware: 2 contracts within 90 days totaling $76,878 The vendor Routeware received 2 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $76,878. 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 "Routeware" 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:ec53a097…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Routeware
contracts
{"id":"d9ec2cf7-167a-435e-bea7-c2ae09e0f777","date":"2020-06-19","amount":43905.36,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"564e3627-a40e-443e-856b-049eb4f42ddb","date":"2020-07-27","amount":32972.46,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
76,877.82
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
Randle-Davies Construction Co.: 2 contracts within 90 days totaling $258,680 The vendor Randle-Davies Construction Co. received 2 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $258,680. 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 "Randle-Davies 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:a879d24f…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Randle-Davies Construction Co.
contracts
{"id":"b4cd373d-d0eb-48c5-a0a5-eff930d9d173","date":"2016-02-25","amount":128940,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"f2f298c2-c968-4085-93aa-699425c36776","date":"2016-04-25","amount":129740,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
258,680
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
Randle-Davies Construction Co.: 2 contracts within 90 days totaling $131,243 The vendor Randle-Davies Construction Co. received 2 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $131,243. 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 "Randle-Davies 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:75540f34…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Randle-Davies Construction Co.
contracts
{"id":"231eb208-2d35-47c0-847b-e724268497ee","date":"2015-04-17","amount":49880,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"99b14e84-a704-41a2-a10e-a56dd6fd32d3","date":"2015-05-27","amount":81363.33,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
131,243.33
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
Randle-Davies Construction Co.: 3 contracts within 90 days totaling $656,454 The vendor Randle-Davies Construction Co. received 3 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $656,454. 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 "Randle-Davies 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:9cd345d0…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Randle-Davies Construction Co.
contracts
{"id":"2d818605-f549-4c8e-bd70-b7b9e4f55dc2","date":"2015-03-13","amount":525211.17,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"231eb208-2d35-47c0-847b-e724268497ee","date":"2015-04-17","amount":49880,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"99b14e84-a704-41a2-a10e-a56dd6fd32d3","date":"2015-05-27","amount":81363.33,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
656,454.5
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
Primus Electronics: 2 contracts within 90 days totaling $66,000 The vendor Primus Electronics received 2 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $66,000. 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 "Primus Electronics" 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:64624b1d…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Primus Electronics
contracts
{"id":"1fb3d777-278f-4a9f-b3d1-ead50281997a","date":"2014-06-06","amount":26000,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"31dbc9bd-1172-4a8c-bcf6-86ea06e5cd43","date":"2014-08-08","amount":40000,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
66,000
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
Prime AE: 2 contracts within 90 days totaling $474,523 The vendor Prime AE received 2 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $474,523. 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 "Prime AE" 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:5b4e80be…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Prime AE
contracts
{"id":"b7ee273b-cb3a-4b26-8224-b9db209f00d1","date":"2024-08-13","amount":69400,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"c8fe7338-ab76-46d0-91c7-b756013472c7","date":"2024-08-30","amount":405123,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
474,523
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
Pinnacle Pollution Control Services: 2 contracts within 90 days totaling $97,069 The vendor Pinnacle Pollution Control Services received 2 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $97,069. 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 "Pinnacle Pollution Control 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:00ee67ec…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Pinnacle Pollution Control Services
contracts
{"id":"c10546dc-0042-4d20-a650-8cc22f89580a","date":"2014-03-24","amount":78488.56,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"dd4109f4-7d06-4ef2-92f4-beca03836a03","date":"2014-03-24","amount":18580.54,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
97,069.1
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
Palmer Engineering: 2 contracts within 90 days totaling $965,602 The vendor Palmer Engineering received 2 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $965,602. 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 "Palmer Engineering" 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:67f2210a…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Palmer Engineering
contracts
{"id":"050bd6f3-db5b-40de-bb3d-ee6365fb8453","date":"2025-04-21","amount":809002,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"91c7a931-9e7e-4a32-b45a-977f86b15229","date":"2025-06-13","amount":156600,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
965,602
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
Palmer Engineering: 2 contracts within 90 days totaling $1,724,579 The vendor Palmer Engineering received 2 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $1,724,579. 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 "Palmer Engineering" 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:32624ec4…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Palmer Engineering
contracts
{"id":"faaa7b28-7b6b-4868-82a9-dabe9179b168","date":"2024-03-22","amount":938577,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"bd80db70-a296-4693-98fc-040cf8a78209","date":"2024-04-05","amount":786002,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
1,724,579
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
Palmer Engineering: 2 contracts within 90 days totaling $199,672 The vendor Palmer Engineering received 2 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $199,672. 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 "Palmer Engineering" 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:f6c3abdf…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Palmer Engineering
contracts
{"id":"aa8fa6af-da95-4451-8921-fd7f3e9d41cb","date":"2017-09-18","amount":99953,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"59c5ab23-04d0-4a4d-963a-051c24e0e9f3","date":"2017-10-05","amount":99719,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
199,672
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
Pace Contracting: 2 contracts within 90 days totaling $1,270,932 The vendor Pace Contracting received 2 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $1,270,932. 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 "Pace 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:17b52068…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Pace Contracting
contracts
{"id":"3889834e-4d49-43b1-b2cf-0c5a5d9f5de0","date":"2026-04-15","amount":424000,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"b7d21561-1e86-4fa6-9191-ae36c964b639","date":"2026-05-21","amount":846932.5,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
1,270,932.5
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
Pace Contracting: 2 contracts within 90 days totaling $23,766,834 The vendor Pace Contracting received 2 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $23,766,834. 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 "Pace 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:2df68dc8…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Pace Contracting
contracts
{"id":"3f386cf1-ae23-492d-a3cd-d13b130f4845","date":"2023-01-06","amount":22258487.96,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"d18862ce-a405-4988-84f1-a6ffbdb9259f","date":"2023-02-27","amount":1508345.9,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
23,766,833.86
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
Pace Contracting: 3 contracts within 90 days totaling $25,246,882 The vendor Pace Contracting received 3 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $25,246,882. 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 "Pace Contracting" 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:57af314c…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Pace Contracting
contracts
{"id":"e4b6794d-6cff-49b2-927c-63a1e721c43d","date":"2022-11-29","amount":1480048.15,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"3f386cf1-ae23-492d-a3cd-d13b130f4845","date":"2023-01-06","amount":22258487.96,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"d18862ce-a405-4988-84f1-a6ffbdb9259f","date":"2023-02-27","amount":1508345.9,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
25,246,882.01
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
Pace Contracting: 3 contracts within 90 days totaling $25,199,847 The vendor Pace Contracting received 3 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $25,199,847. 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 "Pace Contracting" 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:3c3014ce…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Pace Contracting
contracts
{"id":"81e7fc00-f28d-4e01-befb-ad201983a1b0","date":"2022-11-14","amount":1461311.13,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"e4b6794d-6cff-49b2-927c-63a1e721c43d","date":"2022-11-29","amount":1480048.15,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"3f386cf1-ae23-492d-a3cd-d13b130f4845","date":"2023-01-06","amount":22258487.96,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
25,199,847.24
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
Pace Contracting: 2 contracts within 90 days totaling $23,558,830 The vendor Pace Contracting received 2 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $23,558,830. 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 "Pace 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:cac8a3cb…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Pace Contracting
contracts
{"id":"37bf6446-357f-493e-a468-bf177c9c2c7a","date":"2022-08-22","amount":22097518.78,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"81e7fc00-f28d-4e01-befb-ad201983a1b0","date":"2022-11-14","amount":1461311.13,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
23,558,829.91
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
Pace Contracting: 3 contracts within 90 days totaling $24,970,693 The vendor Pace Contracting received 3 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $24,970,693. 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 "Pace Contracting" 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:8449e6f9…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Pace Contracting
contracts
{"id":"26e570c4-c311-4c0d-9e51-77382572a525","date":"2022-08-22","amount":1411863.18,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"37bf6446-357f-493e-a468-bf177c9c2c7a","date":"2022-08-22","amount":22097518.78,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"81e7fc00-f28d-4e01-befb-ad201983a1b0","date":"2022-11-14","amount":1461311.13,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
24,970,693.09
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
Pace Contracting: 2 contracts within 90 days totaling $24,094,662 The vendor Pace Contracting received 2 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $24,094,662. 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 "Pace 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:d18258d0…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Pace Contracting
contracts
{"id":"43486222-2bac-4766-8bf7-e2fff324abfc","date":"2019-11-19","amount":3900727,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"1a951c84-d976-4ecb-a3f5-cb450a7c6acf","date":"2020-01-08","amount":20193934.98,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
24,094,661.98
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
Pace Contracting: 2 contracts within 90 days totaling $1,880,612 The vendor Pace Contracting received 2 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $1,880,612. 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 "Pace 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:e2edb534…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Pace Contracting
contracts
{"id":"186132ee-afff-4962-b962-f122dd2a493d","date":"2018-05-18","amount":936021.45,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"e6b31084-43dc-43e1-985a-e8bac530e257","date":"2018-08-03","amount":944590.16,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
1,880,611.61
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
Pace Contracting: 2 contracts within 90 days totaling $1,869,993 The vendor Pace Contracting received 2 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $1,869,993. 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 "Pace 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:0100ac30…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Pace Contracting
contracts
{"id":"4fa09c99-1b6c-4ec2-b592-10899bcd981d","date":"2018-04-03","amount":933971.22,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"186132ee-afff-4962-b962-f122dd2a493d","date":"2018-05-18","amount":936021.45,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
1,869,992.67
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
Pace Contracting: 3 contracts within 90 days totaling $3,079,072 The vendor Pace Contracting received 3 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $3,079,072. 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 "Pace Contracting" 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:6d859b6d…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Pace Contracting
contracts
{"id":"3be136fb-8a89-4d3b-aafc-131888b57d42","date":"2018-03-19","amount":1209079.66,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"4fa09c99-1b6c-4ec2-b592-10899bcd981d","date":"2018-04-03","amount":933971.22,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"186132ee-afff-4962-b962-f122dd2a493d","date":"2018-05-18","amount":936021.45,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
3,079,072.33
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
Pace Contracting: 2 contracts within 90 days totaling $2,161,305 The vendor Pace Contracting received 2 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $2,161,305. 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 "Pace 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:267f4f8c…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Pace Contracting
contracts
{"id":"be0a7a9e-d9ce-459f-8df5-b8f9f1e08760","date":"2017-10-30","amount":1236304.66,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"d0c2f254-b597-47dc-8d2a-6c64fe8a726c","date":"2017-11-09","amount":925000,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
2,161,304.66
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
Pace Contracting: 2 contracts within 90 days totaling $2,451,439 The vendor Pace Contracting received 2 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $2,451,439. 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 "Pace 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:cf52fefc…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Pace Contracting
contracts
{"id":"4be2727d-9e95-48db-9277-6ba28b51ed83","date":"2017-08-04","amount":1215134.42,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"be0a7a9e-d9ce-459f-8df5-b8f9f1e08760","date":"2017-10-30","amount":1236304.66,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
2,451,439.08
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
Pace Contracting: 2 contracts within 90 days totaling $2,409,250 The vendor Pace Contracting received 2 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $2,409,250. 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 "Pace 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:19e6f22e…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Pace Contracting
contracts
{"id":"0a4deadd-64ad-4565-ae02-2e326cf2852c","date":"2017-05-15","amount":1194115.79,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"4be2727d-9e95-48db-9277-6ba28b51ed83","date":"2017-08-04","amount":1215134.42,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
2,409,250.21
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
Oracle Elevator: 2 contracts within 90 days totaling $1,145,480 The vendor Oracle Elevator received 2 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $1,145,480. 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 "Oracle Elevator" 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:e0157ef8…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Oracle Elevator
contracts
{"id":"52e92e5f-cca2-4597-bcc5-be71744f0449","date":"2013-09-24","amount":572739.91,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"b9726fe3-928f-4b90-af56-29259d9021e0","date":"2013-11-19","amount":572739.91,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
1,145,479.82
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
Oracle Elevator: 3 contracts within 90 days totaling $1,716,552 The vendor Oracle Elevator received 3 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $1,716,552. 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 "Oracle Elevator" 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:48c22a1c…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Oracle Elevator
contracts
{"id":"17cbe18b-bdb2-4cda-abb3-70ef152565df","date":"2013-08-30","amount":571072.31,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"52e92e5f-cca2-4597-bcc5-be71744f0449","date":"2013-09-24","amount":572739.91,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"b9726fe3-928f-4b90-af56-29259d9021e0","date":"2013-11-19","amount":572739.91,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
1,716,552.13
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
Omnisource: 2 contracts within 90 days totaling $73,000 The vendor Omnisource received 2 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $73,000. 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 "Omnisource" 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:8da9c887…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Omnisource
contracts
{"id":"ebfd8c5f-4bfe-4599-87da-15bafff29334","date":"2013-12-23","amount":32000,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"e4171823-18b1-495e-9272-c8451d8481d1","date":"2014-03-04","amount":41000,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
73,000
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
Omni Commercial: 2 contracts within 90 days totaling $1,572,934 The vendor Omni Commercial received 2 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $1,572,934. 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 "Omni Commercial" 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:46eca518…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Omni Commercial
contracts
{"id":"70b8fedc-3f67-4cea-bc46-5f278ca1ca8c","date":"2024-01-25","amount":1478434.11,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"125cd593-213f-42d8-8bab-62a257ba9925","date":"2024-02-29","amount":94500,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
1,572,934.11
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
Omni Commercial: 2 contracts within 90 days totaling $483,683 The vendor Omni Commercial received 2 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $483,683. 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 "Omni Commercial" 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:ceafed16…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Omni Commercial
contracts
{"id":"435c4af2-b733-4f6a-a508-52b7953ab465","date":"2017-03-03","amount":25900,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"42983e55-b434-480f-8ec4-10d32924c699","date":"2017-03-28","amount":457783,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
483,683
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
Omni Commercial: 3 contracts within 90 days totaling $741,874 The vendor Omni Commercial received 3 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $741,874. 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 "Omni Commercial" 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:1ffd70ae…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Omni Commercial
contracts
{"id":"243155fe-f92a-4ba9-9e3a-4458db372dc6","date":"2017-02-16","amount":258191,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"435c4af2-b733-4f6a-a508-52b7953ab465","date":"2017-03-03","amount":25900,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"42983e55-b434-480f-8ec4-10d32924c699","date":"2017-03-28","amount":457783,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
741,874
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
Omni Commercial: 4 contracts within 90 days totaling $989,565 The vendor Omni Commercial received 4 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $989,565. 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 "Omni Commercial" 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:d889d74a…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Omni Commercial
contracts
{"id":"ffe9e8d7-7cbc-414f-a180-1c3e5ee3f869","date":"2017-01-05","amount":247691,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"243155fe-f92a-4ba9-9e3a-4458db372dc6","date":"2017-02-16","amount":258191,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"435c4af2-b733-4f6a-a508-52b7953ab465","date":"2017-03-03","amount":25900,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"42983e55-b434-480f-8ec4-10d32924c699","date":"2017-03-28","amount":457783,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
989,565
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
Omni Commercial: 3 contracts within 90 days totaling $733,882 The vendor Omni Commercial received 3 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $733,882. 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 "Omni Commercial" 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:e182a316…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Omni Commercial
contracts
{"id":"6c71476c-628d-4dd4-b103-7d882010817e","date":"2016-11-22","amount":228000,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"ffe9e8d7-7cbc-414f-a180-1c3e5ee3f869","date":"2017-01-05","amount":247691,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"243155fe-f92a-4ba9-9e3a-4458db372dc6","date":"2017-02-16","amount":258191,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
733,882
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
Olympic Construction: 2 contracts within 90 days totaling $578,700 The vendor Olympic Construction received 2 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $578,700. 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 "Olympic Construction" 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:533e6ae0…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Olympic Construction
contracts
{"id":"1104f352-68bd-41ca-8113-0104d917d753","date":"2019-12-11","amount":50200,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"90fef497-eb6b-4d4a-88a7-7a9432497a5f","date":"2020-01-30","amount":528500,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
578,700
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
Olympic Construction: 3 contracts within 90 days totaling $628,900 The vendor Olympic Construction received 3 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $628,900. 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 "Olympic Construction" 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:fa51acd4…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Olympic Construction
contracts
{"id":"ee74005b-8840-4a58-8533-51270ea66d9f","date":"2019-11-14","amount":50200,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"1104f352-68bd-41ca-8113-0104d917d753","date":"2019-12-11","amount":50200,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"90fef497-eb6b-4d4a-88a7-7a9432497a5f","date":"2020-01-30","amount":528500,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
628,900
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).