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 101–150 of 503 flags
sorted by severity · page 3 of 11
50 flags · on this page
sorted by severity
May 27, 2026
Olympic Construction: 2 contracts within 90 days totaling $4,840,807 The vendor Olympic Construction received 2 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $4,840,807. 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:1bb277c5…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Olympic Construction
contracts
{"id":"9bdbf24e-43eb-40bc-b36a-9c050e0a7785","date":"2018-05-22","amount":316406.82,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"c212849e-6386-40ce-bfa4-dfd977eb167b","date":"2018-06-21","amount":4524400.01,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
4,840,806.83
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: 2 contracts within 90 days totaling $4,714,100 The vendor Olympic Construction received 2 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $4,714,100. 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 "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:1064d027…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Olympic Construction
contracts
{"id":"406e2ddd-d698-4a04-9d6d-b84e58d476a7","date":"2017-11-27","amount":271000,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"53dbd6cd-9a3c-4815-8a0f-b0c23a8c18d5","date":"2017-12-07","amount":4443100,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
4,714,100
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).
May 27, 2026
Olympic Construction: 3 contracts within 90 days totaling $5,030,507 The vendor Olympic Construction received 3 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $5,030,507. 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:a8ffe272…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Olympic Construction
contracts
{"id":"bb25607b-ae07-42c2-aad0-aba6a36d1c22","date":"2017-11-20","amount":316406.82,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"406e2ddd-d698-4a04-9d6d-b84e58d476a7","date":"2017-11-27","amount":271000,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"53dbd6cd-9a3c-4815-8a0f-b0c23a8c18d5","date":"2017-12-07","amount":4443100,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
5,030,506.82
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: 4 contracts within 90 days totaling $9,473,607 The vendor Olympic Construction received 4 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $9,473,607. 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 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:48025214…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Olympic Construction
contracts
{"id":"dbff6fee-ac03-46f1-995d-7b17d7a98ec6","date":"2017-10-31","amount":4443100,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"bb25607b-ae07-42c2-aad0-aba6a36d1c22","date":"2017-11-20","amount":316406.82,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"406e2ddd-d698-4a04-9d6d-b84e58d476a7","date":"2017-11-27","amount":271000,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"53dbd6cd-9a3c-4815-8a0f-b0c23a8c18d5","date":"2017-12-07","amount":4443100,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
9,473,606.82
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
Olympic Construction: 5 contracts within 90 days totaling $9,597,017 The vendor Olympic Construction received 5 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $9,597,017. 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 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:8f1673da…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Olympic Construction
contracts
{"id":"6f50aa24-b91d-482a-89ea-371d9e4e5d83","date":"2017-09-20","amount":123410,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"dbff6fee-ac03-46f1-995d-7b17d7a98ec6","date":"2017-10-31","amount":4443100,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"bb25607b-ae07-42c2-aad0-aba6a36d1c22","date":"2017-11-20","amount":316406.82,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"406e2ddd-d698-4a04-9d6d-b84e58d476a7","date":"2017-11-27","amount":271000,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"53dbd6cd-9a3c-4815-8a0f-b0c23a8c18d5","date":"2017-12-07","amount":4443100,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
9,597,016.82
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
Olympic Construction: 2 contracts within 90 days totaling $420,785 The vendor Olympic Construction received 2 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $420,785. 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:64c2c22f…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Olympic Construction
contracts
{"id":"48334be0-d3d8-49f8-bf68-b3909ef6adab","date":"2017-04-27","amount":125985,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"23927ef6-822a-4ec8-98a6-7c078067ad0e","date":"2017-05-05","amount":294800,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
420,785
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 $5,102,073 The vendor Olympic Construction received 3 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $5,102,073. 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:9e2231a6…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Olympic Construction
contracts
{"id":"ac5b773f-7ab5-42e3-a0aa-ac24e3926a7c","date":"2017-02-15","amount":4681287.83,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"48334be0-d3d8-49f8-bf68-b3909ef6adab","date":"2017-04-27","amount":125985,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"23927ef6-822a-4ec8-98a6-7c078067ad0e","date":"2017-05-05","amount":294800,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
5,102,072.83
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
Nuday: 2 contracts within 90 days totaling $203,455 The vendor Nuday received 2 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $203,455. 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 "Nuday" 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:d5cc2bdc…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Nuday
contracts
{"id":"6855f5c7-765e-4c8d-a0bf-bfe46c25833e","date":"2016-06-20","amount":185891.78,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"10f8ee88-219a-4937-a577-de7b07887972","date":"2016-06-28","amount":17563,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
203,454.78
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
Nuday: 3 contracts within 90 days totaling $366,918 The vendor Nuday received 3 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $366,918. 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 "Nuday" 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:6f9a96c1…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Nuday
contracts
{"id":"f4142de8-de6e-4de8-9b39-123d7799b114","date":"2016-04-18","amount":163463.36,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"6855f5c7-765e-4c8d-a0bf-bfe46c25833e","date":"2016-06-20","amount":185891.78,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"10f8ee88-219a-4937-a577-de7b07887972","date":"2016-06-28","amount":17563,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
366,918.14
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
Nuday: 2 contracts within 90 days totaling $316,441 The vendor Nuday received 2 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $316,441. 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 "Nuday" 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:8cf22622…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Nuday
contracts
{"id":"05c7c255-5ae2-4590-b16c-848009eb8b5d","date":"2016-02-10","amount":152978,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"f4142de8-de6e-4de8-9b39-123d7799b114","date":"2016-04-18","amount":163463.36,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
316,441.36
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
Northern Ky. Legal Aid Society: 2 contracts within 90 days totaling $245,306 The vendor Northern Ky. Legal Aid Society received 2 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $245,306. 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 "Northern Ky. Legal Aid Society" 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:2fc75607…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Northern Ky. Legal Aid Society
contracts
{"id":"f1266913-c7b0-4795-b016-8aeac1984ec7","date":"2025-11-18","amount":150000,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"bb675a0a-3e1a-49f3-b33f-a92f947d5c60","date":"2025-11-19","amount":95305.99,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
245,305.99
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
New Life Day Center: 2 contracts within 90 days totaling $70,000 The vendor New Life Day Center received 2 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $70,000. 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 "New Life Day Center" 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:bd566919…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
New Life Day Center
contracts
{"id":"1975ea78-34b5-4945-a645-9690168df717","date":"2017-03-29","amount":20000,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"de0a974e-46af-45ba-9830-618e42b036d9","date":"2017-04-26","amount":50000,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
70,000
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
NAMI Lexington: 2 contracts within 90 days totaling $270,000 The vendor NAMI Lexington received 2 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $270,000. 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 "NAMI Lexington" 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:39913101…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
NAMI Lexington
contracts
{"id":"0d3d0c27-fe4e-438d-b2c7-5234444a8809","date":"2024-05-31","amount":170000,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"cdc71f69-73d1-40b9-9774-8fcdfb4a2647","date":"2024-06-13","amount":100000,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
270,000
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
NAMI Lexington: 2 contracts within 90 days totaling $225,000 The vendor NAMI Lexington received 2 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $225,000. 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 "NAMI Lexington" 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:612ea594…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
NAMI Lexington
contracts
{"id":"147668b9-821b-4962-aeee-2e8bad20c1ce","date":"2023-05-30","amount":170000,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"d05a5334-28f2-4716-91ea-3b8b76081a9d","date":"2023-08-08","amount":55000,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
225,000
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
Mitchell Construction Management: 2 contracts within 90 days totaling $333,015 The vendor Mitchell Construction Management received 2 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $333,015. 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 "Mitchell Construction Management" 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:b384c72c…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Mitchell Construction Management
contracts
{"id":"00b51496-db35-4515-9136-9e4a285b840a","date":"2015-06-17","amount":165465,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"d4f26d37-315b-4969-9135-4124ebfcc9ce","date":"2015-06-17","amount":167550,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
333,015
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
Mitchell Construction Management: 3 contracts within 90 days totaling $498,280 The vendor Mitchell Construction Management received 3 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $498,280. 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 "Mitchell Construction Management" 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:20b90d61…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Mitchell Construction Management
contracts
{"id":"0e78677a-c76e-4de9-a3cc-461f59700cc1","date":"2015-06-17","amount":165265,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"00b51496-db35-4515-9136-9e4a285b840a","date":"2015-06-17","amount":165465,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"d4f26d37-315b-4969-9135-4124ebfcc9ce","date":"2015-06-17","amount":167550,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
498,280
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
Middlefork Contracting: 2 contracts within 90 days totaling $144,676 The vendor Middlefork Contracting received 2 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $144,676. 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 "Middlefork 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:023d9737…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Middlefork Contracting
contracts
{"id":"66a367cb-3cdd-40d0-acf0-c4bcdee4022f","date":"2017-05-18","amount":71409,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"a976ca07-a9c9-44ae-8fb4-775e429c6b11","date":"2017-08-15","amount":73266.5,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
144,675.5
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
Metro Employees Credit Union: 2 contracts within 90 days totaling $56,488 The vendor Metro Employees Credit Union received 2 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $56,488. 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 "Metro Employees Credit Union" 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:6e930030…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Metro Employees Credit Union
contracts
{"id":"a35a49e4-b78a-4ad9-b755-abcfe7e67e99","date":"2022-04-21","amount":10937.5,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"6b130410-a0aa-46ea-8a7e-7e0c3e50e342","date":"2022-04-27","amount":45550.2,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
56,487.7
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
Marrillia Design & Construction: 2 contracts within 90 days totaling $20,362,909 The vendor Marrillia Design & Construction received 2 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $20,362,909. 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 "Marrillia Design & 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:a2daa0e8…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Marrillia Design & Construction
contracts
{"id":"da45af26-cea7-40c3-a792-00f30c1a5d7f","date":"2015-08-31","amount":10145172.25,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"5274f81c-c224-4421-80ad-54c4b8597e73","date":"2015-11-09","amount":10217736.37,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
20,362,908.62
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
Marrillia Design & Construction: 2 contracts within 90 days totaling $19,592,932 The vendor Marrillia Design & Construction received 2 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $19,592,932. 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 "Marrillia Design & 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:aa14c87d…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Marrillia Design & Construction
contracts
{"id":"09facf3f-799d-4c16-a3cf-b1387e6aefe0","date":"2015-06-17","amount":9447760.07,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"da45af26-cea7-40c3-a792-00f30c1a5d7f","date":"2015-08-31","amount":10145172.25,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
19,592,932.32
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
Management Registry: 2 contracts within 90 days totaling $238,033 The vendor Management Registry received 2 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $238,033. 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 "Management Registry" 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:9847afd7…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Management Registry
contracts
{"id":"5a4517e3-fce0-44fa-b621-5c2761505dc9","date":"2021-01-15","amount":54000,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"0aecb726-118a-4b10-b82d-d7bc1b2e57e5","date":"2021-02-22","amount":184033,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
238,033
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
Madison County: 2 contracts within 90 days totaling $4,250,000 The vendor Madison County received 2 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $4,250,000. 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 "Madison County" 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:93b6c681…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Madison County
contracts
{"id":"379c0796-c147-4ff5-9e13-9937bafb4e8e","date":"2024-10-04","amount":2125000,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"fe6d2b82-6a00-4813-9dce-a696e7a6649e","date":"2024-12-02","amount":2125000,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
4,250,000
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
MAC Construction & Excavating: 2 contracts within 90 days totaling $3,735,000 The vendor MAC Construction & Excavating received 2 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $3,735,000. 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 "MAC Construction & Excavating" 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:c8e0cfba…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
MAC Construction & Excavating
contracts
{"id":"3f215b3d-2c93-46f1-b0e8-f81c14103301","date":"2021-09-23","amount":2800000,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"38c9b905-15a7-452b-bdaf-4446dbfee323","date":"2021-09-27","amount":935000,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
3,735,000
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
MAC Construction & Excavating: 3 contracts within 90 days totaling $7,044,000 The vendor MAC Construction & Excavating received 3 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $7,044,000. 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 "MAC Construction & Excavating" 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:618657a2…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
MAC Construction & Excavating
contracts
{"id":"56e4653f-7d8d-4864-a749-a9d31ca875c7","date":"2021-09-14","amount":3309000,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"3f215b3d-2c93-46f1-b0e8-f81c14103301","date":"2021-09-23","amount":2800000,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"38c9b905-15a7-452b-bdaf-4446dbfee323","date":"2021-09-27","amount":935000,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
7,044,000
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
M3 Technology Group: 2 contracts within 90 days totaling $540,220 The vendor M3 Technology Group received 2 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $540,220. 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 "M3 Technology 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:2ceeb20a…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
M3 Technology Group
contracts
{"id":"d8eed28e-832a-4918-8f29-631646ee06dd","date":"2016-08-04","amount":109660,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"f98a84d8-88ae-40a1-a12a-28d955a733e5","date":"2016-08-08","amount":430560.05,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
540,220.05
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
L-M Asphalt Partners Ltd. d/b/a: 2 contracts within 90 days totaling $8,331,358 The vendor L-M Asphalt Partners Ltd. d/b/a received 2 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $8,331,358. 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 "L-M Asphalt Partners Ltd. d/b/a" 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:c9df5aaf…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
L-M Asphalt Partners Ltd. d/b/a
contracts
{"id":"9c4a27fd-6162-4f79-a9c1-35812e56e978","date":"2019-11-18","amount":4476870.65,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"79fa1481-4867-42c5-b361-0e8212d1b495","date":"2020-01-08","amount":3854486.96,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
8,331,357.61
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
L-M Asphalt Partners d/b/a: 2 contracts within 90 days totaling $9,859,512 The vendor L-M Asphalt Partners d/b/a received 2 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $9,859,512. 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 "L-M Asphalt Partners d/b/a" 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:7f6e5b45…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
L-M Asphalt Partners d/b/a
contracts
{"id":"4d941053-53e4-4c12-8403-b362dd8c4371","date":"2022-08-29","amount":4874047.25,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"9a5f78f4-0680-498d-a531-7387a1184ed0","date":"2022-11-07","amount":4985464.75,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
9,859,512
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
L-M Asphalt Partners d/b/a: 2 contracts within 90 days totaling $9,507,157 The vendor L-M Asphalt Partners d/b/a received 2 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $9,507,157. 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 "L-M Asphalt Partners d/b/a" 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:34d0130b…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
L-M Asphalt Partners d/b/a
contracts
{"id":"ea11ed90-8133-460e-8116-5bed8df40acd","date":"2022-06-24","amount":4633109.27,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"4d941053-53e4-4c12-8403-b362dd8c4371","date":"2022-08-29","amount":4874047.25,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
9,507,156.52
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
L-M Asphalt Partners d/b/a: 2 contracts within 90 days totaling $9,071,614 The vendor L-M Asphalt Partners d/b/a received 2 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $9,071,614. 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 "L-M Asphalt Partners d/b/a" 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:a33da763…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
L-M Asphalt Partners d/b/a
contracts
{"id":"64fb1cb6-e14e-4109-b14c-f57d56741003","date":"2022-04-04","amount":4438505.01,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"ea11ed90-8133-460e-8116-5bed8df40acd","date":"2022-06-24","amount":4633109.27,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
9,071,614.28
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
L-M Asphalt Partners d/b/a: 2 contracts within 90 days totaling $3,151,320 The vendor L-M Asphalt Partners d/b/a received 2 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $3,151,320. 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 "L-M Asphalt Partners d/b/a" 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:358040b2…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
L-M Asphalt Partners d/b/a
contracts
{"id":"de443691-f4ae-4579-b87c-cd50054911ed","date":"2017-06-26","amount":234512.19,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"a67da277-d9ad-4dd3-b190-65125e947943","date":"2017-08-22","amount":2916807.49,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
3,151,319.68
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
L-M Asphalt Partners d/b/a: 2 contracts within 90 days totaling $673,384 The vendor L-M Asphalt Partners d/b/a received 2 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $673,384. 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 "L-M Asphalt Partners d/b/a" 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:51b38edb…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
L-M Asphalt Partners d/b/a
contracts
{"id":"786494d4-01ba-4c25-8623-9417f94910bd","date":"2017-05-03","amount":438872.04,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"de443691-f4ae-4579-b87c-cd50054911ed","date":"2017-06-26","amount":234512.19,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
673,384.23
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
L-M Asphalt Partners: 2 contracts within 90 days totaling $5,723,500 The vendor L-M Asphalt Partners received 2 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $5,723,500. 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 "L-M Asphalt Partners" 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:02a41dae…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
L-M Asphalt Partners
contracts
{"id":"a04b446a-3c5f-44be-8870-a1ff29b844e5","date":"2026-03-03","amount":597000,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"ddeb8e08-bfca-42a7-9403-6310bd76e5be","date":"2026-03-05","amount":5126500,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
5,723,500
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
L-M Asphalt Partners: 3 contracts within 90 days totaling $6,382,367 The vendor L-M Asphalt Partners received 3 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $6,382,367. 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 "L-M Asphalt Partners" 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:d2c46c49…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
L-M Asphalt Partners
contracts
{"id":"9ded8ed9-be6d-481a-a191-52599685d0d1","date":"2026-02-20","amount":658867,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"a04b446a-3c5f-44be-8870-a1ff29b844e5","date":"2026-03-03","amount":597000,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"ddeb8e08-bfca-42a7-9403-6310bd76e5be","date":"2026-03-05","amount":5126500,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
6,382,367
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
L-M Asphalt Partners: 2 contracts within 90 days totaling $20,915,899 The vendor L-M Asphalt Partners received 2 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $20,915,899. 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 "L-M Asphalt Partners" 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:1cdb1f03…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
L-M Asphalt Partners
contracts
{"id":"3f05987a-920d-45d6-a6eb-bc038f99a91f","date":"2025-11-05","amount":7773960.94,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"e8b400b7-9c06-44bf-81e1-f35e62f514e4","date":"2025-11-05","amount":13141938.41,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
20,915,899.35
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
L-M Asphalt Partners: 2 contracts within 90 days totaling $18,686,289 The vendor L-M Asphalt Partners received 2 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $18,686,289. 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 "L-M Asphalt Partners" 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:d5705ee7…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
L-M Asphalt Partners
contracts
{"id":"4706c374-8f78-4408-864f-e469254750ee","date":"2025-05-19","amount":17000000,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"105f6aee-02d2-461d-9807-a24bb38af61e","date":"2025-06-11","amount":1686289.2,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
18,686,289.2
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
L-M Asphalt Partners: 3 contracts within 90 days totaling $19,300,171 The vendor L-M Asphalt Partners received 3 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $19,300,171. 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 "L-M Asphalt Partners" 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:3602bdba…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
L-M Asphalt Partners
contracts
{"id":"28fe90da-f415-4780-bfa6-eaa0f4e31712","date":"2025-05-09","amount":613881.59,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"4706c374-8f78-4408-864f-e469254750ee","date":"2025-05-19","amount":17000000,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"105f6aee-02d2-461d-9807-a24bb38af61e","date":"2025-06-11","amount":1686289.2,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
19,300,170.79
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
L-M Asphalt Partners: 2 contracts within 90 days totaling $2,715,757 The vendor L-M Asphalt Partners received 2 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $2,715,757. 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 "L-M Asphalt Partners" 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:e0848960…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
L-M Asphalt Partners
contracts
{"id":"85bb4dcc-7e95-4031-a1b7-8541532ce5d8","date":"2025-02-10","amount":2101875,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"28fe90da-f415-4780-bfa6-eaa0f4e31712","date":"2025-05-09","amount":613881.59,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
2,715,756.59
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
L-M Asphalt Partners: 2 contracts within 90 days totaling $19,106,926 The vendor L-M Asphalt Partners received 2 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $19,106,926. 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 "L-M Asphalt Partners" 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:1043c455…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
L-M Asphalt Partners
contracts
{"id":"62aa86cb-78a5-4b1a-aa30-81a3294c44cd","date":"2023-06-30","amount":12056925.97,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"805d3b5c-d331-4db9-8a85-5505d2378741","date":"2023-08-11","amount":7050000,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
19,106,925.97
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
L-M Asphalt Partners: 2 contracts within 90 days totaling $781,339 The vendor L-M Asphalt Partners received 2 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $781,339. 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 "L-M Asphalt Partners" 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:f498e67d…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
L-M Asphalt Partners
contracts
{"id":"39422d26-303e-430a-b4aa-fb92ddad5c89","date":"2016-05-16","amount":438680.25,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"25eea8ef-4a45-4fc3-b3a3-c0242acaca02","date":"2016-06-28","amount":342659.12,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
781,339.37
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
L & L Excavation and Site Prep: 2 contracts within 90 days totaling $187,340 The vendor L & L Excavation and Site Prep received 2 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $187,340. 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 "L & L Excavation and Site Prep" 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:2f4d042d…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
L & L Excavation and Site Prep
contracts
{"id":"f3806e6e-7b3d-42db-a62a-8d68e8141964","date":"2016-03-25","amount":90170,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"60b061ad-e6f9-45a9-9baf-762a9cd08d70","date":"2016-06-20","amount":97170,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
187,340
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
Link Electric Co.: 2 contracts within 90 days totaling $312,602 The vendor Link Electric Co. received 2 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $312,602. 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 "Link Electric 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:e8a20bef…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Link Electric Co.
contracts
{"id":"fa407d67-e988-4439-973d-abb93bea38d5","date":"2018-10-11","amount":154340,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"b0d98e8d-5088-4c48-a2c8-50acb043cff4","date":"2019-01-04","amount":158262,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
312,602
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
LexArts: 2 contracts within 90 days totaling $625,000 The vendor LexArts received 2 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $625,000. 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 "LexArts" 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:e023898a…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
LexArts
contracts
{"id":"12fe1f4c-e3c2-4104-9bfc-131b06c21081","date":"2023-05-05","amount":300000,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"c33cdeaa-e557-428e-9e4a-59f16ee1f7ad","date":"2023-05-19","amount":325000,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
625,000
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
Landmark Sprinkler: 2 contracts within 90 days totaling $97,130 The vendor Landmark Sprinkler received 2 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $97,130. 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 "Landmark Sprinkler" 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:25fdc4b6…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Landmark Sprinkler
contracts
{"id":"1ed7d690-53b3-4084-921a-83947093a032","date":"2013-01-31","amount":31630,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"caa67122-9b9c-4277-9131-52891111a561","date":"2013-03-08","amount":65500,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
97,130
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
LAGCO: 2 contracts within 90 days totaling $1,555,930 The vendor LAGCO received 2 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $1,555,930. 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 "LAGCO" 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:a17f9d00…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
LAGCO
contracts
{"id":"299ab026-edc8-4783-88a1-93aef6844883","date":"2015-03-24","amount":995237,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"83e1869b-06a3-4c4a-a847-9afb09e26d7a","date":"2015-03-25","amount":560693,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
1,555,930
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
Lagco: 2 contracts within 90 days totaling $1,761,555 The vendor Lagco received 2 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $1,761,555. 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 "Lagco" 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:d5a6199a…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Lagco
contracts
{"id":"d52e7a0b-273b-4e29-95e1-6c1cf4762513","date":"2026-01-20","amount":474477,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"7a7ea364-fa64-4e07-ac78-f0206b65d348","date":"2026-03-09","amount":1287078,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
1,761,555
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
Lagco: 2 contracts within 90 days totaling $4,123,037 The vendor Lagco received 2 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $4,123,037. 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 "Lagco" 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:cbe47d98…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Lagco
contracts
{"id":"69bad534-0cfb-4e97-9689-4c0165f57f8a","date":"2025-02-10","amount":2488079.11,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"fdc4727f-b55a-46fc-9dae-5be20203d690","date":"2025-03-25","amount":1634958,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
4,123,037.11
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
Lagco: 2 contracts within 90 days totaling $3,571,732 The vendor Lagco received 2 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $3,571,732. 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 "Lagco" 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:479c325c…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Lagco
contracts
{"id":"da21ae91-9c49-4e07-9cc8-398ab676a15a","date":"2024-11-19","amount":1083653,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"69bad534-0cfb-4e97-9689-4c0165f57f8a","date":"2025-02-10","amount":2488079.11,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
3,571,732.11
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
Lagco: 2 contracts within 90 days totaling $1,744,620 The vendor Lagco received 2 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $1,744,620. 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 "Lagco" 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:e7265ecd…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Lagco
contracts
{"id":"4267a1e6-ab87-41a8-9fe7-acc2796d1524","date":"2024-10-16","amount":660966.62,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"da21ae91-9c49-4e07-9cc8-398ab676a15a","date":"2024-11-19","amount":1083653,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
1,744,619.62
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
Lagco: 3 contracts within 90 days totaling $2,325,720 The vendor Lagco received 3 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $2,325,720. 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 "Lagco" 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:4864c29e…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Lagco
contracts
{"id":"4ef1bcdb-dfcc-49b9-8e3e-7429da5e4b5f","date":"2024-09-17","amount":581100,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"4267a1e6-ab87-41a8-9fe7-acc2796d1524","date":"2024-10-16","amount":660966.62,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"da21ae91-9c49-4e07-9cc8-398ab676a15a","date":"2024-11-19","amount":1083653,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
2,325,719.62
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
Lagco: 2 contracts within 90 days totaling $2,150,105 The vendor Lagco received 2 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $2,150,105. 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 "Lagco" 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:c9a5d72a…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Lagco
contracts
{"id":"787cebba-090d-45ea-a618-adab67dba732","date":"2024-07-08","amount":1569005.35,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"4ef1bcdb-dfcc-49b9-8e3e-7429da5e4b5f","date":"2024-09-17","amount":581100,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
2,150,105.35
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).