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 151–200 of 503 flags
sorted by severity · page 4 of 11
50 flags · on this page
sorted by severity
May 27, 2026
Lagco: 2 contracts within 90 days totaling $3,091,483 The vendor Lagco received 2 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $3,091,483. 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:f29d962e…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Lagco
contracts
{"id":"86b52358-238a-4fbe-b749-ca5793826b52","date":"2024-05-09","amount":1522477.35,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"787cebba-090d-45ea-a618-adab67dba732","date":"2024-07-08","amount":1569005.35,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
3,091,482.7
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
Lagco: 2 contracts within 90 days totaling $3,857,084 The vendor Lagco received 2 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $3,857,084. 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:269c0696…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Lagco
contracts
{"id":"a7b6db95-442c-416b-807b-420b50fc63d6","date":"2023-09-28","amount":1411847,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"7457c69b-d559-4664-850a-0dc948a8981d","date":"2023-11-06","amount":2445237,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
3,857,084
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 $4,421,323 The vendor Lagco received 3 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $4,421,323. 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:c00545c1…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Lagco
contracts
{"id":"3d151fe6-2cb9-4749-aa07-a32802b8d4bb","date":"2023-09-15","amount":564239,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"a7b6db95-442c-416b-807b-420b50fc63d6","date":"2023-09-28","amount":1411847,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"7457c69b-d559-4664-850a-0dc948a8981d","date":"2023-11-06","amount":2445237,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
4,421,323
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: 4 contracts within 90 days totaling $7,277,273 The vendor Lagco received 4 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $7,277,273. 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 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:d96ed79d…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Lagco
contracts
{"id":"64f038d8-d05c-4435-b1e6-a1581d83ae6b","date":"2023-08-11","amount":2855950.2,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"3d151fe6-2cb9-4749-aa07-a32802b8d4bb","date":"2023-09-15","amount":564239,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"a7b6db95-442c-416b-807b-420b50fc63d6","date":"2023-09-28","amount":1411847,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"7457c69b-d559-4664-850a-0dc948a8981d","date":"2023-11-06","amount":2445237,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
7,277,273.2
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
Lagco: 4 contracts within 90 days totaling $5,069,936 The vendor Lagco received 4 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $5,069,936. 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 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:9c425b0e…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Lagco
contracts
{"id":"cba262de-7284-46ee-afcb-49ab204c53a3","date":"2023-08-03","amount":237900,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"64f038d8-d05c-4435-b1e6-a1581d83ae6b","date":"2023-08-11","amount":2855950.2,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"3d151fe6-2cb9-4749-aa07-a32802b8d4bb","date":"2023-09-15","amount":564239,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"a7b6db95-442c-416b-807b-420b50fc63d6","date":"2023-09-28","amount":1411847,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
5,069,936.2
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
Lagco: 5 contracts within 90 days totaling $5,834,748 The vendor Lagco received 5 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $5,834,748. 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 "Lagco" 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:8c50058c…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Lagco
contracts
{"id":"9b70fe2b-6c80-4b39-826d-e996b7206b8d","date":"2023-08-02","amount":764812,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"cba262de-7284-46ee-afcb-49ab204c53a3","date":"2023-08-03","amount":237900,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"64f038d8-d05c-4435-b1e6-a1581d83ae6b","date":"2023-08-11","amount":2855950.2,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"3d151fe6-2cb9-4749-aa07-a32802b8d4bb","date":"2023-09-15","amount":564239,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"a7b6db95-442c-416b-807b-420b50fc63d6","date":"2023-09-28","amount":1411847,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
5,834,748.2
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
Lagco: 2 contracts within 90 days totaling $1,715,889 The vendor Lagco received 2 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $1,715,889. 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:6b13afca…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Lagco
contracts
{"id":"b2d053a0-b6c4-4bdf-aaf6-d8b47a9ab8c2","date":"2023-03-23","amount":426400,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"f174c1f6-5e11-439b-a94d-ac3c534b77cd","date":"2023-04-13","amount":1289489,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
1,715,889
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 $4,488,769 The vendor Lagco received 3 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $4,488,769. 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:4a5e33d7…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Lagco
contracts
{"id":"9e9c228a-01a0-4d0e-96ec-3aed987bf92d","date":"2023-02-13","amount":2772879.64,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"b2d053a0-b6c4-4bdf-aaf6-d8b47a9ab8c2","date":"2023-03-23","amount":426400,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"f174c1f6-5e11-439b-a94d-ac3c534b77cd","date":"2023-04-13","amount":1289489,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
4,488,768.64
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 $1,120,300 The vendor Lagco received 2 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $1,120,300. 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:6d5e822b…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Lagco
contracts
{"id":"5df29cc7-ad31-4d53-a48a-4fe43c7ed8e4","date":"2022-09-08","amount":594900,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"44cfef1d-4cbd-4b03-9b42-fd04f42ec045","date":"2022-09-23","amount":525400,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
1,120,300
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 $4,666,532 The vendor Lagco received 2 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $4,666,532. 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:acfcfab9…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Lagco
contracts
{"id":"b64d3b9e-44ff-4278-917c-f4c3c4af43a6","date":"2020-10-05","amount":2333266.21,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"aade7993-f3ec-40bb-ba13-495b1a258458","date":"2020-12-18","amount":2333266.21,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
4,666,532.42
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 $1,893,694 The vendor Lagco received 2 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $1,893,694. 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:f7853dae…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Lagco
contracts
{"id":"0b4fa4d3-fe9b-4f24-85c4-0be5a29bfede","date":"2019-07-15","amount":209914,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"f3e2a0ff-577c-4240-9d5e-d8f1976cfba8","date":"2019-09-20","amount":1683780,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
1,893,694
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 $418,028 The vendor Lagco received 2 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $418,028. 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:6036b9ac…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Lagco
contracts
{"id":"55cdc0be-5a0e-4b80-856d-0e9001cc0395","date":"2019-04-17","amount":208114,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"0b4fa4d3-fe9b-4f24-85c4-0be5a29bfede","date":"2019-07-15","amount":209914,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
418,028
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 $2,716,200 The vendor Lagco received 2 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $2,716,200. 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:8cadf7c6…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Lagco
contracts
{"id":"063aae90-437a-4198-87db-cc246b500f25","date":"2019-02-27","amount":2508085.68,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"55cdc0be-5a0e-4b80-856d-0e9001cc0395","date":"2019-04-17","amount":208114,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
2,716,199.68
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
Lagco: 2 contracts within 90 days totaling $2,711,548 The vendor Lagco received 2 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $2,711,548. 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:69df8f71…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Lagco
contracts
{"id":"46c2e8c9-ce46-47e3-955f-abdebe1493a3","date":"2018-12-14","amount":203462,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"063aae90-437a-4198-87db-cc246b500f25","date":"2019-02-27","amount":2508085.68,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
2,711,547.68
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
Lagco: 2 contracts within 90 days totaling $1,095,919 The vendor Lagco received 2 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $1,095,919. 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:85569ffe…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Lagco
contracts
{"id":"58d603eb-0bd1-46ce-8c6c-ff72c9b3e7eb","date":"2015-06-18","amount":281376.5,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"8d6f3e4e-f894-48a5-8679-c28a6f9aae2d","date":"2015-06-22","amount":814542.04,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
1,095,918.54
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 $752,335 The vendor Lagco received 2 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $752,335. 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:393dd4ce…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Lagco
contracts
{"id":"7ab9b367-4796-4026-b5e2-b65ef7888f81","date":"2015-02-09","amount":725922,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"3fc2cd20-9c3b-4e91-ac7b-4af25318ebc2","date":"2015-03-13","amount":26413.2,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
752,335.2
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
Lagco: 3 contracts within 90 days totaling $1,031,235 The vendor Lagco received 3 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $1,031,235. 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:9c828e9f…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Lagco
contracts
{"id":"056c1ed5-5ed6-48c9-b742-cb5212dae49b","date":"2015-01-30","amount":278900,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"7ab9b367-4796-4026-b5e2-b65ef7888f81","date":"2015-02-09","amount":725922,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"3fc2cd20-9c3b-4e91-ac7b-4af25318ebc2","date":"2015-03-13","amount":26413.2,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
1,031,235.2
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 $1,361,778 The vendor Lagco received 2 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $1,361,778. 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:9f12f2ad…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Lagco
contracts
{"id":"132ff7b2-88fb-4273-8f1b-c0d8f509d391","date":"2013-10-14","amount":995237,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"3dd534c8-5265-4176-8fe6-cf2e739f79a5","date":"2013-12-04","amount":366541,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
1,361,778
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 $553,491 The vendor Lagco received 2 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $553,491. 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:1d566a17…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Lagco
contracts
{"id":"e8607a06-f189-41a9-95eb-d0c124639ed1","date":"2012-07-24","amount":429040,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"db8abbc0-3418-45bc-bb9a-fd70444a8540","date":"2012-08-09","amount":124451,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
553,491
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
Kerry: 2 contracts within 90 days totaling $232,260 The vendor Kerry received 2 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $232,260. 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 "Kerry" 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:7b5be8df…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Kerry
contracts
{"id":"dbc78c4b-9419-4bb8-b1bf-f79e86725544","date":"2014-08-28","amount":177160,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"03a34add-95e4-46ef-a3ac-949270a1d1ce","date":"2014-11-11","amount":55100,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
232,260
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
Kalkreuth Roofing and Sheet Metal: 2 contracts within 90 days totaling $222,771 The vendor Kalkreuth Roofing and Sheet Metal received 2 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $222,771. 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 "Kalkreuth Roofing and Sheet Metal" 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:5293cf02…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Kalkreuth Roofing and Sheet Metal
contracts
{"id":"b3680e09-a13c-4b7a-a0eb-d13e071a23e9","date":"2013-07-01","amount":166782.43,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"2916be48-f6b6-4528-a7f3-39f29a70af4d","date":"2013-07-26","amount":55989,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
222,771.43
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
Kalkreuth Roofing and Sheet Metal: 2 contracts within 90 days totaling $330,764 The vendor Kalkreuth Roofing and Sheet Metal received 2 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $330,764. 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 "Kalkreuth Roofing and Sheet Metal" 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:10bacce8…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Kalkreuth Roofing and Sheet Metal
contracts
{"id":"4f0366ae-e8f8-4289-9c62-d3481f8c27dc","date":"2013-04-19","amount":163982,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"b3680e09-a13c-4b7a-a0eb-d13e071a23e9","date":"2013-07-01","amount":166782.43,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
330,764.43
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
Kalkreuth Roofing and Sheet Metal: 2 contracts within 90 days totaling $219,971 The vendor Kalkreuth Roofing and Sheet Metal received 2 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $219,971. 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 "Kalkreuth Roofing and Sheet Metal" 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:4c59b38f…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Kalkreuth Roofing and Sheet Metal
contracts
{"id":"4bed2ac1-4cfe-4df4-badf-045901a2aeb9","date":"2013-02-27","amount":55989,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"4f0366ae-e8f8-4289-9c62-d3481f8c27dc","date":"2013-04-19","amount":163982,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
219,971
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
Judy Construction Co.: 2 contracts within 90 days totaling $20,877,000 The vendor Judy Construction Co. received 2 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $20,877,000. 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 "Judy 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:7255c1ad…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Judy Construction Co.
contracts
{"id":"630d9c1a-9cf8-4ee8-afb6-004806df38dd","date":"2021-08-06","amount":17450000,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"3f3c8c54-e50a-44ea-8db9-2559494a625a","date":"2021-09-17","amount":3427000,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
20,877,000
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
Judy Construction Co.: 2 contracts within 90 days totaling $2,784,649 The vendor Judy Construction Co. received 2 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $2,784,649. 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 "Judy 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:b51f4909…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Judy Construction Co.
contracts
{"id":"cfec1e69-8547-4bd5-81c2-ed852ab5cac5","date":"2020-01-13","amount":1698735.75,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"e9f7402e-32d0-4881-a73e-9d15685febab","date":"2020-02-20","amount":1085913,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
2,784,648.75
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
Judy Construction Co.: 2 contracts within 90 days totaling $13,693,360 The vendor Judy Construction Co. received 2 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $13,693,360. 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 "Judy 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:dcac579d…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Judy Construction Co.
contracts
{"id":"e58c29cb-90d6-4eae-a68b-eacdf5e2fdbe","date":"2018-09-21","amount":12078360,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"b30a88ac-5d84-4ec9-b8e9-5f01d977a031","date":"2018-10-24","amount":1615000,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
13,693,360
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
Judy Construction Co.: 2 contracts within 90 days totaling $22,898,750 The vendor Judy Construction Co. received 2 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $22,898,750. 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 "Judy 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:a1c9536d…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Judy Construction Co.
contracts
{"id":"7dc994e3-0415-4e05-b401-414358401ff1","date":"2018-01-22","amount":9746750,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"5300bfe1-2616-40c4-a6b1-c05fc1cc0146","date":"2018-02-15","amount":13152000,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
22,898,750
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
Judy Construction Co.: 2 contracts within 90 days totaling $1,502,880 The vendor Judy Construction Co. received 2 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $1,502,880. 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 "Judy 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:f0f2eb52…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Judy Construction Co.
contracts
{"id":"e0e2c372-54be-4374-b5e0-8c489053585e","date":"2017-03-15","amount":987880,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"06a80ccd-76a8-4b5d-9ab8-5cf659512347","date":"2017-04-18","amount":515000.24,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
1,502,880.24
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
Judy Construction Co.: 3 contracts within 90 days totaling $13,581,240 The vendor Judy Construction Co. received 3 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $13,581,240. 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 "Judy 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:fed09ac9…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Judy Construction Co.
contracts
{"id":"f17be1a9-bb66-4fad-a588-8d5d03d1b0fb","date":"2017-02-28","amount":12078360,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"e0e2c372-54be-4374-b5e0-8c489053585e","date":"2017-03-15","amount":987880,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"06a80ccd-76a8-4b5d-9ab8-5cf659512347","date":"2017-04-18","amount":515000.24,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
13,581,240.24
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
Judy Construction Co.: 4 contracts within 90 days totaling $19,183,141 The vendor Judy Construction Co. received 4 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $19,183,141. 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 "Judy Construction Co." 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:b6c3cb87…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Judy Construction Co.
contracts
{"id":"f73ebe33-26d2-4959-a5cc-f1ff37688211","date":"2017-01-27","amount":5601900.58,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"f17be1a9-bb66-4fad-a588-8d5d03d1b0fb","date":"2017-02-28","amount":12078360,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"e0e2c372-54be-4374-b5e0-8c489053585e","date":"2017-03-15","amount":987880,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"06a80ccd-76a8-4b5d-9ab8-5cf659512347","date":"2017-04-18","amount":515000.24,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
19,183,140.82
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
Judy Construction Co.: 5 contracts within 90 days totaling $24,785,041 The vendor Judy Construction Co. received 5 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $24,785,041. 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 "Judy Construction Co." 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:8cac0d27…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Judy Construction Co.
contracts
{"id":"cd30ffc1-0a4e-4e64-9275-e9e9d2defe45","date":"2017-01-27","amount":5601900.58,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"f73ebe33-26d2-4959-a5cc-f1ff37688211","date":"2017-01-27","amount":5601900.58,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"f17be1a9-bb66-4fad-a588-8d5d03d1b0fb","date":"2017-02-28","amount":12078360,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"e0e2c372-54be-4374-b5e0-8c489053585e","date":"2017-03-15","amount":987880,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"06a80ccd-76a8-4b5d-9ab8-5cf659512347","date":"2017-04-18","amount":515000.24,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
24,785,041.4
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
Judy Construction Co.: 2 contracts within 90 days totaling $66,894,359 The vendor Judy Construction Co. received 2 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $66,894,359. 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 "Judy 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:648a2786…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Judy Construction Co.
contracts
{"id":"0e272bf2-c4e0-4fd3-ad65-8db4f1c9a4eb","date":"2016-06-02","amount":5587359,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"9a8eea3c-a8c5-4bfc-845b-7c0519bb5a0d","date":"2016-06-03","amount":61307000,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
66,894,359
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
Judy Construction Co.: 3 contracts within 90 days totaling $67,109,709 The vendor Judy Construction Co. received 3 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $67,109,709. 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 "Judy 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:98a4e54f…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Judy Construction Co.
contracts
{"id":"0a614ed5-9754-41d1-a14b-209e3d7ac90b","date":"2016-04-11","amount":215350,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"0e272bf2-c4e0-4fd3-ad65-8db4f1c9a4eb","date":"2016-06-02","amount":5587359,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"9a8eea3c-a8c5-4bfc-845b-7c0519bb5a0d","date":"2016-06-03","amount":61307000,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
67,109,709
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
Judy Construction Co.: 2 contracts within 90 days totaling $1,175,000 The vendor Judy Construction Co. received 2 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $1,175,000. 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 "Judy 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:13b95695…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Judy Construction Co.
contracts
{"id":"504bf0f7-442e-4c49-9186-d5fab87e9931","date":"2015-12-03","amount":207000,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"86188f4c-c4ec-4290-b884-d025b5d16038","date":"2016-01-08","amount":968000,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
1,175,000
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
Judy Construction Co.: 2 contracts within 90 days totaling $9,904,001 The vendor Judy Construction Co. received 2 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $9,904,001. 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 "Judy 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:0fd1d3a2…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Judy Construction Co.
contracts
{"id":"3b3e783c-1fdc-401c-8993-d110dcc95982","date":"2015-09-15","amount":9697001,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"504bf0f7-442e-4c49-9186-d5fab87e9931","date":"2015-12-03","amount":207000,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
9,904,001
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
Judy Construction Co.: 2 contracts within 90 days totaling $15,101,597 The vendor Judy Construction Co. received 2 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $15,101,597. 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 "Judy 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:194d0ffd…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Judy Construction Co.
contracts
{"id":"7c1909b3-d47f-42e3-bd94-62219ec2678d","date":"2015-08-03","amount":5404596,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"3b3e783c-1fdc-401c-8993-d110dcc95982","date":"2015-09-15","amount":9697001,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
15,101,597
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
Jarboe Construction: 2 contracts within 90 days totaling $72,833 The vendor Jarboe Construction received 2 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $72,833. 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 "Jarboe 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:851bbc1d…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Jarboe Construction
contracts
{"id":"733e0d49-0c2e-4106-93dd-0dec489e2e52","date":"2016-01-05","amount":11900,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"4484e4ff-6146-4f0a-bcd4-efce0a2840fd","date":"2016-01-25","amount":60933,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
72,833
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
I/O Solutions: 2 contracts within 90 days totaling $83,500 The vendor I/O Solutions received 2 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $83,500. 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 "I/O Solutions" 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:b1bf5702…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
I/O Solutions
contracts
{"id":"13de91b5-1009-44d6-aa73-5280b8bb954c","date":"2020-02-10","amount":76000,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"cc074d55-1571-424f-98d5-5f2740258fe9","date":"2020-02-24","amount":7500,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
83,500
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
Interpersonal Frequency: 2 contracts within 90 days totaling $567,658 The vendor Interpersonal Frequency received 2 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $567,658. 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 "Interpersonal Frequency" 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:188a8298…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Interpersonal Frequency
contracts
{"id":"06d63786-a0b6-4f3f-a231-8c7d90b267bc","date":"2023-11-21","amount":399708,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"f92532cc-cebe-404b-981b-d7c0a726f0a4","date":"2024-01-05","amount":167950,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
567,658
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
Integrated Engineering: 2 contracts within 90 days totaling $454,690 The vendor Integrated Engineering received 2 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $454,690. 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 "Integrated 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:0ab8f961…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Integrated Engineering
contracts
{"id":"9ae3c228-2baa-4d22-93d5-6cfb6303b902","date":"2016-03-11","amount":319000,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"594d09fd-8222-4ed2-9ff0-8f7a49159bbf","date":"2016-04-11","amount":135690,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
454,690
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
Hydromax USA: 2 contracts within 90 days totaling $439,810 The vendor Hydromax USA received 2 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $439,810. 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 "Hydromax USA" received 2 separate contracts inside a 90-day window that, combined, would normally require open competitive bidding. Often this reflects separate legitimate projects — sometimes it reflects a single project broken up to avoid extra review.
[sources & evidence ▸]
sources & evidence · contract_splittinghash:699d8538…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Hydromax USA
contracts
{"id":"3ce8f94e-4a2c-44f9-acc9-bed301f19366","date":"2020-10-30","amount":164470,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"2e1aea06-94d7-4349-bb08-7cc91413a1da","date":"2021-01-06","amount":275340,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
439,810
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
Hydromax USA: 2 contracts within 90 days totaling $531,200 The vendor Hydromax USA received 2 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $531,200. 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 "Hydromax USA" received 2 separate contracts inside a 90-day window that, combined, would normally require open competitive bidding. Often this reflects separate legitimate projects — sometimes it reflects a single project broken up to avoid extra review.
[sources & evidence ▸]
sources & evidence · contract_splittinghash:d1a4fbb5…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Hydromax USA
contracts
{"id":"e332413f-a05d-49ec-a158-6d365b3d72d9","date":"2018-01-04","amount":262050,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"524b691e-0832-4fa1-92ca-6ac51669d362","date":"2018-02-26","amount":269150,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
531,200
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
Herrick Co.: 2 contracts within 90 days totaling $424,850 The vendor Herrick Co. received 2 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $424,850. 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 "Herrick 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:e4253cfd…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Herrick Co.
contracts
{"id":"4845861d-4660-4252-bbfb-9147e33482ac","date":"2022-05-20","amount":168850,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"8e2a8b4f-24d4-4dd4-bde4-3d9d725a9c9d","date":"2022-08-09","amount":256000,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
424,850
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
Herrick Co.: 2 contracts within 90 days totaling $443,850 The vendor Herrick Co. received 2 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $443,850. 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 "Herrick 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:227b45f0…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Herrick Co.
contracts
{"id":"3d822aeb-6aa4-4916-a375-cfdde3440c40","date":"2022-03-09","amount":275000,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"4845861d-4660-4252-bbfb-9147e33482ac","date":"2022-05-20","amount":168850,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
443,850
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
Herrick Co.: 2 contracts within 90 days totaling $119,250 The vendor Herrick Co. received 2 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $119,250. 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 "Herrick 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:252e7a72…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Herrick Co.
contracts
{"id":"d4681152-7df6-4b59-b468-1693bc3aa031","date":"2021-05-04","amount":62500,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"a16ff35e-6db6-465e-bf71-7992304f5c36","date":"2021-05-04","amount":56750,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
119,250
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
Herrick Co.: 2 contracts within 90 days totaling $1,945,037 The vendor Herrick Co. received 2 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $1,945,037. 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 "Herrick 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:9a276b7e…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Herrick Co.
contracts
{"id":"d770b1c2-2361-43c9-90be-2725fba499ac","date":"2019-12-31","amount":458500,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"322a9217-84df-4590-b094-2579e8cd3e9f","date":"2020-03-09","amount":1486536.6,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
1,945,036.6
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
Herrick Co.: 2 contracts within 90 days totaling $1,957,850 The vendor Herrick Co. received 2 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $1,957,850. 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 "Herrick 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:ea4e255a…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Herrick Co.
contracts
{"id":"de05e17b-269a-420f-9cb8-621af8cd1de9","date":"2019-11-15","amount":1499350,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"d770b1c2-2361-43c9-90be-2725fba499ac","date":"2019-12-31","amount":458500,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
1,957,850
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
Herrick Co.: 2 contracts within 90 days totaling $241,000 The vendor Herrick Co. received 2 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $241,000. 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 "Herrick 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:aac14b7d…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Herrick Co.
contracts
{"id":"3697a7ee-7372-409c-8d59-9134e8371c64","date":"2019-04-17","amount":146000,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"e2005a58-6378-44fd-8cce-763175dc9816","date":"2019-06-24","amount":95000,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
241,000
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
Herrick Co.: 2 contracts within 90 days totaling $1,579,202 The vendor Herrick Co. received 2 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $1,579,202. 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 "Herrick 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:62c4bbb2…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Herrick Co.
contracts
{"id":"5c3cf13e-c740-4f15-8b38-a9b5f3213a49","date":"2019-01-25","amount":1433202,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"3697a7ee-7372-409c-8d59-9134e8371c64","date":"2019-04-17","amount":146000,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
1,579,202
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
Herrick Co.: 2 contracts within 90 days totaling $1,535,000 The vendor Herrick Co. received 2 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $1,535,000. 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 "Herrick 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:7cac07ef…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Herrick Co.
contracts
{"id":"7b0931bd-f417-4283-b5d1-c4a6a2465cad","date":"2018-04-13","amount":1389000,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"e5989953-0173-48d6-9abc-4aa7a40f6667","date":"2018-05-25","amount":146000,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
1,535,000
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).