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 201–250 of 503 flags
sorted by severity · page 5 of 11
50 flags · on this page
sorted by severity
May 27, 2026
HDR Engineering: 2 contracts within 90 days totaling $842,173 The vendor HDR Engineering received 2 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $842,173. 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 "HDR 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:ce953101…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
HDR Engineering
contracts
{"id":"0fd1fd64-d411-4288-a8a0-26aaf6cc1925","date":"2025-05-16","amount":517248,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"5e11c979-2090-43f7-adbc-8a4aa4fd7b3b","date":"2025-05-19","amount":324925,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
842,173
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
Hazen & Sawyer: 2 contracts within 90 days totaling $897,000 The vendor Hazen & Sawyer received 2 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $897,000. 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 "Hazen & Sawyer" 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:e4df5917…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Hazen & Sawyer
contracts
{"id":"a60d34f9-0a54-4b2c-be8f-e1a575226dfa","date":"2014-05-02","amount":397000,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"12405e8e-752e-4600-b688-8be6ae3cd58a","date":"2014-06-30","amount":500000,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
897,000
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
Hazen and Sawyer: 2 contracts within 90 days totaling $5,289,146 The vendor Hazen and Sawyer received 2 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $5,289,146. 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 "Hazen and Sawyer" 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:62777414…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Hazen and Sawyer
contracts
{"id":"08670db4-f24e-42ff-aa6e-3d5a9226338a","date":"2013-08-05","amount":4944145.95,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"f4094121-f544-491f-aa99-b7fd9ea8150f","date":"2013-09-03","amount":345000,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
5,289,145.95
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
Hastings Air Energy Control: 2 contracts within 90 days totaling $402,500 The vendor Hastings Air Energy Control received 2 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $402,500. 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 "Hastings Air Energy Control" 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:51ae221e…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Hastings Air Energy Control
contracts
{"id":"76ce0004-b60d-436d-b3e3-72f50401d02d","date":"2016-11-23","amount":322999.92,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"b9c2f2dd-60a7-453b-9d52-1437286e0c9e","date":"2017-01-18","amount":79500,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
402,499.92
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
Haire Construction: 2 contracts within 90 days totaling $6,828,014 The vendor Haire Construction received 2 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $6,828,014. 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 "Haire 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:5395b652…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Haire Construction
contracts
{"id":"ad3130c2-64c8-497a-a553-182a2425a6eb","date":"2025-08-28","amount":3387046.91,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"5a719d02-27a5-4f11-9f9d-729ae55bcc3a","date":"2025-11-20","amount":3440966.91,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
6,828,013.82
contract_count
2
Every flag is a starting question, not a conclusion. The links above lead to the same public records the detector read — go look, and tell us if our reading is wrong (info@lexdoge.org).
May 27, 2026
Haire Construction: 2 contracts within 90 days totaling $6,742,446 The vendor Haire Construction received 2 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $6,742,446. 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 "Haire 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:2239acfa…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Haire Construction
contracts
{"id":"55be2d61-356b-4606-b7a2-5393f5262be2","date":"2025-08-08","amount":3355398.91,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"ad3130c2-64c8-497a-a553-182a2425a6eb","date":"2025-08-28","amount":3387046.91,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
6,742,445.82
contract_count
2
Every flag is a starting question, not a conclusion. The links above lead to the same public records the detector read — go look, and tell us if our reading is wrong (info@lexdoge.org).
May 27, 2026
GRW Engineers: 2 contracts within 90 days totaling $86,170 The vendor GRW Engineers received 2 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $86,170. 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 "GRW Engineers" 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:2a31dcbc…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
GRW Engineers
contracts
{"id":"df2b7f59-7012-48b6-b4e3-bd8a811c936b","date":"2017-08-07","amount":25000,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"c25f8a9d-7093-4454-ba6c-2048bceaa795","date":"2017-10-05","amount":61170,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
86,170
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
GRW Engineers: 3 contracts within 90 days totaling $111,170 The vendor GRW Engineers received 3 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $111,170. 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 "GRW Engineers" 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:f66ecec1…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
GRW Engineers
contracts
{"id":"0b7287b7-2cd2-4fb9-96f0-71fe7fded239","date":"2017-08-07","amount":25000,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"df2b7f59-7012-48b6-b4e3-bd8a811c936b","date":"2017-08-07","amount":25000,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"c25f8a9d-7093-4454-ba6c-2048bceaa795","date":"2017-10-05","amount":61170,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
111,170
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
GRW Engineers: 3 contracts within 90 days totaling $313,148 The vendor GRW Engineers received 3 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $313,148. 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 "GRW Engineers" 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:8e852ed9…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
GRW Engineers
contracts
{"id":"c9dfe78d-8945-4e83-9077-140eb3ffcdad","date":"2017-07-03","amount":263148,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"0b7287b7-2cd2-4fb9-96f0-71fe7fded239","date":"2017-08-07","amount":25000,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"df2b7f59-7012-48b6-b4e3-bd8a811c936b","date":"2017-08-07","amount":25000,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
313,148
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
GRW Engineers: 2 contracts within 90 days totaling $270,748 The vendor GRW Engineers received 2 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $270,748. 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 "GRW Engineers" 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:749cae70…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
GRW Engineers
contracts
{"id":"d3e9497d-b1a4-48cc-a616-e9da330723f7","date":"2015-09-14","amount":224728,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"47bddae1-7036-456d-8117-abd81ca9fff4","date":"2015-09-18","amount":46020,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
270,748
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
GRW Engineers: 2 contracts within 90 days totaling $1,204,861 The vendor GRW Engineers received 2 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $1,204,861. 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 "GRW Engineers" 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:5495cc8e…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
GRW Engineers
contracts
{"id":"b9ae183d-49a8-441a-b231-27b8f225860a","date":"2014-11-10","amount":1108991,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"804678c5-4f75-4ebc-9b90-37cd0bb4f186","date":"2014-11-17","amount":95870,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
1,204,861
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
GRW Engineers: 2 contracts within 90 days totaling $705,127 The vendor GRW Engineers received 2 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $705,127. 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 "GRW Engineers" 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:5ffec6f5…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
GRW Engineers
contracts
{"id":"2c8d93f0-f11e-4fc6-9aa6-c2c0fdb19b9f","date":"2013-06-20","amount":199737,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"60edeebf-6ae3-45e1-b7a8-5fbd86eb3067","date":"2013-07-01","amount":505390,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
705,127
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
GRW Engineers: 2 contracts within 90 days totaling $699,927 The vendor GRW Engineers received 2 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $699,927. 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 "GRW Engineers" 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:9ac8b715…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
GRW Engineers
contracts
{"id":"a1dde553-a48b-4e18-89a1-0d16f2c6b62b","date":"2013-04-01","amount":500190,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"2c8d93f0-f11e-4fc6-9aa6-c2c0fdb19b9f","date":"2013-06-20","amount":199737,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
699,927
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
Gresham Smith: 2 contracts within 90 days totaling $3,944,105 The vendor Gresham Smith received 2 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $3,944,105. 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 "Gresham Smith" 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:03ca5f67…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Gresham Smith
contracts
{"id":"89e76b79-ee03-4b61-84f7-69e213fe6b54","date":"2025-04-04","amount":55800,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"d5773530-60bf-4006-9faa-f8a78fcae1ac","date":"2025-05-19","amount":3888305,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
3,944,105
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
Gresham: 2 contracts within 90 days totaling $6,239,473 The vendor Gresham received 2 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $6,239,473. 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 "Gresham" 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:6c065333…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Gresham
contracts
{"id":"c99dc474-6972-4fdd-ab7b-87b3ac9b83c9","date":"2018-11-05","amount":3115654.39,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"3d0370b6-5ea3-4bd5-bbed-468d2e7aa24b","date":"2019-01-25","amount":3123818.39,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
6,239,472.78
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
Granicus: 2 contracts within 90 days totaling $66,342 The vendor Granicus received 2 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $66,342. 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 "Granicus" 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:ae6c1f56…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Granicus
contracts
{"id":"2ae32769-eb05-4517-9fd2-1f60cd4d2a84","date":"2020-05-04","amount":57742.44,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"dab103c3-b5e4-412d-90c7-b0fa62118016","date":"2020-07-15","amount":8599.5,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
66,341.94
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
Granicus: 2 contracts within 90 days totaling $56,906 The vendor Granicus received 2 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $56,906. 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 "Granicus" 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:167db3dd…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Granicus
contracts
{"id":"ae6353ee-db8a-4f27-81da-63c093a64101","date":"2017-05-22","amount":52406.4,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"499728e3-8157-45d7-9cc5-b378c009649d","date":"2017-06-06","amount":4500,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
56,906.4
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
Gooch Construction: 2 contracts within 90 days totaling $1,280,800 The vendor Gooch Construction received 2 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $1,280,800. 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 "Gooch 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:c09d1279…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Gooch Construction
contracts
{"id":"558eaa69-f06f-4dde-b9f2-9f42615f9a13","date":"2022-02-03","amount":1138000,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"53ae0d74-fe45-41a4-bb79-f68cfe2c610a","date":"2022-03-09","amount":142800,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
1,280,800
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
Geospecialties LLC: 2 contracts within 90 days totaling $1,975,950 The vendor Geospecialties LLC received 2 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $1,975,950. 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 "Geospecialties LLC" 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:7dfd46db…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Geospecialties LLC
contracts
{"id":"97046bb1-89de-45fa-94f6-b3acc992ac45","date":"2025-06-26","amount":849525,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"b0cf787c-4d82-493d-978d-597163e40100","date":"2025-09-05","amount":1126425,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
1,975,950
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
Garland/DBS: 2 contracts within 90 days totaling $1,576,557 The vendor Garland/DBS received 2 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $1,576,557. 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 "Garland/DBS" 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:e8be856e…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Garland/DBS
contracts
{"id":"0334eb31-17e4-49fc-9440-c3c3d602c5e9","date":"2021-11-24","amount":435550,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"975726c0-22c4-4e5b-94d8-7e18352adbbd","date":"2021-11-29","amount":1141007,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
1,576,557
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
FuelBand: 2 contracts within 90 days totaling $65,000 The vendor FuelBand received 2 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $65,000. 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 "FuelBand" 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:d57b6503…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
FuelBand
contracts
{"id":"43da56e8-f88c-4143-9fed-3e213be6f2f9","date":"2014-12-01","amount":38000,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"f145f9ae-a5ac-44e9-a733-73a98a39d4be","date":"2015-02-26","amount":27000,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
65,000
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
Fuelband: 2 contracts within 90 days totaling $1,228,686 The vendor Fuelband received 2 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $1,228,686. 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 "Fuelband" 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:7d7c42aa…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Fuelband
contracts
{"id":"46391ba1-be76-4f48-be06-246d5aeec8aa","date":"2019-08-05","amount":105000,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"0a433eaf-78ed-46a2-ba6b-de467788cfa2","date":"2019-09-16","amount":1123686,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
1,228,686
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
Fuelband: 3 contracts within 90 days totaling $2,307,484 The vendor Fuelband received 3 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $2,307,484. 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 "Fuelband" 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:e6a73ca6…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Fuelband
contracts
{"id":"b70705e8-d94e-4b53-a740-76204fb76fe3","date":"2019-06-28","amount":1078798,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"46391ba1-be76-4f48-be06-246d5aeec8aa","date":"2019-08-05","amount":105000,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"0a433eaf-78ed-46a2-ba6b-de467788cfa2","date":"2019-09-16","amount":1123686,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
2,307,484
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
Fuelband: 4 contracts within 90 days totaling $2,780,821 The vendor Fuelband received 4 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $2,780,821. 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 "Fuelband" 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:ff628571…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Fuelband
contracts
{"id":"9f27adf1-66db-4177-9bf0-6cbcb13fd016","date":"2019-06-27","amount":473337,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"b70705e8-d94e-4b53-a740-76204fb76fe3","date":"2019-06-28","amount":1078798,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"46391ba1-be76-4f48-be06-246d5aeec8aa","date":"2019-08-05","amount":105000,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"0a433eaf-78ed-46a2-ba6b-de467788cfa2","date":"2019-09-16","amount":1123686,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
2,780,821
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
Fuelband: 2 contracts within 90 days totaling $1,517,776 The vendor Fuelband received 2 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $1,517,776. 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 "Fuelband" 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:95387106…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Fuelband
contracts
{"id":"9a6003c6-5b9b-4ec9-b0f0-bad0daee12ca","date":"2018-08-30","amount":468888,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"e26eed79-7aca-4242-9833-70ec2a5218af","date":"2018-11-20","amount":1048888,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
1,517,776
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
Fuelband: 2 contracts within 90 days totaling $465,232 The vendor Fuelband received 2 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $465,232. 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 "Fuelband" 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:c20d0757…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Fuelband
contracts
{"id":"4c2a31fa-9131-4e32-ba0c-8b35426ec4f6","date":"2017-10-09","amount":232616,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"ed29a2f2-e7e4-4d28-b52c-d4d80c44ffca","date":"2017-11-21","amount":232616,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
465,232
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
Friends: 3 contracts within 90 days totaling $71,169 The vendor Friends received 3 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $71,169. 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 "Friends" 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:f0aa7a36…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Friends
contracts
{"id":"0126757d-3584-4ae6-a7b4-73c02ff0c58c","date":"2024-02-08","amount":32184,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"7c2272c2-dc7b-4ac6-bbd2-8285da13de01","date":"2024-02-08","amount":29385,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"4d736de8-065e-4467-83d2-54e98d75a2a3","date":"2024-02-23","amount":9600,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
71,169
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
Friends: 2 contracts within 90 days totaling $63,591 The vendor Friends received 2 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $63,591. 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 "Friends" 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:7048be31…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Friends
contracts
{"id":"b20ea7a7-b252-4053-a9d3-3a590b7b8cdf","date":"2022-05-24","amount":62391.2,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"d7e342f8-84b1-4a30-844f-d0d86db96df8","date":"2022-08-11","amount":1200,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
63,591.2
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
Friends: 2 contracts within 90 days totaling $76,340 The vendor Friends received 2 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $76,340. 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 "Friends" 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:5770a512…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Friends
contracts
{"id":"29299004-b3b8-4c75-be57-86c57461c0ec","date":"2019-11-08","amount":32820,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"14e103d2-b159-4823-8efa-af3a47f05c3f","date":"2019-12-11","amount":43520,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
76,340
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
Friends: 3 contracts within 90 days totaling $119,860 The vendor Friends received 3 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $119,860. 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 "Friends" 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:9e93e754…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Friends
contracts
{"id":"2e4d2849-5fb8-4616-9aa0-0ab27b8ed274","date":"2019-11-08","amount":43520,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"29299004-b3b8-4c75-be57-86c57461c0ec","date":"2019-11-08","amount":32820,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"14e103d2-b159-4823-8efa-af3a47f05c3f","date":"2019-12-11","amount":43520,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
119,860
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
Friends: 4 contracts within 90 days totaling $121,360 The vendor Friends received 4 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $121,360. 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 "Friends" 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:1b7b5322…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Friends
contracts
{"id":"7cc1bebb-5897-4725-bcea-fb64fb5b3377","date":"2019-10-10","amount":1500,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"2e4d2849-5fb8-4616-9aa0-0ab27b8ed274","date":"2019-11-08","amount":43520,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"29299004-b3b8-4c75-be57-86c57461c0ec","date":"2019-11-08","amount":32820,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"14e103d2-b159-4823-8efa-af3a47f05c3f","date":"2019-12-11","amount":43520,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
121,360
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
Free Contracting: 2 contracts within 90 days totaling $1,341,612 The vendor Free Contracting received 2 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $1,341,612. When the combined value crosses a procurement-approval threshold but each individual award stays below it, the pattern is classically called 'contract splitting' and warrants further review against the procurement code and any justifications. The pattern can also reflect legitimate phased work or multiple unrelated services with the same vendor. Tier 2: vendor-named observation, no individual characterization.
plain englishVendor "Free 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:ce5d3ae7…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Free Contracting
contracts
{"id":"e57d3230-df7f-41c7-9d90-4d8ae0703e71","date":"2016-11-23","amount":1061237.68,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"b8e3ecbd-43a5-425d-b6c5-07a22b5b7dbe","date":"2017-02-13","amount":280374.52,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
1,341,612.2
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
Free Contracting: 2 contracts within 90 days totaling $717,795 The vendor Free Contracting received 2 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $717,795. 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 "Free 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:3ddf2732…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Free Contracting
contracts
{"id":"2b62a9b1-c74b-49e2-8686-6583e7bbf435","date":"2016-04-25","amount":253220.1,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"e056f83e-e0bf-415a-9185-9a60e7046ccf","date":"2016-06-17","amount":464575.04,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
717,795.14
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
Free Contracting: 2 contracts within 90 days totaling $614,344 The vendor Free Contracting received 2 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $614,344. 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 "Free 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:1e66e1c2…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Free Contracting
contracts
{"id":"99680506-b5db-411b-9419-023478263a5c","date":"2016-02-12","amount":361124,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"2b62a9b1-c74b-49e2-8686-6583e7bbf435","date":"2016-04-25","amount":253220.1,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
614,344.1
contract_count
2
Every flag is a starting question, not a conclusion. The links above lead to the same public records the detector read — go look, and tell us if our reading is wrong (info@lexdoge.org).
May 27, 2026
Free Contracting: 2 contracts within 90 days totaling $3,337,993 The vendor Free Contracting received 2 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $3,337,993. When the combined value crosses a procurement-approval threshold but each individual award stays below it, the pattern is classically called 'contract splitting' and warrants further review against the procurement code and any justifications. The pattern can also reflect legitimate phased work or multiple unrelated services with the same vendor. Tier 2: vendor-named observation, no individual characterization.
plain englishVendor "Free 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:2ee370a8…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Free Contracting
contracts
{"id":"15166217-3236-4ce2-a7cc-c07a456a1870","date":"2015-02-02","amount":319001.13,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"98285887-32bd-4d62-88ec-cb5f78087c7b","date":"2015-03-09","amount":3018992,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
3,337,993.13
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
Free Contracting: 2 contracts within 90 days totaling $1,098,562 The vendor Free Contracting received 2 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $1,098,562. 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 "Free 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:eba970dd…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Free Contracting
contracts
{"id":"cda13848-70a1-4dc6-878a-2ea4ff18c033","date":"2014-09-02","amount":737437.5,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"a80fb9cf-ad40-4c1a-bf86-6190b35e9319","date":"2014-10-01","amount":361124,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
1,098,561.5
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
Free Contracting: 2 contracts within 90 days totaling $1,781,855 The vendor Free Contracting received 2 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $1,781,855. 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 "Free 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:296bc079…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Free Contracting
contracts
{"id":"32d6d827-26c0-42b9-8e7a-3151045245a9","date":"2014-06-12","amount":1044417.97,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"cda13848-70a1-4dc6-878a-2ea4ff18c033","date":"2014-09-02","amount":737437.5,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
1,781,855.47
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
Flock Group: 2 contracts within 90 days totaling $806,779 The vendor Flock Group received 2 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $806,779. 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 "Flock 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:1481fe3a…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Flock Group
contracts
{"id":"e01e7728-3753-4b67-8959-397e8ee8f136","date":"2024-03-13","amount":353404.11,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"482bbedf-9de0-4f36-a631-f54953c46f11","date":"2024-06-07","amount":453375,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
806,779.11
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
Fitzsimmons: 2 contracts within 90 days totaling $71,310 The vendor Fitzsimmons received 2 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $71,310. 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 "Fitzsimmons" 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:5155fe0d…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Fitzsimmons
contracts
{"id":"ad29aa0e-201b-4e72-9bdc-f6f2bf828597","date":"2016-07-22","amount":30810,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"6210cb15-6753-4829-b020-ec21e2d3ef47","date":"2016-08-25","amount":40500,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
71,310
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
Fayette County Public Schools: 2 contracts within 90 days totaling $392,521 The vendor Fayette County Public Schools received 2 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $392,521. 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 "Fayette County Public Schools" 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:e66cdd9a…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Fayette County Public Schools
contracts
{"id":"a5489aea-4cb3-4aaa-ab80-9f80045ffc5f","date":"2024-06-13","amount":300000,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"73db9b1f-aa87-4cc9-a864-771aa0e34297","date":"2024-08-09","amount":92521.44,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
392,521.44
contract_count
2
Every flag is a starting question, not a conclusion. The links above lead to the same public records the detector read — go look, and tell us if our reading is wrong (info@lexdoge.org).
May 27, 2026
Fayette County Public Schools: 2 contracts within 90 days totaling $83,034 The vendor Fayette County Public Schools received 2 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $83,034. 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 "Fayette County Public Schools" 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:dbea1054…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Fayette County Public Schools
contracts
{"id":"59af8bc9-a74d-4972-b772-1fec9a4c7b88","date":"2019-05-09","amount":78141,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"3880114b-f5e3-4a6f-ad11-14933955cdc0","date":"2019-05-09","amount":4893,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
83,034
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
Fayette County Public Schools: 2 contracts within 90 days totaling $90,141 The vendor Fayette County Public Schools received 2 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $90,141. 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 "Fayette County Public Schools" 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:c41d5155…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Fayette County Public Schools
contracts
{"id":"3ad783f7-6abf-4235-bdcf-18ecba982b0d","date":"2018-05-09","amount":5264,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"81235e8b-f74e-4aec-967c-151601a87264","date":"2018-08-01","amount":84877,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
90,141
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
Fayette County Public Schools: 2 contracts within 90 days totaling $90,832 The vendor Fayette County Public Schools received 2 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $90,832. 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 "Fayette County Public Schools" 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:1d7822e2…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Fayette County Public Schools
contracts
{"id":"61b7dfdf-c7a1-4fb0-a890-c209bb6af18f","date":"2015-05-21","amount":5189.25,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"899de8c0-ec47-47f5-b033-d81e3af8fe76","date":"2015-06-22","amount":85643.22,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
90,832.47
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
EOP Architects: 2 contracts within 90 days totaling $139,664 The vendor EOP Architects received 2 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $139,664. 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 "EOP Architects" 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:383255d6…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
EOP Architects
contracts
{"id":"20b42d75-689c-4a59-80f3-4791636810c5","date":"2019-11-04","amount":102712.14,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"a49a2b0b-1b4a-44d2-993d-c8ae31bcc36e","date":"2019-11-22","amount":36952.28,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
139,664.42
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
EOP Architects: 2 contracts within 90 days totaling $962,143 The vendor EOP Architects received 2 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $962,143. 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 "EOP Architects" 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:7231d2ef…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
EOP Architects
contracts
{"id":"14962e91-5ef6-44d1-94e0-3ff119f810c9","date":"2015-04-23","amount":789955,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"ea1d4741-b5c9-49d4-9233-f4776faf18e6","date":"2015-05-21","amount":172188.11,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
962,143.11
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
EOP Architects: 3 contracts within 90 days totaling $1,747,498 The vendor EOP Architects received 3 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $1,747,498. 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 "EOP Architects" 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:2fb685e5…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
EOP Architects
contracts
{"id":"998c8743-161b-4d50-8dfe-1a0de3df4ba8","date":"2015-03-26","amount":785355,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"14962e91-5ef6-44d1-94e0-3ff119f810c9","date":"2015-04-23","amount":789955,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"ea1d4741-b5c9-49d4-9233-f4776faf18e6","date":"2015-05-21","amount":172188.11,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
1,747,498.11
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
EOP Architects: 2 contracts within 90 days totaling $289,148 The vendor EOP Architects received 2 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $289,148. 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 "EOP Architects" 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:fa00d65b…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
EOP Architects
contracts
{"id":"14d75b97-6fba-4d95-b4d3-eb1b8d46957e","date":"2014-11-11","amount":119573.75,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"02ac2d21-8839-4afa-8dfb-4e1996fb75e5","date":"2014-11-17","amount":169573.75,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
289,147.5
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
EOP Architects: 2 contracts within 90 days totaling $714,555 The vendor EOP Architects received 2 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $714,555. 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 "EOP Architects" 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:d0e5fab1…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
EOP Architects
contracts
{"id":"9677edca-5517-4bae-9efb-7bc5cc5eecc2","date":"2014-05-02","amount":604555,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"ac03ae98-de36-4887-9d7f-94e14f5deb74","date":"2014-07-07","amount":110000,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
714,555
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
Environmental Demolition Group: 2 contracts within 90 days totaling $734,625 The vendor Environmental Demolition Group received 2 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $734,625. 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 "Environmental Demolition 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:3f551444…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Environmental Demolition Group
contracts
{"id":"4b52dc7d-1500-408a-be27-de7ed7837465","date":"2016-05-20","amount":360000,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"b7fae21e-c48d-4343-88d1-81e2dfe98007","date":"2016-08-01","amount":374625,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
734,625
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
Element Design: 2 contracts within 90 days totaling $67,200 The vendor Element Design received 2 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $67,200. 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 "Element Design" 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:9d3bcad7…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Element Design
contracts
{"id":"d8215393-507f-4463-9fe9-e51709adf389","date":"2017-08-31","amount":18200,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"74ab6ea1-5e91-4b29-a368-c2ac58b85229","date":"2017-11-27","amount":49000,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
67,200
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).