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 251–300 of 503 flags
sorted by severity · page 6 of 11
50 flags · on this page
sorted by severity
May 27, 2026
Element Design: 2 contracts within 90 days totaling $82,800 The vendor Element Design received 2 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $82,800. 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 "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:76e47b81…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Element Design
contracts
{"id":"4763b69e-66a0-4d48-badb-17c69352d1af","date":"2016-09-06","amount":36800,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"38a1f5ca-dddd-45c1-978f-aac02745bfbb","date":"2016-09-06","amount":46000,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
82,800
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
EDS Holdco: 2 contracts within 90 days totaling $2,470,824 The vendor EDS Holdco received 2 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $2,470,824. 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 "EDS Holdco" 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:f14d9ba4…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
EDS Holdco
contracts
{"id":"b9db6e48-684b-4e6e-865a-fb24217832aa","date":"2025-08-29","amount":1782000,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"fd9e6045-a910-4605-ae88-5f054e7606c5","date":"2025-08-29","amount":688824,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
2,470,824
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
Economy Glass Service: 2 contracts within 90 days totaling $245,140 The vendor Economy Glass Service received 2 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $245,140. 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 "Economy Glass Service" 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:fa080e31…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Economy Glass Service
contracts
{"id":"5409b17b-647d-4ba0-840c-84661be47e6b","date":"2014-04-14","amount":99876,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"1c0f547a-ad24-43d3-a593-2a1296d92cad","date":"2014-05-22","amount":145264,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
245,140
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
E.C. Matthews Co.: 2 contracts within 90 days totaling $907,500 The vendor E.C. Matthews Co. received 2 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $907,500. 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 "E.C. Matthews 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:d777c703…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
E.C. Matthews Co.
contracts
{"id":"139e574c-cf7a-4153-ae14-a6c7616f2ca7","date":"2021-08-19","amount":379950,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"bfb24248-7eee-4312-8684-32b1f8819075","date":"2021-10-25","amount":527550,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
907,500
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
E.C. Matthews Co.: 3 contracts within 90 days totaling $1,027,200 The vendor E.C. Matthews Co. received 3 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $1,027,200. 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 "E.C. Matthews 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:9e447908…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
E.C. Matthews Co.
contracts
{"id":"ff34cc5a-e1d2-4581-b3ab-2e330268c179","date":"2021-08-12","amount":119700,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"139e574c-cf7a-4153-ae14-a6c7616f2ca7","date":"2021-08-19","amount":379950,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"bfb24248-7eee-4312-8684-32b1f8819075","date":"2021-10-25","amount":527550,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
1,027,200
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
E.C. Matthews Co.: 2 contracts within 90 days totaling $189,365 The vendor E.C. Matthews Co. received 2 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $189,365. 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 "E.C. Matthews 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:8c7b74a4…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
E.C. Matthews Co.
contracts
{"id":"b1a02ab6-5c35-4f98-a44d-fe2968bc207c","date":"2020-11-06","amount":159534,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"ef4423c2-60c9-4a83-9d8b-e7cbbc8e40c3","date":"2021-01-07","amount":29831,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
189,365
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
E.C. Matthews Co.: 3 contracts within 90 days totaling $319,056 The vendor E.C. Matthews Co. received 3 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $319,056. 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 "E.C. Matthews 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:dd00eb66…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
E.C. Matthews Co.
contracts
{"id":"93bc2043-c38c-4d2e-89b1-b715eb977f78","date":"2020-11-06","amount":129691,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"b1a02ab6-5c35-4f98-a44d-fe2968bc207c","date":"2020-11-06","amount":159534,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"ef4423c2-60c9-4a83-9d8b-e7cbbc8e40c3","date":"2021-01-07","amount":29831,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
319,056
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
E.C. Matthews Co.: 2 contracts within 90 days totaling $241,100 The vendor E.C. Matthews Co. received 2 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $241,100. When the combined value crosses a procurement-approval threshold but each individual award stays below it, the pattern is classically called 'contract splitting' and warrants further review against the procurement code and any justifications. The pattern can also reflect legitimate phased work or multiple unrelated services with the same vendor. Tier 2: vendor-named observation, no individual characterization.
plain englishVendor "E.C. Matthews 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:0dcb5f37…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
E.C. Matthews Co.
contracts
{"id":"8b8a04f7-247b-4ac5-8352-3f74e7ffe531","date":"2020-04-16","amount":128400,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"6b524ce3-d4cd-4c8d-8832-56e834a336e1","date":"2020-04-16","amount":112700,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
241,100
contract_count
2
Every flag is a starting question, not a conclusion. The links above lead to the same public records the detector read — go look, and tell us if our reading is wrong (info@lexdoge.org).
May 27, 2026
Echo 24: 2 contracts within 90 days totaling $134,715 The vendor Echo 24 received 2 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $134,715. 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 "Echo 24" 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:f90d964c…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Echo 24
contracts
{"id":"3a0f4a8e-5542-444d-aa9e-50a2aec52eca","date":"2017-04-19","amount":63142,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"55f02ee2-250e-4c72-996d-1d2983ea857f","date":"2017-06-08","amount":71573,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
134,715
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
Dugan & Meyers: 2 contracts within 90 days totaling $12,512,959 The vendor Dugan & Meyers received 2 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $12,512,959. 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 "Dugan & Meyers" 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:7deae5df…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Dugan & Meyers
contracts
{"id":"edb7bb8e-38cf-4735-8756-60d83ebb6237","date":"2020-05-18","amount":3305318,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"46d17533-51c1-44de-897f-0494a026bcbc","date":"2020-06-11","amount":9207641,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
12,512,959
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
Disponette Service Co.: 2 contracts within 90 days totaling $368,000 The vendor Disponette Service Co. received 2 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $368,000. 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 "Disponette Service 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:0f556618…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Disponette Service Co.
contracts
{"id":"1b260f8a-c188-4bfa-89e8-100223d0931c","date":"2012-05-03","amount":182600,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"ed9d4a4f-c9d1-43e0-b923-1e89f16b36f5","date":"2012-08-01","amount":185400,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
368,000
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
Devere Construction: 2 contracts within 90 days totaling $1,535,602 The vendor Devere Construction received 2 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $1,535,602. When the combined value crosses a procurement-approval threshold but each individual award stays below it, the pattern is classically called 'contract splitting' and warrants further review against the procurement code and any justifications. The pattern can also reflect legitimate phased work or multiple unrelated services with the same vendor. Tier 2: vendor-named observation, no individual characterization.
plain englishVendor "Devere 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:9e495181…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Devere Construction
contracts
{"id":"c8df1cc6-1c98-46a1-a3da-3b0da8dbcf06","date":"2016-03-09","amount":756607.61,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"9bd5e5c4-4f76-403a-b631-db085e918ba3","date":"2016-03-31","amount":778994.36,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
1,535,601.97
contract_count
2
Every flag is a starting question, not a conclusion. The links above lead to the same public records the detector read — go look, and tell us if our reading is wrong (info@lexdoge.org).
May 27, 2026
DelMae LLC: 2 contracts within 90 days totaling $1,842,613 The vendor DelMae LLC received 2 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $1,842,613. 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 "DelMae 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:0e552159…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
DelMae LLC
contracts
{"id":"768d8cc1-d28f-4316-82a4-d715e5817ed8","date":"2025-06-04","amount":285295,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"91a259e9-0d4e-4aee-b70c-8a8bcdf33864","date":"2025-07-30","amount":1557318,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
1,842,613
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
CPS HR Consulting: 2 contracts within 90 days totaling $149,340 The vendor CPS HR Consulting received 2 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $149,340. 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 "CPS HR Consulting" 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:0194db05…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
CPS HR Consulting
contracts
{"id":"19187666-902c-4ac3-b662-4a1444542c52","date":"2014-03-27","amount":136340,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"c3c6f67c-c5a9-4559-acbe-166a24affcb5","date":"2014-06-17","amount":13000,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
149,340
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
CPS HR Consulting: 2 contracts within 90 days totaling $60,000 The vendor CPS HR Consulting received 2 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $60,000. 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 "CPS HR Consulting" 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:0c0614e0…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
CPS HR Consulting
contracts
{"id":"80afe2ac-acec-44c8-9238-f3c65c6ec7bf","date":"2012-09-26","amount":7500,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"db051f10-aeaa-492c-b624-5711cc4b7e56","date":"2012-09-26","amount":52500,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
60,000
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
Community Action Council: 2 contracts within 90 days totaling $235,750 The vendor Community Action Council received 2 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $235,750. 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 "Community Action Council" 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:03efcfa7…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Community Action Council
contracts
{"id":"8afdd8bc-6c30-4fc2-a984-236c8cced810","date":"2025-07-01","amount":58500,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"5fd825bc-ace5-448f-a5b3-c7aa9de953e4","date":"2025-09-19","amount":177250,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
235,750
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
Community Action Council: 2 contracts within 90 days totaling $113,481 The vendor Community Action Council received 2 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $113,481. 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 "Community Action Council" 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:9e8d880f…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Community Action Council
contracts
{"id":"b27ef589-a922-4a46-894b-cf55047935ad","date":"2025-04-07","amount":54981,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"8afdd8bc-6c30-4fc2-a984-236c8cced810","date":"2025-07-01","amount":58500,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
113,481
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
Community Action Council: 2 contracts within 90 days totaling $170,000 The vendor Community Action Council received 2 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $170,000. 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 "Community Action Council" 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:dba0d9aa…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Community Action Council
contracts
{"id":"d74107ca-04ad-47b5-8a02-e965f30ecbc4","date":"2024-02-15","amount":40000,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"77a7d336-a3cf-4e7e-b8e9-77ac63dcacc0","date":"2024-04-11","amount":130000,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
170,000
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
Community Action Council: 2 contracts within 90 days totaling $554,520 The vendor Community Action Council received 2 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $554,520. 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 "Community Action Council" 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:8ff0f33d…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Community Action Council
contracts
{"id":"834bd54b-7f11-41c5-b08e-fb9fba60f006","date":"2023-05-22","amount":443520,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"94c8beaf-d44d-48ba-b767-fb1a80059e66","date":"2023-05-22","amount":111000,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
554,520
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
Community Action Council: 3 contracts within 90 days totaling $610,020 The vendor Community Action Council received 3 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $610,020. 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 "Community Action Council" 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:9226b19e…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Community Action Council
contracts
{"id":"86a7e980-686c-45ad-88a0-c5e2f2f8878b","date":"2023-02-27","amount":55500,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"834bd54b-7f11-41c5-b08e-fb9fba60f006","date":"2023-05-22","amount":443520,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"94c8beaf-d44d-48ba-b767-fb1a80059e66","date":"2023-05-22","amount":111000,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
610,020
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
Community Action Council: 2 contracts within 90 days totaling $549,163 The vendor Community Action Council received 2 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $549,163. 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 "Community Action Council" 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:8deee46f…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Community Action Council
contracts
{"id":"09c7fcd9-1450-4825-9156-885c0b74a91f","date":"2022-11-10","amount":100000,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"f6bc0ac6-afc1-4b83-9570-c94524080eaf","date":"2022-11-10","amount":449162.55,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
549,162.55
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
Community Action Council: 3 contracts within 90 days totaling $686,163 The vendor Community Action Council received 3 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $686,163. 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 "Community Action Council" 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:0227c2ae…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Community Action Council
contracts
{"id":"a8be33d0-c519-4c05-a5b0-79ff6244b02b","date":"2022-10-11","amount":137000,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"09c7fcd9-1450-4825-9156-885c0b74a91f","date":"2022-11-10","amount":100000,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"f6bc0ac6-afc1-4b83-9570-c94524080eaf","date":"2022-11-10","amount":449162.55,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
686,162.55
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
Community Action Council: 4 contracts within 90 days totaling $7,607,365 The vendor Community Action Council received 4 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $7,607,365. 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 "Community Action Council" 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:b7e3fd18…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Community Action Council
contracts
{"id":"e89746e0-288b-45fc-abe8-3427d4d8887c","date":"2022-09-02","amount":6921202.2,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"a8be33d0-c519-4c05-a5b0-79ff6244b02b","date":"2022-10-11","amount":137000,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"09c7fcd9-1450-4825-9156-885c0b74a91f","date":"2022-11-10","amount":100000,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"f6bc0ac6-afc1-4b83-9570-c94524080eaf","date":"2022-11-10","amount":449162.55,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
7,607,364.75
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
Community Action Council: 3 contracts within 90 days totaling $9,008,202 The vendor Community Action Council received 3 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $9,008,202. 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 "Community Action Council" 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:83ef0206…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Community Action Council
contracts
{"id":"88688399-b6df-40f6-85dd-d396f12d3ae8","date":"2022-08-10","amount":1950000,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"e89746e0-288b-45fc-abe8-3427d4d8887c","date":"2022-09-02","amount":6921202.2,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"a8be33d0-c519-4c05-a5b0-79ff6244b02b","date":"2022-10-11","amount":137000,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
9,008,202.2
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
Community Action Council: 2 contracts within 90 days totaling $5,950,000 The vendor Community Action Council received 2 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $5,950,000. 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 "Community Action Council" 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:6de08b9b…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Community Action Council
contracts
{"id":"1b357531-d53b-49c0-a9f7-e37dcc87c471","date":"2022-06-03","amount":4000000,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"88688399-b6df-40f6-85dd-d396f12d3ae8","date":"2022-08-10","amount":1950000,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
5,950,000
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
Community Action Council: 2 contracts within 90 days totaling $14,530,000 The vendor Community Action Council received 2 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $14,530,000. 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 "Community Action Council" 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:9e92da30…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Community Action Council
contracts
{"id":"d98d675c-711e-484a-9db8-7bf1dd4f23e5","date":"2022-03-07","amount":10530000,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"1b357531-d53b-49c0-a9f7-e37dcc87c471","date":"2022-06-03","amount":4000000,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
14,530,000
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
Community Action Council: 2 contracts within 90 days totaling $1,792,000 The vendor Community Action Council received 2 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $1,792,000. 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 "Community Action Council" 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:e4bd597d…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Community Action Council
contracts
{"id":"8b80011a-29d1-4a29-b927-457e27ece72e","date":"2021-08-16","amount":392000,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"6f527ae2-4b5e-4a83-9e1e-5943e27c2de5","date":"2021-10-28","amount":1400000,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
1,792,000
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
Community Action Council: 2 contracts within 90 days totaling $3,392,000 The vendor Community Action Council received 2 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $3,392,000. 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 "Community Action Council" 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:fa6a0088…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Community Action Council
contracts
{"id":"18551135-1a16-46f3-bd27-0328c51ba938","date":"2021-06-07","amount":3000000,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"8b80011a-29d1-4a29-b927-457e27ece72e","date":"2021-08-16","amount":392000,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
3,392,000
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
Community Action Council: 2 contracts within 90 days totaling $3,092,521 The vendor Community Action Council received 2 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $3,092,521. 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 "Community Action Council" 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:efa2b644…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Community Action Council
contracts
{"id":"b6d893c8-6e03-41c0-9b5e-67dbb11e4a7f","date":"2021-04-15","amount":92521.06,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"18551135-1a16-46f3-bd27-0328c51ba938","date":"2021-06-07","amount":3000000,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
3,092,521.06
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
Community Action Council: 2 contracts within 90 days totaling $284,350 The vendor Community Action Council received 2 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $284,350. 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 "Community Action Council" 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:31460f19…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Community Action Council
contracts
{"id":"52e00dc7-deb4-4009-93a2-d05cc66bd502","date":"2019-08-14","amount":4350,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"fc6ecf98-e12e-45a8-9d97-6c8f8ceed4f1","date":"2019-09-30","amount":280000,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
284,350
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
Commonwealth: 2 contracts within 90 days totaling $676,000 The vendor Commonwealth received 2 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $676,000. 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 "Commonwealth" 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:4190c43e…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Commonwealth
contracts
{"id":"5737c783-1146-4381-94ab-b43a4c1c76aa","date":"2025-01-27","amount":576000,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"83105836-30ed-4487-96c4-8dbb3677dc76","date":"2025-04-01","amount":100000,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
676,000
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
Commonwealth: 2 contracts within 90 days totaling $331,920 The vendor Commonwealth received 2 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $331,920. 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 "Commonwealth" 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:f227e168…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Commonwealth
contracts
{"id":"d041627d-0130-4496-ad58-03b11b8984fc","date":"2014-06-03","amount":330000,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"8b506efe-8554-4db9-8dbd-d6c2e4611fe9","date":"2014-07-01","amount":1920,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
331,920
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
Commerce Lexington: 2 contracts within 90 days totaling $300,000 The vendor Commerce Lexington received 2 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $300,000. 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 "Commerce Lexington" received 2 separate contracts inside a 90-day window that, combined, would normally require open competitive bidding. Often this reflects separate legitimate projects — sometimes it reflects a single project broken up to avoid extra review.
[sources & evidence ▸]
sources & evidence · contract_splittinghash:5b19897f…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Commerce Lexington
contracts
{"id":"8b0b3f48-767b-4f1c-87b6-ffeda6c2a7a9","date":"2021-11-19","amount":250000,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"014c3dfa-8620-4656-8628-4f60c8577a35","date":"2022-01-10","amount":50000,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
300,000
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
Columbia Gas: 2 contracts within 90 days totaling $156,365 The vendor Columbia Gas received 2 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $156,365. 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 "Columbia Gas" 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:9bc4c316…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Columbia Gas
contracts
{"id":"eb21c5fd-3f12-4e8b-9b24-5394bd9b958b","date":"2017-03-09","amount":120311,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"dd28765a-39de-4045-aa77-575ff5960890","date":"2017-04-24","amount":36054.03,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
156,365.03
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
Columbia Gas: 3 contracts within 90 days totaling $510,811 The vendor Columbia Gas received 3 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $510,811. 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 "Columbia Gas" 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:8b3c54f3…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Columbia Gas
contracts
{"id":"94f811eb-3dcd-4924-8052-dd26830600a9","date":"2017-03-06","amount":354445.69,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"eb21c5fd-3f12-4e8b-9b24-5394bd9b958b","date":"2017-03-09","amount":120311,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"dd28765a-39de-4045-aa77-575ff5960890","date":"2017-04-24","amount":36054.03,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
510,810.72
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
Cleary Construction: 2 contracts within 90 days totaling $16,292,490 The vendor Cleary Construction received 2 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $16,292,490. 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 "Cleary 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:a0a99a3c…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Cleary Construction
contracts
{"id":"b5f5dfdf-89b0-4e8b-b847-23ac07f2d597","date":"2024-10-15","amount":12004030,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"18811480-b621-4a92-8673-abc72d7cc14a","date":"2025-01-02","amount":4288460,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
16,292,490
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
Claunch Construction: 2 contracts within 90 days totaling $993,239 The vendor Claunch Construction received 2 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $993,239. 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 "Claunch 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:d44374ed…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Claunch Construction
contracts
{"id":"8dd4ac82-6913-4fc1-a7f7-2114c901404e","date":"2012-03-07","amount":184000,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"7726d974-92bb-4b0b-8fe3-1ee593b709f6","date":"2012-04-30","amount":809238.9,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
993,238.9
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
Churchill McGee: 2 contracts within 90 days totaling $13,357,617 The vendor Churchill McGee received 2 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $13,357,617. 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 "Churchill McGee" 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:61213675…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Churchill McGee
contracts
{"id":"592f5930-5794-4508-809c-7647323a1581","date":"2016-09-19","amount":6665322.45,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"ca140aae-9baf-4940-a96c-5824506ef0c4","date":"2016-11-14","amount":6692294.89,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
13,357,617.34
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
Churchill McGee: 2 contracts within 90 days totaling $7,552,704 The vendor Churchill McGee received 2 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $7,552,704. 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 "Churchill McGee" 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:fca3e7f3…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Churchill McGee
contracts
{"id":"392b6d79-d1ef-409f-aeb9-3bb47c832b18","date":"2016-05-24","amount":887953.35,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"0e084555-c53c-4b58-8e61-2a8ca3421dd4","date":"2016-05-24","amount":6664750.39,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
7,552,703.74
contract_count
2
Every flag is a starting question, not a conclusion. The links above lead to the same public records the detector read — go look, and tell us if our reading is wrong (info@lexdoge.org).
May 27, 2026
Churchill McGee: 3 contracts within 90 days totaling $14,202,365 The vendor Churchill McGee received 3 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $14,202,365. 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 "Churchill McGee" 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:0b6a32e1…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Churchill McGee
contracts
{"id":"dc3fc965-9881-4dc3-af89-1cb2c07f17ba","date":"2016-04-19","amount":6649661.24,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"392b6d79-d1ef-409f-aeb9-3bb47c832b18","date":"2016-05-24","amount":887953.35,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"0e084555-c53c-4b58-8e61-2a8ca3421dd4","date":"2016-05-24","amount":6664750.39,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
14,202,364.98
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
Churchill McGee: 4 contracts within 90 days totaling $15,076,318 The vendor Churchill McGee received 4 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $15,076,318. 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 "Churchill McGee" 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:cd7b389b…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Churchill McGee
contracts
{"id":"382b052f-31f5-4422-8f87-f3638bef27ca","date":"2016-03-17","amount":873953.35,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"dc3fc965-9881-4dc3-af89-1cb2c07f17ba","date":"2016-04-19","amount":6649661.24,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"392b6d79-d1ef-409f-aeb9-3bb47c832b18","date":"2016-05-24","amount":887953.35,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"0e084555-c53c-4b58-8e61-2a8ca3421dd4","date":"2016-05-24","amount":6664750.39,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
15,076,318.33
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
Churchill McGee: 5 contracts within 90 days totaling $21,696,880 The vendor Churchill McGee received 5 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $21,696,880. 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 "Churchill McGee" 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:b95ea461…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Churchill McGee
contracts
{"id":"f2f34950-9b65-4eee-84ac-1bdd2de5b019","date":"2016-03-17","amount":6620561.93,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"382b052f-31f5-4422-8f87-f3638bef27ca","date":"2016-03-17","amount":873953.35,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"dc3fc965-9881-4dc3-af89-1cb2c07f17ba","date":"2016-04-19","amount":6649661.24,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"392b6d79-d1ef-409f-aeb9-3bb47c832b18","date":"2016-05-24","amount":887953.35,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"0e084555-c53c-4b58-8e61-2a8ca3421dd4","date":"2016-05-24","amount":6664750.39,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
21,696,880.26
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
Churchill McGee: 4 contracts within 90 days totaling $20,743,742 The vendor Churchill McGee received 4 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $20,743,742. 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 "Churchill McGee" 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:f99c497c…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Churchill McGee
contracts
{"id":"a828f163-633d-435c-ada3-1f22ca577507","date":"2016-02-19","amount":6599565.83,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"f2f34950-9b65-4eee-84ac-1bdd2de5b019","date":"2016-03-17","amount":6620561.93,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"382b052f-31f5-4422-8f87-f3638bef27ca","date":"2016-03-17","amount":873953.35,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"dc3fc965-9881-4dc3-af89-1cb2c07f17ba","date":"2016-04-19","amount":6649661.24,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
20,743,742.35
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
Churchill McGee: 5 contracts within 90 days totaling $27,208,339 The vendor Churchill McGee received 5 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $27,208,339. When the combined value crosses a procurement-approval threshold but each individual award stays below it, the pattern is classically called 'contract splitting' and warrants further review against the procurement code and any justifications. The pattern can also reflect legitimate phased work or multiple unrelated services with the same vendor. Tier 2: vendor-named observation, no individual characterization.
plain englishVendor "Churchill McGee" 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:b111b810…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Churchill McGee
contracts
{"id":"ccd73689-048b-4e0d-ae05-ee41f8e2f4a5","date":"2016-01-25","amount":6464597.13,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"a828f163-633d-435c-ada3-1f22ca577507","date":"2016-02-19","amount":6599565.83,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"f2f34950-9b65-4eee-84ac-1bdd2de5b019","date":"2016-03-17","amount":6620561.93,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"382b052f-31f5-4422-8f87-f3638bef27ca","date":"2016-03-17","amount":873953.35,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"dc3fc965-9881-4dc3-af89-1cb2c07f17ba","date":"2016-04-19","amount":6649661.24,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
27,208,339.48
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
Churchill McGee: 3 contracts within 90 days totaling $19,492,354 The vendor Churchill McGee received 3 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $19,492,354. 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 "Churchill McGee" 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:44d675f5…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Churchill McGee
contracts
{"id":"12efd57d-663b-4c0b-9c00-c843c25a2e78","date":"2015-11-30","amount":6428190.85,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"ccd73689-048b-4e0d-ae05-ee41f8e2f4a5","date":"2016-01-25","amount":6464597.13,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"a828f163-633d-435c-ada3-1f22ca577507","date":"2016-02-19","amount":6599565.83,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
19,492,353.81
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
Churchill McGee: 3 contracts within 90 days totaling $19,317,934 The vendor Churchill McGee received 3 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $19,317,934. When the combined value crosses a procurement-approval threshold but each individual award stays below it, the pattern is classically called 'contract splitting' and warrants further review against the procurement code and any justifications. The pattern can also reflect legitimate phased work or multiple unrelated services with the same vendor. Tier 2: vendor-named observation, no individual characterization.
plain englishVendor "Churchill McGee" 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:cf8cdd18…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Churchill McGee
contracts
{"id":"4acff168-82b8-4308-9b96-dffac35fe000","date":"2015-11-17","amount":6425145.73,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"12efd57d-663b-4c0b-9c00-c843c25a2e78","date":"2015-11-30","amount":6428190.85,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"ccd73689-048b-4e0d-ae05-ee41f8e2f4a5","date":"2016-01-25","amount":6464597.13,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
19,317,933.71
contract_count
3
Every flag is a starting question, not a conclusion. The links above lead to the same public records the detector read — go look, and tell us if our reading is wrong (info@lexdoge.org).
May 27, 2026
Churchill McGee: 4 contracts within 90 days totaling $20,186,609 The vendor Churchill McGee received 4 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $20,186,609. 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 "Churchill McGee" 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:11265cb5…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Churchill McGee
contracts
{"id":"7dcb8996-1ae7-434e-8cca-a63cef9ffb11","date":"2015-11-12","amount":868675,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"4acff168-82b8-4308-9b96-dffac35fe000","date":"2015-11-17","amount":6425145.73,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"12efd57d-663b-4c0b-9c00-c843c25a2e78","date":"2015-11-30","amount":6428190.85,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"ccd73689-048b-4e0d-ae05-ee41f8e2f4a5","date":"2016-01-25","amount":6464597.13,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
20,186,608.71
contract_count
4
Every flag is a starting question, not a conclusion. The links above lead to the same public records the detector read — go look, and tell us if our reading is wrong (info@lexdoge.org).
May 27, 2026
Churchill McGee: 5 contracts within 90 days totaling $26,600,437 The vendor Churchill McGee received 5 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $26,600,437. 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 "Churchill McGee" 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:3d9606bf…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Churchill McGee
contracts
{"id":"1872d895-78e6-4ea4-bf23-c6b41da9d776","date":"2015-11-02","amount":6413828.4,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"7dcb8996-1ae7-434e-8cca-a63cef9ffb11","date":"2015-11-12","amount":868675,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"4acff168-82b8-4308-9b96-dffac35fe000","date":"2015-11-17","amount":6425145.73,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"12efd57d-663b-4c0b-9c00-c843c25a2e78","date":"2015-11-30","amount":6428190.85,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"ccd73689-048b-4e0d-ae05-ee41f8e2f4a5","date":"2016-01-25","amount":6464597.13,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
26,600,437.11
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
Churchill McGee: 4 contracts within 90 days totaling $20,085,480 The vendor Churchill McGee received 4 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $20,085,480. When the combined value crosses a procurement-approval threshold but each individual award stays below it, the pattern is classically called 'contract splitting' and warrants further review against the procurement code and any justifications. The pattern can also reflect legitimate phased work or multiple unrelated services with the same vendor. Tier 2: vendor-named observation, no individual characterization.
plain englishVendor "Churchill McGee" 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:bfbbf014…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Churchill McGee
contracts
{"id":"01cc6ae6-4d21-464e-b26f-0bfc19e728c9","date":"2015-08-28","amount":6377831.18,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"1872d895-78e6-4ea4-bf23-c6b41da9d776","date":"2015-11-02","amount":6413828.4,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"7dcb8996-1ae7-434e-8cca-a63cef9ffb11","date":"2015-11-12","amount":868675,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"4acff168-82b8-4308-9b96-dffac35fe000","date":"2015-11-17","amount":6425145.73,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
20,085,480.31
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
Churchill McGee: 5 contracts within 90 days totaling $26,470,034 The vendor Churchill McGee received 5 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $26,470,034. 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 "Churchill McGee" 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:00db84d6…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Churchill McGee
contracts
{"id":"1109e64a-7aff-405e-b300-81d82e788874","date":"2015-08-28","amount":6384553.54,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"01cc6ae6-4d21-464e-b26f-0bfc19e728c9","date":"2015-08-28","amount":6377831.18,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"1872d895-78e6-4ea4-bf23-c6b41da9d776","date":"2015-11-02","amount":6413828.4,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"7dcb8996-1ae7-434e-8cca-a63cef9ffb11","date":"2015-11-12","amount":868675,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"4acff168-82b8-4308-9b96-dffac35fe000","date":"2015-11-17","amount":6425145.73,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
26,470,033.85
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).