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 301–350 of 503 flags
sorted by severity · page 7 of 11
50 flags · on this page
sorted by severity
May 27, 2026
Churchill McGee: 3 contracts within 90 days totaling $19,131,892 The vendor Churchill McGee received 3 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $19,131,892. 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:0fd670ba…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Churchill McGee
contracts
{"id":"943294af-f68b-4379-a08b-416632a57bb9","date":"2015-06-29","amount":6369507.43,"department":"Unknown"} {"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"}
window_days
90
combined_total
19,131,892.15
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 $25,471,214 The vendor Churchill McGee received 4 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $25,471,214. 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:78062062…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Churchill McGee
contracts
{"id":"5a515880-cbe4-4667-9316-3606ef6ab606","date":"2015-06-10","amount":6339321.67,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"943294af-f68b-4379-a08b-416632a57bb9","date":"2015-06-29","amount":6369507.43,"department":"Unknown"} {"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"}
window_days
90
combined_total
25,471,213.82
contract_count
4
Every flag is a starting question, not a conclusion. The links above lead to the same public records the detector read — go look, and tell us if our reading is wrong (info@lexdoge.org).
May 27, 2026
Churchill McGee: 5 contracts within 90 days totaling $31,608,085 The vendor Churchill McGee received 5 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $31,608,085. 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:bfc9b6ca…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Churchill McGee
contracts
{"id":"92bb19b0-9eb1-4c0b-b3ea-15f9af6d0c42","date":"2015-06-08","amount":6136871.67,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"5a515880-cbe4-4667-9316-3606ef6ab606","date":"2015-06-10","amount":6339321.67,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"943294af-f68b-4379-a08b-416632a57bb9","date":"2015-06-29","amount":6369507.43,"department":"Unknown"} {"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"}
window_days
90
combined_total
31,608,085.49
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 $24,972,735 The vendor Churchill McGee received 4 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $24,972,735. 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:8c9dd09f…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Churchill McGee
contracts
{"id":"9c9056dc-5159-4f8d-8c22-bdcd6195022b","date":"2015-04-30","amount":6127033.79,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"92bb19b0-9eb1-4c0b-b3ea-15f9af6d0c42","date":"2015-06-08","amount":6136871.67,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"5a515880-cbe4-4667-9316-3606ef6ab606","date":"2015-06-10","amount":6339321.67,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"943294af-f68b-4379-a08b-416632a57bb9","date":"2015-06-29","amount":6369507.43,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
24,972,734.56
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: 2 contracts within 90 days totaling $2,406,078 The vendor Churchill McGee received 2 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $2,406,078. 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:37f6ceed…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Churchill McGee
contracts
{"id":"709f2425-3d5b-49da-88d1-f96a74eb2e4f","date":"2013-09-11","amount":1121059.25,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"e2648514-442f-4242-9d5b-43715e86f500","date":"2013-10-28","amount":1285019.08,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
2,406,078.33
contract_count
2
Every flag is a starting question, not a conclusion. The links above lead to the same public records the detector read — go look, and tell us if our reading is wrong (info@lexdoge.org).
May 27, 2026
Churchill McGee: 3 contracts within 90 days totaling $3,506,660 The vendor Churchill McGee received 3 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $3,506,660. 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:a57c6707…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Churchill McGee
contracts
{"id":"1f1e2126-b192-4991-9b91-134ed719fa2d","date":"2013-08-15","amount":1100581.41,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"709f2425-3d5b-49da-88d1-f96a74eb2e4f","date":"2013-09-11","amount":1121059.25,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"e2648514-442f-4242-9d5b-43715e86f500","date":"2013-10-28","amount":1285019.08,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
3,506,659.74
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 $3,319,817 The vendor Churchill McGee received 3 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $3,319,817. 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:1f913900…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Churchill McGee
contracts
{"id":"d696adf9-bfb7-4db4-8652-833562d8b51f","date":"2013-06-19","amount":1098175.85,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"1f1e2126-b192-4991-9b91-134ed719fa2d","date":"2013-08-15","amount":1100581.41,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"709f2425-3d5b-49da-88d1-f96a74eb2e4f","date":"2013-09-11","amount":1121059.25,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
3,319,816.51
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: 2 contracts within 90 days totaling $200,700 The vendor Churchill McGee received 2 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $200,700. When the combined value crosses a procurement-approval threshold but each individual award stays below it, the pattern is classically called 'contract splitting' and warrants further review against the procurement code and any justifications. The pattern can also reflect legitimate phased work or multiple unrelated services with the same vendor. Tier 2: vendor-named observation, no individual characterization.
plain englishVendor "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:fe598260…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Churchill McGee
contracts
{"id":"23c8542d-3705-4f10-9c9f-64192b65b9b7","date":"2012-03-16","amount":138850,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"e2d3d8db-ac36-4e13-8054-e3eda085cac8","date":"2012-04-20","amount":61850,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
200,700
contract_count
2
Every flag is a starting question, not a conclusion. The links above lead to the same public records the detector read — go look, and tell us if our reading is wrong (info@lexdoge.org).
May 27, 2026
Central: 2 contracts within 90 days totaling $1,964,691 The vendor Central received 2 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $1,964,691. 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 "Central" 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:99da40cd…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Central
contracts
{"id":"e17f1e0f-b55e-46fc-90bc-1cff7c686d1a","date":"2013-09-10","amount":1746392,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"ced6297d-16ff-440b-9e64-1f3b166d5794","date":"2013-09-23","amount":218299,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
1,964,691
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
Central: 3 contracts within 90 days totaling $2,176,460 The vendor Central received 3 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $2,176,460. 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 "Central" 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:95fad23b…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Central
contracts
{"id":"2ccb1a74-3bc5-413c-aa45-44b4228e832d","date":"2013-07-15","amount":211769,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"e17f1e0f-b55e-46fc-90bc-1cff7c686d1a","date":"2013-09-10","amount":1746392,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"ced6297d-16ff-440b-9e64-1f3b166d5794","date":"2013-09-23","amount":218299,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
2,176,460
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
Central: 4 contracts within 90 days totaling $3,870,852 The vendor Central received 4 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $3,870,852. 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 "Central" 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:b61bb0b5…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Central
contracts
{"id":"8fe472f8-166b-4d4e-90c5-6ffafe6261db","date":"2013-06-27","amount":1694392,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"2ccb1a74-3bc5-413c-aa45-44b4228e832d","date":"2013-07-15","amount":211769,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"e17f1e0f-b55e-46fc-90bc-1cff7c686d1a","date":"2013-09-10","amount":1746392,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"ced6297d-16ff-440b-9e64-1f3b166d5794","date":"2013-09-23","amount":218299,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
3,870,852
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
Central: 3 contracts within 90 days totaling $3,596,137 The vendor Central received 3 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $3,596,137. 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 "Central" 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:8d923b3a…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Central
contracts
{"id":"47cc3b7e-84c3-4fdf-a7b6-df43a554b09a","date":"2013-05-14","amount":1689976,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"8fe472f8-166b-4d4e-90c5-6ffafe6261db","date":"2013-06-27","amount":1694392,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"2ccb1a74-3bc5-413c-aa45-44b4228e832d","date":"2013-07-15","amount":211769,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
3,596,137
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
CDP Engineers: 2 contracts within 90 days totaling $1,107,881 The vendor CDP Engineers received 2 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $1,107,881. 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 "CDP 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:5883ec07…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
CDP Engineers
contracts
{"id":"dcb44ac7-c80b-4187-8929-1079acae4e43","date":"2022-11-14","amount":223880,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"5987bb9f-2682-49dd-9885-984df9928fdb","date":"2022-11-14","amount":884001,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
1,107,881
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
CDP Engineers: 2 contracts within 90 days totaling $150,560 The vendor CDP Engineers received 2 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $150,560. 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 "CDP 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:72b8c39b…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
CDP Engineers
contracts
{"id":"bb22c563-4d50-4a1b-b620-868de9006040","date":"2017-09-19","amount":50110,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"f8484460-7a6b-495f-8f7d-92cf91749ecc","date":"2017-11-22","amount":100450,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
150,560
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
CDP Engineers: 2 contracts within 90 days totaling $315,374 The vendor CDP Engineers received 2 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $315,374. 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 "CDP 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:f18d8400…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
CDP Engineers
contracts
{"id":"3da32bba-0481-4936-bb12-52eccb318b64","date":"2016-03-18","amount":241814,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"e2277efc-5817-40c6-8e6b-f721d823e951","date":"2016-05-04","amount":73560,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
315,374
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
CDP Engineers: 2 contracts within 90 days totaling $581,814 The vendor CDP Engineers received 2 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $581,814. 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 "CDP 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:09e2b4f3…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
CDP Engineers
contracts
{"id":"5397e177-607a-4edf-8502-2619e3c01d29","date":"2016-01-08","amount":340000,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"3da32bba-0481-4936-bb12-52eccb318b64","date":"2016-03-18","amount":241814,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
581,814
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
CDP Engineers: 2 contracts within 90 days totaling $1,235,193 The vendor CDP Engineers received 2 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $1,235,193. 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 "CDP 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:029ebcdf…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
CDP Engineers
contracts
{"id":"47098eea-7913-46e6-9174-dd6b846f497a","date":"2014-11-19","amount":1183291,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"18edfa03-990c-4376-a0ae-e4338aabfff6","date":"2015-01-30","amount":51902,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
1,235,193
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
CDP Engineers: 2 contracts within 90 days totaling $1,185,391 The vendor CDP Engineers received 2 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $1,185,391. 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 "CDP 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:850a41f7…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
CDP Engineers
contracts
{"id":"c4954e6a-9fe5-43ab-9705-e4c82e774ed7","date":"2012-06-05","amount":44652,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"12c3ddba-8db8-436c-a21f-03ba78d227c6","date":"2012-07-03","amount":1140739,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
1,185,391
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
CDP Engineers: 2 contracts within 90 days totaling $116,102 The vendor CDP Engineers received 2 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $116,102. 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 "CDP 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:dfe8f02e…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
CDP Engineers
contracts
{"id":"d9369d8f-82e1-4900-9732-1f428d99a9bf","date":"2012-04-02","amount":71450,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"c4954e6a-9fe5-43ab-9705-e4c82e774ed7","date":"2012-06-05","amount":44652,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
116,102
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
CDP Engineers: 2 contracts within 90 days totaling $321,450 The vendor CDP Engineers received 2 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $321,450. 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 "CDP 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:71880702…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
CDP Engineers
contracts
{"id":"1cc8dca6-5239-45b4-9253-d9ae362a47f6","date":"2012-02-02","amount":250000,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"d9369d8f-82e1-4900-9732-1f428d99a9bf","date":"2012-04-02","amount":71450,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
321,450
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
C3 Mechanical: 2 contracts within 90 days totaling $412,564 The vendor C3 Mechanical received 2 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $412,564. 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 "C3 Mechanical" 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:3b2edb67…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
C3 Mechanical
contracts
{"id":"d1989e12-6011-46b1-8748-0741f7573015","date":"2020-04-10","amount":189500,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"67ad2add-df20-4d23-a7a6-c8ff8452c684","date":"2020-05-06","amount":223064,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
412,564
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
C3 Mechanical: 2 contracts within 90 days totaling $265,070 The vendor C3 Mechanical received 2 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $265,070. 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 "C3 Mechanical" 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:700f231d…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
C3 Mechanical
contracts
{"id":"8b02eb7c-596b-41e5-8d99-b44a095e86bd","date":"2019-05-10","amount":185000,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"d54569ff-26a0-4330-93f3-c1525b6fcf90","date":"2019-07-29","amount":80070,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
265,070
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
C3 Mechanical: 2 contracts within 90 days totaling $262,210 The vendor C3 Mechanical received 2 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $262,210. 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 "C3 Mechanical" 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:03777c64…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
C3 Mechanical
contracts
{"id":"50a52391-c814-4058-8208-b35b08f4fbbe","date":"2019-03-15","amount":77210,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"8b02eb7c-596b-41e5-8d99-b44a095e86bd","date":"2019-05-10","amount":185000,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
262,210
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
C3 Mechanical: 3 contracts within 90 days totaling $494,898 The vendor C3 Mechanical received 3 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $494,898. 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 "C3 Mechanical" 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:9ff98a74…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
C3 Mechanical
contracts
{"id":"fdf2899b-bf74-4571-8a72-620347cce57a","date":"2019-03-11","amount":232688,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"50a52391-c814-4058-8208-b35b08f4fbbe","date":"2019-03-15","amount":77210,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"8b02eb7c-596b-41e5-8d99-b44a095e86bd","date":"2019-05-10","amount":185000,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
494,898
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
C3 Mechanical: 2 contracts within 90 days totaling $303,580 The vendor C3 Mechanical received 2 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $303,580. 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 "C3 Mechanical" 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:d2a36ad3…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
C3 Mechanical
contracts
{"id":"f7385d97-bde8-490b-9f69-c5cb3367affd","date":"2017-01-20","amount":37605,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"0cdba5ac-5a6f-42c5-81e8-247e8b675aec","date":"2017-04-18","amount":265975,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
303,580
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
C3 Mechanical: 2 contracts within 90 days totaling $58,730 The vendor C3 Mechanical received 2 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $58,730. 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 "C3 Mechanical" 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:29723620…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
C3 Mechanical
contracts
{"id":"d97bdae3-bb57-499d-bdf1-8a936eb14b2a","date":"2016-11-29","amount":21125,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"f7385d97-bde8-490b-9f69-c5cb3367affd","date":"2017-01-20","amount":37605,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
58,730
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
Browning Chapman: 2 contracts within 90 days totaling $327,806 The vendor Browning Chapman received 2 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $327,806. 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 "Browning Chapman" 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:41f26230…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Browning Chapman
contracts
{"id":"5cc0b4c9-7ac7-48ee-bcf4-4daaea22f309","date":"2017-04-10","amount":159195,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"345221de-5e04-4924-b502-54d7c750b6f5","date":"2017-04-20","amount":168610.85,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
327,805.85
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
Browning Chapman: 3 contracts within 90 days totaling $472,036 The vendor Browning Chapman received 3 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $472,036. 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 "Browning Chapman" 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:1abb9a69…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Browning Chapman
contracts
{"id":"f465192d-383c-4da2-bce3-4ed020c9f088","date":"2017-02-06","amount":144230,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"5cc0b4c9-7ac7-48ee-bcf4-4daaea22f309","date":"2017-04-10","amount":159195,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"345221de-5e04-4924-b502-54d7c750b6f5","date":"2017-04-20","amount":168610.85,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
472,035.85
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
Bri-Den Roofing: 2 contracts within 90 days totaling $554,809 The vendor Bri-Den Roofing received 2 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $554,809. 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 "Bri-Den Roofing" 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:9ea541fd…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Bri-Den Roofing
contracts
{"id":"c48b676d-204a-4e46-a238-810fcd162deb","date":"2018-10-22","amount":259737.84,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"ac45bf41-c25c-4df2-9160-d3d33f436bae","date":"2019-01-03","amount":295070.73,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
554,808.57
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
Bri-Den Roofing: 2 contracts within 90 days totaling $518,738 The vendor Bri-Den Roofing received 2 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $518,738. 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 "Bri-Den Roofing" 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:61fc3eef…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Bri-Den Roofing
contracts
{"id":"a5f2e321-fbf5-4325-b286-31d0a9caa2ea","date":"2018-08-10","amount":259000,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"c48b676d-204a-4e46-a238-810fcd162deb","date":"2018-10-22","amount":259737.84,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
518,737.84
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
Brandstetter/Carroll: 2 contracts within 90 days totaling $62,000 The vendor Brandstetter/Carroll received 2 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $62,000. 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 "Brandstetter/Carroll" 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:d9a310d3…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Brandstetter/Carroll
contracts
{"id":"acd6aa5b-2c39-4ca8-9014-3cf421f497cf","date":"2016-10-12","amount":16000,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"269f8b91-d1ed-42ad-a71a-4e8948b3da72","date":"2016-11-15","amount":46000,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
62,000
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
Brandstetter/Carroll: 3 contracts within 90 days totaling $101,600 The vendor Brandstetter/Carroll received 3 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $101,600. 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 "Brandstetter/Carroll" 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:aca0302d…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Brandstetter/Carroll
contracts
{"id":"52928e0e-4aa1-41fb-8795-4c068355f017","date":"2016-10-12","amount":39600,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"acd6aa5b-2c39-4ca8-9014-3cf421f497cf","date":"2016-10-12","amount":16000,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"269f8b91-d1ed-42ad-a71a-4e8948b3da72","date":"2016-11-15","amount":46000,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
101,600
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
Brandstetter/Carroll: 4 contracts within 90 days totaling $161,900 The vendor Brandstetter/Carroll received 4 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $161,900. When the combined value crosses a procurement-approval threshold but each individual award stays below it, the pattern is classically called 'contract splitting' and warrants further review against the procurement code and any justifications. The pattern can also reflect legitimate phased work or multiple unrelated services with the same vendor. Tier 2: vendor-named observation, no individual characterization.
plain englishVendor "Brandstetter/Carroll" 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:5315c464…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Brandstetter/Carroll
contracts
{"id":"4e6e0d09-bd9e-4b3d-9f5c-32245b86731f","date":"2016-10-06","amount":60300,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"52928e0e-4aa1-41fb-8795-4c068355f017","date":"2016-10-12","amount":39600,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"acd6aa5b-2c39-4ca8-9014-3cf421f497cf","date":"2016-10-12","amount":16000,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"269f8b91-d1ed-42ad-a71a-4e8948b3da72","date":"2016-11-15","amount":46000,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
161,900
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
Brandstetter Carroll: 2 contracts within 90 days totaling $759,465 The vendor Brandstetter Carroll received 2 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $759,465. 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 "Brandstetter Carroll" 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:264cba6b…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Brandstetter Carroll
contracts
{"id":"25e2fa8d-261c-46bd-afbb-9c60021a3495","date":"2017-01-23","amount":365504,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"2a794bec-1cae-4946-b646-0eef1095fe7c","date":"2017-03-08","amount":393961,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
759,465
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
Brandstetter Carroll: 3 contracts within 90 days totaling $1,143,576 The vendor Brandstetter Carroll received 3 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $1,143,576. 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 "Brandstetter Carroll" 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:bf99f26b…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Brandstetter Carroll
contracts
{"id":"5d56604f-b004-4664-a96e-d49995abe39d","date":"2017-01-06","amount":384111,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"25e2fa8d-261c-46bd-afbb-9c60021a3495","date":"2017-01-23","amount":365504,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"2a794bec-1cae-4946-b646-0eef1095fe7c","date":"2017-03-08","amount":393961,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
1,143,576
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
BMI LLC d/b/a BMI Builds LLC: 2 contracts within 90 days totaling $3,078,776 The vendor BMI LLC d/b/a BMI Builds LLC received 2 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $3,078,776. 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 "BMI LLC d/b/a BMI Builds 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:7f0f277a…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
BMI LLC d/b/a BMI Builds LLC
contracts
{"id":"d0eb54ea-48f8-42f0-b4f9-ff9e19553660","date":"2024-06-17","amount":2988888,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"ea3641ba-b464-4ea8-8272-1a8e3b685723","date":"2024-09-05","amount":89888,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
3,078,776
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
BMI Builds LLC: 2 contracts within 90 days totaling $4,071,893 The vendor BMI Builds LLC received 2 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $4,071,893. 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 "BMI Builds 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:dce141c2…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
BMI Builds LLC
contracts
{"id":"54a2d268-3c45-4e0c-ba37-8b14a06e4c35","date":"2025-08-04","amount":1993321.26,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"eb7d1488-c2ec-4978-a6ae-286f7efaa4ba","date":"2025-09-26","amount":2078571.26,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
4,071,892.52
contract_count
2
Every flag is a starting question, not a conclusion. The links above lead to the same public records the detector read — go look, and tell us if our reading is wrong (info@lexdoge.org).
May 27, 2026
Bluegrass.org: 2 contracts within 90 days totaling $1,138,660 The vendor Bluegrass.org received 2 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $1,138,660. 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 "Bluegrass.org" 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:91e7829b…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Bluegrass.org
contracts
{"id":"79c8d761-e879-498c-ac2d-b19734c6d6c8","date":"2017-10-13","amount":1000,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"4c012dbc-66cd-4e9f-99b5-8a324b9fe423","date":"2017-11-13","amount":1137660,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
1,138,660
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
Bluegrass Contracting Corp.: 2 contracts within 90 days totaling $1,571,837 The vendor Bluegrass Contracting Corp. received 2 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $1,571,837. 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 "Bluegrass Contracting Corp." 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:054c2f64…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Bluegrass Contracting Corp.
contracts
{"id":"294d8218-136c-41ef-ac7b-ed43f0769d7f","date":"2016-06-06","amount":780405.35,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"6097e245-a1ea-47e7-a978-f3c5e2e169e6","date":"2016-06-20","amount":791431.35,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
1,571,836.7
contract_count
2
Every flag is a starting question, not a conclusion. The links above lead to the same public records the detector read — go look, and tell us if our reading is wrong (info@lexdoge.org).
May 27, 2026
Bluegrass Contracting Corp.: 3 contracts within 90 days totaling $2,444,139 The vendor Bluegrass Contracting Corp. received 3 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $2,444,139. 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 "Bluegrass Contracting Corp." 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:1164cf24…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Bluegrass Contracting Corp.
contracts
{"id":"6a5dc113-3305-4eb8-a815-f7e0d520639f","date":"2016-04-25","amount":872302.46,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"294d8218-136c-41ef-ac7b-ed43f0769d7f","date":"2016-06-06","amount":780405.35,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"6097e245-a1ea-47e7-a978-f3c5e2e169e6","date":"2016-06-20","amount":791431.35,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
2,444,139.16
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
Bluegrass Contracting Corp.: 4 contracts within 90 days totaling $3,142,867 The vendor Bluegrass Contracting Corp. received 4 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $3,142,867. 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 "Bluegrass Contracting Corp." 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:ab0a12c7…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Bluegrass Contracting Corp.
contracts
{"id":"f22645ab-f8ed-4d40-8028-650f7d018af7","date":"2016-04-19","amount":698727.35,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"6a5dc113-3305-4eb8-a815-f7e0d520639f","date":"2016-04-25","amount":872302.46,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"294d8218-136c-41ef-ac7b-ed43f0769d7f","date":"2016-06-06","amount":780405.35,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"6097e245-a1ea-47e7-a978-f3c5e2e169e6","date":"2016-06-20","amount":791431.35,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
3,142,866.51
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
Bluegrass Contracting Corp.: 5 contracts within 90 days totaling $3,781,594 The vendor Bluegrass Contracting Corp. received 5 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $3,781,594. 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 "Bluegrass Contracting Corp." 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:90a4ec9e…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Bluegrass Contracting Corp.
contracts
{"id":"db4b14e4-6d89-4d5b-8a58-2e0ff8ab7584","date":"2016-04-05","amount":638727.35,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"f22645ab-f8ed-4d40-8028-650f7d018af7","date":"2016-04-19","amount":698727.35,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"6a5dc113-3305-4eb8-a815-f7e0d520639f","date":"2016-04-25","amount":872302.46,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"294d8218-136c-41ef-ac7b-ed43f0769d7f","date":"2016-06-06","amount":780405.35,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"6097e245-a1ea-47e7-a978-f3c5e2e169e6","date":"2016-06-20","amount":791431.35,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
3,781,593.86
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
Bluegrass Contracting Corp.: 2 contracts within 90 days totaling $2,500,533 The vendor Bluegrass Contracting Corp. received 2 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $2,500,533. 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 "Bluegrass Contracting Corp." 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:cdf35fc0…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Bluegrass Contracting Corp.
contracts
{"id":"44417018-c564-4cad-a2ed-3f9e7818ae8b","date":"2015-05-18","amount":1759676.87,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"e2c9eb01-e6cc-4526-9b37-e657a5b913d6","date":"2015-05-18","amount":740855.82,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
2,500,532.69
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
Bluegrass Contracting Corp.: 3 contracts within 90 days totaling $2,686,054 The vendor Bluegrass Contracting Corp. received 3 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $2,686,054. 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 "Bluegrass Contracting Corp." 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:7789287b…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Bluegrass Contracting Corp.
contracts
{"id":"9b3ca15f-0226-490c-81ac-4f10d07df20a","date":"2015-04-27","amount":185520.85,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"44417018-c564-4cad-a2ed-3f9e7818ae8b","date":"2015-05-18","amount":1759676.87,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"e2c9eb01-e6cc-4526-9b37-e657a5b913d6","date":"2015-05-18","amount":740855.82,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
2,686,053.54
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
Bluegrass Contracting Corp.: 4 contracts within 90 days totaling $3,551,013 The vendor Bluegrass Contracting Corp. received 4 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $3,551,013. 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 "Bluegrass Contracting Corp." 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:03f4fa06…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Bluegrass Contracting Corp.
contracts
{"id":"d26045c5-d6e1-490d-966d-9c1208bbde6d","date":"2015-04-22","amount":864959.22,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"9b3ca15f-0226-490c-81ac-4f10d07df20a","date":"2015-04-27","amount":185520.85,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"44417018-c564-4cad-a2ed-3f9e7818ae8b","date":"2015-05-18","amount":1759676.87,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"e2c9eb01-e6cc-4526-9b37-e657a5b913d6","date":"2015-05-18","amount":740855.82,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
3,551,012.76
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
Bluegrass Contracting Corp.: 2 contracts within 90 days totaling $4,329,978 The vendor Bluegrass Contracting Corp. received 2 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $4,329,978. 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 "Bluegrass Contracting Corp." 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:00fb9bd7…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Bluegrass Contracting Corp.
contracts
{"id":"69f4b999-6e25-421a-a298-3815a94b2a42","date":"2014-11-20","amount":3523825.91,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"30287ac8-c42b-4a5e-a67d-18968ecd1de3","date":"2015-01-13","amount":806151.67,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
4,329,977.58
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
Bluegrass Contracting Corp.: 2 contracts within 90 days totaling $4,106,186 The vendor Bluegrass Contracting Corp. received 2 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $4,106,186. 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 "Bluegrass Contracting Corp." 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:24327960…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Bluegrass Contracting Corp.
contracts
{"id":"19b7db8a-bb56-4f6a-9e49-00d892bc920f","date":"2014-06-19","amount":3408498.85,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"5d98a958-64f2-44b6-b06e-351b05761f3d","date":"2014-06-27","amount":697686.7,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
4,106,185.55
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
Bluegrass Contracting Corp.: 3 contracts within 90 days totaling $4,284,085 The vendor Bluegrass Contracting Corp. received 3 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $4,284,085. 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 "Bluegrass Contracting Corp." 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:59062ceb…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Bluegrass Contracting Corp.
contracts
{"id":"df00da5b-302a-4a09-aab3-959925c0fe5d","date":"2014-06-19","amount":177899.65,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"19b7db8a-bb56-4f6a-9e49-00d892bc920f","date":"2014-06-19","amount":3408498.85,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"5d98a958-64f2-44b6-b06e-351b05761f3d","date":"2014-06-27","amount":697686.7,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
4,284,085.2
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
Bluegrass Contracting Corp.: 2 contracts within 90 days totaling $5,053,059 The vendor Bluegrass Contracting Corp. received 2 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $5,053,059. 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 "Bluegrass Contracting Corp." 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:4ff22433…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Bluegrass Contracting Corp.
contracts
{"id":"ad70c612-9851-4e45-bf64-0d01be6ea286","date":"2014-01-17","amount":1709447.91,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"7a3cc45f-b463-4f9b-a640-503fb860b6ad","date":"2014-03-17","amount":3343611.35,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
5,053,059.26
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
Bluegrass Contracting Corp.: 2 contracts within 90 days totaling $2,409,215 The vendor Bluegrass Contracting Corp. received 2 separate contracts within a 90-day window summing to $2,409,215. 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 "Bluegrass Contracting Corp." 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:53c3e310…
Verify against the public record
▸ raw detector inputs (json)
vendor
Bluegrass Contracting Corp.
contracts
{"id":"b424363f-e815-46ab-8703-32d822150bfb","date":"2013-06-24","amount":737798.75,"department":"Unknown"} {"id":"884cd27c-0ea7-4648-8d6f-0e07f9d43d98","date":"2013-07-01","amount":1671416.3,"department":"Unknown"}
window_days
90
combined_total
2,409,215.05
contract_count
2
Every flag is a starting question, not a conclusion. The links above lead to the same public records the detector read — go look, and tell us if our reading is wrong (info@lexdoge.org).