AREA 4 Report

7/31/2019 AREA 4 Report

1/18

FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

CONTRACTS ADMINISTRATION OFFICE

MARKET ANALYSIS SECTION

AREA FOUR

Taylor, Madison, Hamilton, Suwannee, Lafayette, Bradford

Dixie, Baker, Columbia, Union, Alachua, Levy

BID MONITORING AND MARKET ANALYSIS STUDY

Market Analysis Section

Nasser Pourfarzaneh

October , 2010

1

CONFIDENTIAL

Per 337.168 F. S.


2/18

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SELECTION CRITERIA..3

SELECT MODEL........3

MARKET SHARE.......5

Market Share by Counties (Dollars)5

Market Share by Counties (Contracts)...6Madison and Taylor Counties

C.W. Roberts and PEAVY & Son ......7

Market Share with Respect to Asphalt Facilities ...........7

Anderson Columbia ...8

APAC-Southeast .9

Whitehurst V.E. .10

BIDS AND PRPOSALS....11

VENDOR COMPETITION.13

CONTRACT E2K84 .14

ANALYSIS....15

CONCLUSION..16

RECOMMENDATIONS ..17

SIMILAR PATTERN

(Anderson Columbia & APAC-Southeast) .....18

2


3/18

SELECTION CRITERIA

Market Area: Taylor, Madison, Hamilton, Suwannee, Lafayette, Bradford Dixie, Baker,Columbia, Union, Alachua, Levy

Period: Contracts let by Central office and District Three from January 1, 2005 to December 31,2009

Contract Types: Construction Contracts, Design Build, Lump Sum and Traffic OPs that let byCentral Office and District Three

Awarded Amount: Greater than $250,000

BAMS/ DSS Models: Select Model, Market Share by Dollars, Line Item Profile with Estimate,Vendor Competition

Bid Monitoring Tools: BAMS/DSS Models, Vendor Activity Monitoring Map and the FourLevels of Competition

Other: The LIMS data base was used to locate asphalt facilities owned by selected contractors

SELECT MODEL

Based on the selection criteria, the Select model selected a total of 130 contracts for a totalawarded amount of $460,104,796. For the same period, the Select Model selected a total of 1604contracts for a total awarded amount of $10,883,915,920 statewide.

STATEWIDE

Contract Awarded % of Contracts awarded Awarded Amount % of Awarded Amount

Central 1063 66.27% $6,816,679,389 62.63%

District 541 33.73% $4,067,236,531 37.37%

Total 1604 --------- $10,883,915,920 ---------

AREA FOUR

Central 86 66.16% $354,543,248 77.05%District 44 33.84% $105,561,548 22.95%

Total 130 -------- $460,104,796 --------

The table above shows, the Central Contract Administration Office let and awarded

3


4/18

66.27% of the statewide contracts and 62.63% of the contract dollars. The districts offices as agroup let and awarded 33.73% of the contracts and 37.37% of the contract dollars. On the otherhand, in our selected area, the Central Contract Administration office let and awarded 66.16% ofthe contracts and 77.05% of the contracts. The district office in area four let and awarded 33.84%of the contracts and 22.95% of the contract dollars. While the percentage of the contracts awarded

by Central Office and the district offices are close in Area Four and statewide, there is a 14.42%difference in contract dollars awarded. This difference is a clear indication that contracts let bydistrict in Area Four are smaller in contract dollars than those let statewide.

Awarded Awarded Percentage of Percentage of

Contracts Amounts Awarded Contracts Awarded Amounts

Area 4 130$460,104,796

Madison 3 $12,453,772 2.3% 2.71%Taylor 9 $53,671,374 6.9% 11.67%

Hamilton 5 $10,858,654 3.8% 2.36%Dixie 3 $6,361,449 2.3% 1.38%

Gilchrist 2 $10,848,049 1.5% 2.36%Bradford 7 $16,655,837 5.3% 3.62%

Levy 15 $59,042,536 11.5% 12.83%Alachua 34 $115,415,645 26.1% 25.08%

Union 7 $15,548,133 5.3% 3.38%Columbia 23 $74,707,638 17.7% 16.24%

Baker 9 $33,914,534 6.9%7.37%Lafayette 2 $4,420,388 1.5% 0.96%

Suwannee 11 $46,206,789 8.8% 10.04%

The Alachua County with 34 contracts (26.1%) and 25.08% of the contract dollar ranked numberone among all counties in Area Four. The Columbia and Levy Counties ranked second and thirdrespectively in number of contracts as well as contract dollar awarded in this area.

MARKET SAHRE

4


5/18

Market Share reports show that there are three major vendors in this area. AndersonColumbia ranked number among all contractors in this area. Anderson Columbia received 56.81%of the contract dollars and was awarded 46.92% of the contracts. APAC Southeast ranked secondas he received 16.15% of the awarded contracts and 17.44% of the contract dollars. Whitehurst V.E, ranked third as he received 12.31% of the awarded contracts and 2.56% of the contract dollars.

As a group, they received 75.38% of the awarded contracts and 86.1% of the contract dollars inthis area. Other contractors received 24.62% of the awarded contracts (32) and 13.9% of thecontract dollars.

Based on our analysis, the construction market in Area Four is dominated by AndersonColumbia. Anderson Columbias share of contract dollars awarded in this area was larger thanAPAC-Southeast, Whitehurst, V.E. and all other contractors combined.

Major Contractors Market Share in Area Four by Awarded Contracts and Dollars

Contracts Dollars % of Contracts % of Dollars

Anderson Columbia 61 $261,404,996 46.92% 56.81%

APAC-Southeast 21 $80,259,977 16.15% 17.44%

Whitehurst, V. E. 16 $58,111,200 12.31% 12.56%

TOTAL- Vendors 98 $399,776,173 75.38% 86.1%

Others 32 $159,795,830 24.62% 13.9%

AREA TOTAL 130 $60,328,623 100% 100%

Market Share by Counties (Contract Dollars)

The Table shows dispersal of contract dollars among major contractors and othercontractors in Area Four by counties. The idea behind an ideal and competitive market is the

evenly dispersal of contract dollars among major contractors and other contractors. Unfortunately,many counties in Area Four are lacking form being a competitive market and they suffer from lownumber of competitors. Except for Dixie and Union Counties where other contractors received100% and 63.9% of the contract dollars respectively, all other counties were dominated by one orany combination of our selected contractors.

The Alachua, Bradford and Levy counties are dominated by all three selected majorcontractors combined. As a group, they received 82%, 95.5% and 79.1% of the contract dollars

5


6/18

respectively. Other contractors received 18%, 4.5% and 12.9% of the contract dollars which clearlyare well below the expectations. APAC Southeast is the leading major contractor in LafayetteCounty where he received 88.8% of the contract dollars. The remaining 11.2% of the contractdollars in this county was awarded to Anderson Columbia. The other contractors were not the lowbidder on any contract in Lafayette County. The Baker County was dominated by the combination

of Anderson Columbia and APAC-Southeast. Together, they received 96.5% of the contractdollars. As a leading major contractor in Area Four,Anderson Columbia dominated Columbia,Gilchrist, Hamilton and Suwannee Counties. He received 84.9%, 97.6%, 90.5% and 87.3% of thetotal contract dollars in these counties respectively.

Anderson Whitehurst APAC Contractors Others Total

Columbia % V.E. % Southeast % Total % %

achua $31,645,241 27.4% $26,403,162 22.9% $36,558,611 31.7% $94,607,014 82% $20,808,631 18% $115,415,645

ker $21,764,535 64.2% $583,451 1.7% $10,979,000 32.3% $33,326,985 98.3% $587,549 1.7% $28,244,791

adford $6,882,000 41.3% $3,869,601 23.2% $5,154,343 30.9% $16,165,944 95.5% $489,893 4.5% $16,655,837lumbia $63,434,119 84.9% $0 0% $4,869,750 6.5% $68,303,869 91.4% $6,403,769 8.6% $74,707,638

xie $0 0% $0 0% $0 0% $0 0% $6,361,449 100% $6,361,449

christ $10,588,801 97.6% $0 0% $0 0% $10,588,801 97.6% $259,248 2.4% $10,848,049

milton $9,834,876 90.5% $0 0% $0 0% $9,834,876 90.5% $1,024,048 9.5% $10,858,654

fayette $496,313 11.2% $0 0% $3,923,075 88.8% $4,420,388 100% $0 0% $4,420,388

vy $13,823,418 23.4% $24,852,586 42.1% $12,748,391 21.6% $51,424396 79.1% $7,618,140 12.9% $59,042,536

adison $6,152,468 49.4% $0 0% $0 0% $6,152,468 49.4% $6,301,304 50.6% $12,453,772

wannee $40,344,212 87.3% $0 0% $5,572,062 12.1% $45,916,274 100.0% $290,515 0.6% $46,206,789

ylor $53,671,374 100% $0 0% $0, 0% $53,671,374 100% $0 0% $53,671,374

ion $2,766,641 17.8% $2,402,400 15.4% $454,745 2.9% $5,623,786 36.1% $9,924,347 63.9% $15,548,133

Market Share by Counties (Contracts)

The table shows dispersal of awarded contract among major contractors and othercontractors in Area Four by counties. Except for Dixie and Union Counties, other contracts werenot able to compete with our selected contractors. Our selected contractors as a group wereawarded 76.4% and 80% of the contracts in Alachua and Levy counties respectively. AndersonColumbia was awarded 17 contracts in Columbia County and 9 contracts in Suwannee County

which are more than what was awarded to all other contractors including APAC-Southeast andWhitehurst V.E. combined.

Anderson Whitehurst APAC Contractors Others Countie

Columbia % V.E. % Southeast % Total % % Total

6


7/18

Alachua 8 23.5% 6 17.6% 12 35.3% 26 76.4% 8 23.6% 34

Baker 5 55.6% 1 11.1% 1 11.1% 7 77.8% 2 22.2% 9

Bradford 2 28.6% 1 14.2% 2 28.6% 5 71.4% 2 28.6% 7

Columbia 17 73.9% 0 0.0% 1 4.3% 18 78.2% 5 21.8% 23

Dixie 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 3 100% 3

Gilchrist 1 50% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 1 50% 1 50% 2Hamilton 3 60% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 3 60% 2 40% 5

Lafayette 1 50% 0 0.0% 1 50% 2 100% 0 0.0% 2

Levy 3 20% 7 46.7% 2 13.3% 12 80% 3 20% 15

Madison 1 33.3% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 1 33.3% 2 66.7% 3

Suwannee 9 81.8% 0 0.0% 1 9.1% 10 90.9% 1 9.1% 11

Taylor 9 100% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 9 100% 9 0.0% 9

Union 2 28.8% 1 14.4% 1 14.4% 4 57.6% 3 42.4% 7

Madison and Taylor Counties (C.W. Roberts and PEAVY & Son)

A total of three contracts were let and awarded in Madison County. Anderson Columbia, C.W. Roberts and PEAVY & Son each were awarded one contract. Anderson Columbia received49.4% of the contract dollar in this county. C. W. Roberts and PEAVY & Son received 43.85%and 6.47% of the contract dollars in this county respectively.

A total of nine contracts were awarded in Taylor County. Anderson Columbia wasawarded the low bidder on all contracts. A total of 19 bids received for these contracts. AndersonColumbia submitted nine bids. The combination of C .W. Roberts and PEAVY & Son submittednine bids and only one bids was received from other contractors. Two contracts received a singlebid. Four contracts received two bids and 3 contracts received three bids. The bid ratio for thesecontracts is 2.1 which is one the lowest ratio among all bid ratios in this area.

Market Share with Respect to Asphalt Facilities

In this section we will review and analyze the level of competition among our selectedmajor vendors in Area Four with respect to their asphalt facilities. According to LIMS data base,Anderson Columbia owns asphalt facilities in Taylor and Columbia Counties. APAC-Southeastowns asphalt facilities in Alachua and Bradford Counties. Whitehurst V.E. owns asphalt facilitiesin Levy and Alachua Counties.

Anderson Columbia

7


8/18

Anderson Columbias asphalt facilities locations in Taylor and Columbia Counties is onereason behind his ability to take over the market in this area .His winning percentage in TaylorCounty where he owns one asphalt facility is 100%. However, as he dominates Taylor County, incounties adjacent to Taylor County such as Madison, Lafayette and Dixie Counties, his winningpercentages are well below expectations. His winning percentage in Madison County is 33.3% and

in Lafayette and Dixie Counties are 50% and 0% respectively.

In Columbia County, where Anderson Columbia owns one asphalt facility, his winningpercentage is 80.9%. In Counties adjacent to the west of the Columbia County such as Hamiltonand Suwannee Counties, his winning percentages are 75% and 90% respectively. In countiesadjacent to east and south of the Columbia Counties his winning percentages are more in line withcompetitive market. In Gilchrist and Alachua Counties His winning percentages are 50% and 32%respectively. In Union and Baker Counties his winning percentages are 40% and 62.5%respectively. His winning percentages in Bradford and Levy Counties are below his Area Fourwinning percentage. While he is holding a winning percentage of 55.4% for Area Four, his

winning percentages in Bradford and Levy Counties are 0.33.3% and 25%.

APAC-Southeast

8

FF

3

8

1

1

9

2

2

3

9

117

5

3 4

21

2

109

2

5

12

25

6

8

Contracts Won

Contracts bid

3 0


9/18

APAC-Southeast owns two asphalt facilities in Bradford and Alachua Counties. He didntsubmit any bids in Taylor, Dixie or Hamilton Counties. He submitted one bid in Madison and onein Gilchrist Counties but was not the low bidder on any of those contracts. His winning percentagefor Area Four is 31.8 %. While his winning percentage for Lafayette County is 100%, for othercounties such as Suwannee, Columbia, Union and Baker Counties, his winning percentages area

20%, 16.6%, 20%, and 14.3% respectively, which are below his Area Fours winning percentage.

The counties which he managed to win more than one contracts are Bradford, Alachua andLevy Counties. His winning percentage in Levy County is 25% as he submitted 8 bids and was thelow bidder on two contracts. His winning percentage in Bradford County is 33.3% where he ownsan asphalt facility and was the low bidder on two contracts on six different bids. The only Countythat seems he is doing well is Alachua County. He owns an asphalt facility in Alachua County. Hesubmitted 26 bids and was the low bidder on 12 Contract. His winning percentage in AlachuaCounty is 46.1%.

Whitehurst V.E.

9

F

F

1

1 1

2

12

2

1

1

7

1

5

8

26

5

6

6

Contracts bid

Contracts Won


10/18

Whitehurst V.E. owns asphalt facilities in Levy and Alachua Counties. He submitted 36bids and was the low bidder on 16 c0ontract. His winning percentage is 44.4% for Area Four. Hiswinning percentage in Alachua and Levy Counties where he owns asphalt facilities is 46.2 and inUnion, Baker and Bradford Counties where he submitted a total of six bids and was the low bidderon three contracts, his winning percentage is 50%. While his activity seems normal in counties

where he owns asphalt facilities and where he was the low bidder, his lack of interest to compete inColumbia and Dixie Counties raise our concerns on over all competition in this area.

BIDS AND PROPOSALS

10

F

F

6

1

1

7

1

2

15

3

13

Contracts bid

Contracts Won


11/18

The table shows in Area Four, the proposals and bid ratios are lower than the statewideratios. On the other hand the bids over proposals ratio in Area Four is much higher than thestatewide ratio. This is an indication that, in this area the number of contractors who participate incompetition on construction contracts is not sufficient, but they submit bids on majority of thecontracts.

Proposals Bids Awarded Proposals Bids Bids Over

Contracts Ratio Ratio Proposals

Statewide 11482 6620 1604 7.15 4.12 57.6%

Area 4 500 372 130 3.8 2.8 88.7%

Madison 13 10 3 4.3 3.3 76.9%

Taylor 30 19 9 3.3 2.2 63.3%

Hamilton 14 11 5 2.8 2.2 78.6%

Suwannee 35 21 11 3.2 1.9 60%

Lafayette 3 3 2 1.5 1.5 100%

Dixie 28 14 3 9.3 4.7 50%

Baker 49 33 9 5.4 3.7 67.3%

Columbia 102 53 23 4.4 2.3 51.9%

Union 31 21 7 4.4 3.0 67.7%

Alachua 197 115 34 5.7 3.4 58.3%

Levy 67 46 15 4.5 3.1 68.6%

Bradford 47 21 7 6.7 3.0 44.7%

Gilchrist 7 5 2 3.5 2.5 71.4%

Suwannee County has the lowest bid ratio per contracts among all the counties in thisarea .Taylor and Hamilton Counties jointly with 2.2 bid ratio and Columbia county with 2.3 bidratio ranked second and third respectively among all counties in this area. Bradford County hasthe lowest percentage of bids over proposals (44.7%). Less than half of the proposals ordered inthis county turn to bid.

The number of contracts awarded in Gilchrist (2) and in Lafayette (2) Counties with bidratios of 2.5 and 1.5 is not sufficient enough to draw any conclusion about the level of competition.

However, as compared to Dixie County with bid ratio of 4.7 and only 3 contracts awarded, onemight question the reasons for low competition in Gilchrist and Lafayette Counties. Our analysisshows, the low number of active contractors and a large number of single bid contracts are themajor cause of low bids ratio in these counties.

County Contracts

Awarded

Anderson

Columbia

Others Single

Bid

11


12/18

Columbia 23 17 6 10

Hamilton 5 3 2 2

Suwannee 11 9 2 3

Taylor 9 9 0 2

TOTAL 48 38 10 17

A total of 48 contracts were let and awarded in these counties and other contractors were awarded

only 10 (20.8%) of those contracts. The low number of competitors and their failure to competeaggressively had resulted to the domination of Anderson Columbia in these counties. Anderson Columbiawas the low bidder on 38 (79.2%) contracts. A total of 17 (35.4%) contracts received only one bid.Anderson Columbia was the only contractor who bid on those contracts and was awarded all 17 contracts.

ContractsLet

Anderson APAC-Southeast Whitehurst

Proposals Bids Win Proposals Bids Win Proposals Bids Win

Suwannee 11 10 10 9 7 5 1

Dixie 3 3 3 1

Hamilton 5 4 4 3Lafayette 2 2 2 1 1 1 1

Baker 9 8 8 5 7 7 1 1 1 1

Columbia 23 23 21 17 10 6 1 5 1

union 7 7 5 2 6 5 1 3 2 1

Alachua 34 30 25 8 27 26 12 27 15 6

Levy 15 14 12 3 9 8 2 14 13 7

Bradford 7 6 6 2 6 6 2 4 3 1

Gilchrist 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 1

Taylor 9 9 9 9 3 2

Madison 3 3 3 1 1 1

TOTAL 130 121 110 61 78 66 21 59 36 16

Anderson Columbia requested a total of 121 proposals (24.2%) and submitted 110 bids(29.5%). Besides Taylor County where he requested proposals, submitted bids and was awardedall the contracts let in this county, he shown strength in Columbia and Suwannee Counties as well.In Suwannee County, he requested 10 proposals (90.9%) and submitted 10 bids (90.9%) and wasthe low bidder on 9 contracts (81.8%) on contract let in this county. In Columbia County, herequested 23 proposals (100%) and submitted 21 bids (91.3%) and was the low bidder on 17contracts (73.9%) that let in this county.

VENDOR COMPETITION

The matrix below is generated from Vendor Competition Model that shows how majorcontractors competed individually, against each other and together. According to the report themost efficient contractor is Anderson Columbia. He submitted 110 bids and was the low bidder on

12


13/18

61 Contracts. His winning percentage is 55.5%. Whitehurst V.E. ranked second in being efficientas he submitted 36 bids and was the low bidder on 16 contracts. His winning ratio is 44.4%.APAC Southeast ranked last among selected contractors. He submitted 66 bids and was the lowbidder on 21 contracts. His winning percentage is 31.8%.

Anderson Columbia and APAC-Southeast submitted bids on 60 contracts together.Anderson Columbia was the low bidder on 28 contracts and APAC-Southeast was the low bidderon 18 contracts. Together they were awarded a total of 46 contracts. There is a 76.7% chance thatAnderson Columbia or APAC-Southeast wins a contract when they are biding together. However,Anderson Columbia has 60.8% chance to win as to APAC-Southeasts 39.2% chance of winning.

Anderson APAC Whitehurst-------------- ------------ -----------

Anderson 110 .846 60 .545 28 .255

61 .555 28 .467 7 .250

APAC 60 .909 66 .508 28 .42418 .300 21 .318 8 .286

Whitehurst 28 .778 28 .778 36 .27712 .429 11 .393 16 .444

Anderson Columbia and Whitehurst V.E. submitted bids on 28 contracts together.Anderson Columbia was the low bidder on 7 contracts and Whitehurst V.E. was the low bidder on12 contracts. Together they were awarded a total of 19 contracts. There is a 67.8% chance thatAnderson Columbia or Whitehurst V.E. wins a contract when they are biding together. However,Whitehurst V.E. has 63.1% chance to win as to Anderson Columbias 36.9% chance of winning.

APAC-Southeast and Whitehurst V.E. submitted bids on 28 contracts together. APAC-Southeast was the low bidder on 8 contracts and Whitehurst V.E. was the low bidder on 11contracts. Together they were awarded a total of 19 contracts. There is a 67.8% chance thatAPAC-Southeast or Whitehurst V.E. wins a contract when they are biding together. However,Whitehurst V.E. has 71.4% chance to win as to APAC-Southeasts 28.6% chance of winning.

CONTRACT E2K84

One of the most important finding through our analysis on this area is the domination ofAnderson Columbia in this area particularly in Taylor, Columbia and Suwannee Counties. A totalof 43 contracts were let in these counties, Anderson Columbia requested a total of 43 proposals,submitted bids on 40 contracts and was the low bidder on 35 contracts.

Although the number of contract let is sufficient enough to attract other contractors, the bid

13


14/18

ratios for the above counties are below the Statewide and Area Four bid ratios. The bids overproposals ratios are also below the Statewide and Area Four ratios. The proposals over bid ratio inColumbia County is 51.9% which indicated only half of the contractors who requested proposalsturned bids which is among the lowest in this area and the entire state of Florida.

Among the counties mentioned above, Columbia County has the largest number ofcontracts let (23) but also ranked number one in state of Florida for awarding single bid contractsawarded to one contractor. All the single bid contracts in this county submitted and awarded toAnderson Columbia. The aggressive behavior of Anderson Columbia and the locations of hisasphalt facilities allowed him to totally control and domination the market in counties mentionedabove. Therefore, it seems surprising and out of the ordinary to see contractor such as HubbardConstruction to win a contract in Columbia County where he normally doesnt submit any bid orcompete.

The contract E2K84 was let in September 19, 2007 in Columbia County. It received twobids from contractors that normally dont compete in Columbia County. Hubbard Construction

and PEAVY & Son submitted bids and Hubbard Construction was the low bidder for awardedamount of $2,174,994. Anderson Columbia requested the proposal for this contract but didntsubmit a bid.

Why Anderson Columbia refused to bid and allow Hubbard Construction to win a contractin Columbia County where he dominates remains strange. Our search on Anderson Columbiaactivity in the counties where Hubbard Construction shown strength, shows that in August 30,2006 Anderson Columbia was awarded a single bid contract (T2193, minor bridge work) in DuvalCounty for an amount of $1,018,114. On the other hand, there were lots of contracts with minorbridge work type that Anderson Columbia had opportunity to submit bids on in the area that henormally works, than take a chance of involving himself in a possible illegal agreement withHubbard Construction over the small contract. Therefore, the reason why Anderson Columbiarefused to bid and allow Hubbard Construction to win the contract E2K84 remains unclear.

ANALYSIS

The first indicator that shows that market competition in this area requires majorimprovement resulted from bid and proposal ratios analysis. While the number of contracts let andawarded in this area is sufficient to attract many contractors, the number of contractors actuallyparticipate in competition is well below expectation. The proposals ratio for this area is 3.8 as

14


15/18

compared to the statewide ratio of 7.15. The bid ratio for this area is 2.8 as compared to thestatewide ratio of 4.12. On the other hand in this area, 88.7% of those contractors requestedproposals turn bid as compared to 57.6% for statewide contracts. This indicates that constructionmarket in this area is controlled with few contractors or unusual low number of bidders.

The second indicator that shows market competition in this area requires improvement andmonitoring resulted from market share analysis. The construction market in this area is dominatedby Anderson Columbia as he received 56.81% of the total contract dollars awarded. Thecombination of APAC-Southeast and Whitehurst V.E. received 30% of the contract dollarsawarded. The share of other contractors from contract dollars awarded is 13.9% that is well belowour expectation.

Anderson Columbia dominated Taylor, Suwannee and Columbia Counties as he received100%, 87.3% and 84.9 of the contract dollars awarded in these counties respectively. Although thenumber of contracts let and awarded in these counties were adequate enough to attract othercontract, Anderson Columbia because of his facilities locations, possible complementary bids by

C.W. Roberts and PEAVY & Son and lack of participation by both APAC-Southeast andWhitehurst V.E. managed to dominate these counties.

A total of 20 awarded contracts received one bid. The Columbia County which isdominated by Anderson Columbia is account for ten of these single bid contracts. AndersonColumbia was the only bidder and was awarded all 20 contracts. On the hand, nine contracts thatlet in Taylor received 9 bids from Anderson Columbia, nine bids from the combination of C.W.Roberts, PEAVY & Son and only one bid from another contractor. Anderson Columbia was thelow bidder on all nine contracts. The bids submitted by C.W. Roberts and PEAVY & Son areconsidered possible complementary bids to increase the bid ratio per contract in Taylor County andreduce the number of single bid contracts awarded to Anderson Columbia.

While Anderson Columbia was able to use the locations of his asphalt facilities to dominatethe market area, APAC-Southeast and Whitehurst V.E. just managed to show strength in countieswhere they own asphalt facilities.

Anderson Columbia submitted a total of 110 bids. He submitted 30 (27.3%) bids in Taylorand Columbia Counties where he owns asphalt facilities and was the low bidder on 26 contracts(86.6%). He submitted a total of 80 bids (72.7%) in other counties and was the low bidder on 35contracts (43.7%).

APAC-Southeast submitted a total 66 bids. He submitted 32 (48.5%) bids in Alachua andBradford Counties where he owns asphalt facilities and was the low bidder on 14 contracts(43.7%). He submitted a total of 34 bids (51.5%) in other counties and was the low bidder on 7contracts (20.5%). The number of contracts awarded to Anderson Columbia in Bradford Countywhere APAC-Southeast owns an asphalt facility is the same as number of contracts awarded toAPAC-Southeast (2). On the other APAC-Southeast was the low bidder on only one contract inColumbia County as compared to 17 contracts for Anderson Columbia. This is a clear indication

15


16/18

that APAC-Southeast as one of the major contractor in state of Florida is not competingaggressively against Anderson Columbia.

Whitehurst V.E. didnt show interest in competing in counties where he doesnt ownasphalt facilities. He submitted a total of 28 bids in Levy and Alachua Counties where he owns

asphalt facilities And was the low bidder on 13 contracts (46.4%). He submitted 8 bids in othercounties and was the low bidder on three contracts (37.5%). He submitted only one bi inColumbia County. We dont know why he is not showing interest in competing in counties closeto his asphalt facilities.

CONCLUSION

Our analysis from market area study in Area Four shows that market competition in thisarea requires improvements as well as close monitoring. We have discovered several indicatorsthat show the possibility of complementary bidding, lack of interest to compete against each other

by selected major contractors and market sharing.

The high number of single bid awarded to Anderson Columbia and possiblecomplementary bids by C.W. Roberts and PEAVY & Son, as well as facilities locations and thelack of interest by APAC-Southeast and Whitehurst V.E. to aggressively compete againstAnderson Columbia lead to the domination of market by Anderson Columbia.

The very low bid and proposals ratio per contract in this area is the indication that thenumber of contractors currently competing in this area is not sufficient. Therefore, high number ofsingle bid contracts and the possibility of complementary bidding to reduce the number of singlebid contracts are highly anticipated. But, the questions surrounding the bids received for contractE2K84 from Hubbard Construction and PEAVY & Son is an indication of possible illegalactivities that has no link to the number of active contractors being low in this area.

RECOMMENDATIONS

We have found problems in three areas that need improvements

- Domination of market by a few contractors

We do recommend findings ways to distribute contract dollars more evenly amongall contractors. We recommend if possible, breaking the large contracts with

16


17/18

several projects to smaller contracts and let some of the project as a differentcontact (Guardrails, Landscape, and Lighting).

Our Analysis shows, APAC-Southeast and Whitehurst V.E. had more successagainst Anderson Columbia when several contracts let in the same letting in

different counties. By careful planning and sequencing the lettings between CentralOffice and District Two, we might create better chance for other contractors to wincontracts.

- Low number of bid ratio and lack of interest to bid

We didnt find any ligament reasons for APAC-Southeast or Whitehurst V.E. lackof interest in biddings more often in Columbia, Suwannee or Baker Counties sincethey own asphalt facilities in nearby counties. We also didnt find any reasons forHubbard Construction or Duval Asphalt with asphalt facilities in Duval County, notactively bidding in Baker, Union and Bradford Counties.

We recommend not publishing the Potential Bidders List to create uncertainlyamong contractors to increase the number of bids.

- Complementary bidding and illegal activities

We recommend contacting contractors and asking ligament questions we see signof complementary bids. Creating Market Analysis Web site that shows our abilityto monitor contractors bidding practices in regular bases is the best toll to stop thesetypes of activities.

SIMILAR PATTERN (Anderson Columbia & APAC-Southeast)

In conjunction between this study and previous study on District Three, we havediscovered several indicators of pattern being develop between Anderson Columbia and APAC-Southeast that require close monitoring.

The indicators are:

Lack of interest to bid on several counties in district three and Area Four although he owns

17


18/18

asphalt facility close by.Close percentages in number of contracts and Dollars

APAC-Southeast Statewide District Three Area Four

Contracts Dollars Contracts Dollars Contracts Dollars

144 $730,097,172 21

14.5%

$101,420,605

13.9%

21

14.5%

80,259,977

11.0%

Similar pattern using asphalt facilities

In District Three he owns asphalt facilities in Walton and Escambia Counties. He shown

strength in Escambia County but did very poorly in Walton County. In Area Four, heshown strength in Alachua County and did poorly in Bradford County.

Close percentages in contract dollars

Anderson APAC Percentage

District Three $297,897,982 $101,420,605 34.0%

Area Four $261,404,996 $80,259,977 30.7%

18

Documents

AREA 4 Report