This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
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
CONFIDENTIAL Per 337.168 F. S.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SELECTION CRITERIA…………………………………………….…….………3 SELECT MODEL..……………………………………………………………...…...3 MARKET SHARE…..…………………………………………………………..…...5 Market Share by Counties (Dollars)…………………………………………5 Market Share by Counties (Contracts)………………………………….…..6 Madison 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
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 by Central 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 Four Levels 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 total awarded amount of $460,104,796. For the same period, the Select Model selected a total of 1604 contracts for a total awarded amount of $10,883,915,920 statewide. STATEWIDE % of Contracts awarded Awarded Amount 66.27% $6,816,679,389 33.73% $4,067,236,531 --------$10,883,915,920 AREA FOUR 66.16% $354,543,248 33.84% $105,561,548 -------$460,104,796
Central District Total Central District Total
Contract Awarded 1063 541 1604 86 44 130
% of Awarded Amount 62.63% 37.37% --------77.05% 22.95% --------
The table above shows, the Central Contract Administration Office let and awarded
66.27% of the statewide contracts and 62.63% of the contract dollars. The districts offices as a group let and awarded 33.73% of the contracts and 37.37% of the contract dollars. On the other hand, in our selected area, the Central Contract Administration office let and awarded 66.16% of the 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 by district in Area Four are smaller in contract dollars than those let statewide.
Awarded Contracts Area 4 Madison Taylor Hamilton Dixie Gilchrist Bradford Levy Alachua Union Columbia Baker Lafayette Suwannee 130 3 9 5 3 2 7 15 34 7 23 9 2 11
Awarded Amounts $460,104,796
Percentage of Awarded Contracts
Percentage of Awarded Amounts
$12,453,772 $53,671,374 $10,858,654 $6,361,449 $10,848,049 $16,655,837 $59,042,536 $115,415,645 $15,548,133 $74,707,638 $33,914,534 $4,420,388 $46,206,789
2.3% 6.9% 3.8% 2.3% 1.5% 5.3% 11.5% 26.1% 5.3% 17.7% 6.9% 1.5% 8.8%
2.71% 11.67% 2.36% 1.38% 2.36% 3.62% 12.83% 25.08% 3.38% 16.24% 7.37% 0.96% 10.04%
The Alachua County with 34 contracts (26.1%) and 25.08% of the contract dollar ranked number one among all counties in Area Four. The Columbia and Levy Counties ranked second and third respectively in number of contracts as well as contract dollar awarded in this area.
Market Share reports show that there are three major vendors in this area. Anderson Columbia 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 second as 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 in this area. Other contractors received 24.62% of the awarded contracts (32) and 13.9% of the contract dollars. Based on our analysis, the construction market in Area Four is dominated by Anderson Columbia. Anderson Columbia’s share of contract dollars awarded in this area was larger than APAC-Southeast, Whitehurst, V.E. and all other contractors combined.
Major Contractors Market Share in Area Four by Awarded Contracts and Dollars Contracts Anderson Columbia APAC-Southeast Whitehurst, V. E. TOTAL- Vendors Others AREA TOTAL 61 21 16 98 32 130 Dollars $261,404,996 $80,259,977 $58,111,200 $399,776,173 $159,795,830 $60,328,623 % of Contracts 46.92% 16.15% 12.31% 75.38% 24.62% 100% % of Dollars 56.81% 17.44% 12.56% 86.1% 13.9% 100%
Market Share by Counties (Contract Dollars) The Table shows dispersal of contract dollars among major contractors and other contractors 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 low number of competitors. Except for Dixie and Union Counties where other contractors received 100% and 63.9% of the contract dollars respectively, all other counties were dominated by one or any combination of our selected contractors. The Alachua, Bradford and Levy counties are dominated by all three selected major contractors combined. As a group, they received 82%, 95.5% and 79.1% of the contract dollars
respectively. Other contractors received 18%, 4.5% and 12.9% of the contract dollars which clearly are well below the expectations. APAC Southeast is the leading major contractor in Lafayette County where he received 88.8% of the contract dollars. The remaining 11.2% of the contract dollars in this county was awarded to Anderson Columbia. The other contractors were not the low bidder 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 contract dollars. 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 the total contract dollars in these counties respectively.
Alachua Baker Bradford Columbia Dixie Gilchrist Hamilton Lafayette Levy Madison Suwannee Taylor Union
Whitehurst % 27.4% 64.2% 41.3% 84.9% 0% 97.6% 90.5% 11.2% 23.4% 49.4% 87.3% 100% 17.8% V.E. $26,403,162 $583,451 $3,869,601 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $24,852,586 $0 $0 $0 $2,402,400 % 22.9% 1.7% 23.2% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 42.1% 0% 0% 0% 15.4%
APAC Southeast $36,558,611 $10,979,000 $5,154,343 $4,869,750 $0 $0 $0 $3,923,075 $12,748,391 $0 $5,572,062 $0, $454,745 % 31.7% 32.3% 30.9% 6.5% 0% 0% 0% 88.8% 21.6% 0% 12.1% 0% 2.9%
Contractors Total $94,607,014 $33,326,985 $16,165,944 $68,303,869 $0 $10,588,801 $9,834,876 $4,420,388 $51,424396 $6,152,468 $45,916,274 $53,671,374 $5,623,786 % 82% 98.3% 95.5% 91.4% 0% 97.6% 90.5% 100% 79.1% 49.4% 100.0% 100% 36.1%
Others % $20,808,631 $587,549 $489,893 $6,403,769 $6,361,449 $259,248 $1,024,048 $0 $7,618,140 $6,301,304 $290,515 $0 $9,924,347 18% 1.7% 4.5% 8.6% 100% 2.4% 9.5% 0% 12.9% 50.6% 0.6% 0% 63.9%
$31,645,241 $21,764,535 $6,882,000 $63,434,119 $0 $10,588,801 $9,834,876 $496,313 $13,823,418 $6,152,468 $40,344,212 $53,671,374 $2,766,641
$115,415,645 $28,244,791 $16,655,837 $74,707,638 $6,361,449 $10,848,049 $10,858,654 $4,420,388 $59,042,536 $12,453,772 $46,206,789 $53,671,374 $15,548,133
Market Share by Counties (Contracts) The table shows dispersal of awarded contract among major contractors and other contractors in Area Four by counties. Except for Dixie and Union Counties, other contracts were not able to compete with our selected contractors. Our selected contractors as a group were awarded 76.4% and 80% of the contracts in Alachua and Levy counties respectively. Anderson Columbia 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 and Whitehurst V.E. combined.
Others % %
Alachua Baker Bradford Columbia Dixie Gilchrist Hamilton Lafayette Levy Madison Suwannee Taylor Union
8 5 2 17 0 1 3 1 3 1 9 9 2
23.5% 55.6% 28.6% 73.9% 0.0% 50% 60% 50% 20% 33.3% 81.8% 100% 28.8%
6 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 1
17.6% 11.1% 14.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 46.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 14.4%
12 1 2 1 0 0 0 1 2 0 1 0 1
35.3% 11.1% 28.6% 4.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 50% 13.3% 0.0% 9.1% 0.0% 14.4%
26 7 5 18 0 1 3 2 12 1 10 9 4
76.4% 77.8% 71.4% 78.2% 0.0% 50% 60% 100% 80% 33.3% 90.9% 100% 57.6%
8 2 2 5 3 1 2 0 3 2 1 9 3
23.6% 22.2% 28.6% 21.8% 100% 50% 40% 0.0% 20% 66.7% 9.1% 0.0% 42.4%
34 9 7 23 3 2 5 2 15 3 11 9 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 received 49.4% 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 was awarded the low bidder on all contracts. A total of 19 bids received for these contracts. Anderson Columbia submitted nine bids. The combination of C .W. Roberts and PEAVY & Son submitted nine bids and only one bids was received from other contractors. Two contracts received a single bid. Four contracts received two bids and 3 contracts received three bids. The bid ratio for these contracts 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 selected major 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-Southeast owns asphalt facilities in Alachua and Bradford Counties. Whitehurst V.E. owns asphalt facilities in Levy and Alachua Counties.
Anderson Columbia’s asphalt facilities locations in Taylor and Columbia Counties is one reason behind his ability to take over the market in this area .His winning percentage in Taylor County where he owns one asphalt facility is 100%. However, as he dominates Taylor County, in counties adjacent to Taylor County such as Madison, Lafayette and Dixie Counties, his winning percentages are well below expectations. His winning percentage in Madison County is 33.3% and in Lafayette and Dixie Counties are 50% and 0% respectively.
17 21 8 5
9 9 9 1 10 2 1 2 3 0 3 12 2
In Columbia County, where Anderson Columbia owns one asphalt facility, his winning percentage is 80.9%. In Counties adjacent to the west of the Columbia County such as Hamilton and Suwannee Counties, his winning percentages are 75% and 90% respectively. In counties adjacent to east and south of the Columbia Counties his winning percentages are more in line with competitive 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 Four winning 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 owns two asphalt facilities in Bradford and Alachua Counties. He didn’t submit any bids in Taylor, Dixie or Hamilton Counties. He submitted one bid in Madison and one in Gilchrist Counties but was not the low bidder on any of those contracts. His winning percentage for Area Four is 31.8 %. While his winning percentage for Lafayette County is 100%, for other counties 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 Four’s winning percentage.
6 1 1 1 1 5
The counties which he managed to win more than one contracts are Bradford, Alachua and Levy Counties. His winning percentage in Levy County is 25% as he submitted 8 bids and was the low bidder on two contracts. His winning percentage in Bradford County is 33.3% where he owns an asphalt facility and was the low bidder on two contracts on six different bids. The only County that seems he is doing well is Alachua County. He owns an asphalt facility in Alachua County. He submitted 26 bids and was the low bidder on 12 Contract. His winning percentage in Alachua County is 46.1%.
Whitehurst V.E. owns asphalt facilities in Levy and Alachua Counties. He submitted 36 bids and was the low bidder on 16 c0ontract. His winning percentage is 44.4% for Area Four. His winning percentage in Alachua and Levy Counties where he owns asphalt facilities is 46.2 and in Union, Baker and Bradford Counties where he submitted a total of six bids and was the low bidder on 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 in Columbia and Dixie Counties raise our concerns on over all competition in this area.
1 2 1 3 1
Contracts bid Contracts Won
BIDS AND PROPOSALS
The table shows in Area Four, the proposals and bid ratios are lower than the statewide ratios. On the other hand the bids over proposals ratio in Area Four is much higher than the statewide ratio. This is an indication that, in this area the number of contractors who participate in competition on construction contracts is not sufficient, but they submit bids on majority of the contracts.
Proposals Bids Awarded Contracts 1604 130 3 9 5 11 2 3 9 23 7 34 15 7 2 Proposals Ratio 7.15 3.8 4.3 3.3 2.8 3.2 1.5 9.3 5.4 4.4 4.4 5.7 4.5 6.7 3.5 Bids Ratio 4.12 2.8 3.3 2.2 2.2 1.9 1.5 4.7 3.7 2.3 3.0 3.4 3.1 3.0 2.5 Bids Over Proposals 57.6% 88.7% 76.9% 63.3% 78.6% 60% 100% 50% 67.3% 51.9% 67.7% 58.3% 68.6% 44.7% 71.4%
Statewide Area 4 Madison Taylor Hamilton Suwannee Lafayette Dixie Baker Columbia Union Alachua Levy Bradford Gilchrist
11482 500 13 30 14 35 3 28 49 102 31 197 67 47 7
6620 372 10 19 11 21 3 14 33 53 21 115 46 21 5
Suwannee County has the lowest bid ratio per contracts among all the counties in this area .Taylor and Hamilton Counties jointly with 2.2 bid ratio and Columbia county with 2.3 bid ratio ranked second and third respectively among all counties in this area. Bradford County has the lowest percentage of bids over proposals (44.7%). Less than half of the proposals ordered in this county turn to bid. The number of contracts awarded in Gilchrist (2) and in Lafayette (2) Counties with bid ratios 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, one might question the reasons for low competition in Gilchrist and Lafayette Counties. Our analysis shows, the low number of active contractors and a large number of single bid contracts are the major cause of low bids ratio in these counties. County Contracts Awarded Anderson Columbia Others Single Bid
Columbia Hamilton Suwannee Taylor TOTAL
23 5 11 9 48
17 3 9 9 38
6 2 2 0 10
10 2 3 2 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 compete aggressively had resulted to the domination of Anderson Columbia in these counties. Anderson Columbia was 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.
Suwannee Dixie Hamilton Lafayette Baker Columbia union Alachua Levy Bradford Gilchrist Taylor Madison TOTAL
Contracts Let 11 3 5 2 9 23 7 34 15 7 2 9 3 130
Anderson Proposals Bids 10 10 3 3 4 4 2 2 8 8 23 21 7 5 30 25 14 12 6 6 2 2 9 9 3 3 121 110
Win 9 3 1 5 17 2 8 3 2 1 9 1 61
APAC-Southeast Proposals Bids Win 7 5 1
Whitehurst Proposals Bids Win 1
1 7 10 6 27 9 6 1 3 1 78
1 7 6 5 26 8 6 1 1 66
1 1 1 1 12 2 2
1 5 3 27 14 4 2 2 59
1 1 2 15 13 3 1
1 1 6 7 1
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 awarded all 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 was the low bidder on 9 contracts (81.8%) on contract let in this county. In Columbia County, he requested 23 proposals (100%) and submitted 21 bids (91.3%) and was the low bidder on 17 contracts (73.9%) that let in this county.
VENDOR COMPETITION The matrix below is generated from Vendor Competition Model that shows how major contractors competed individually, against each other and together. According to the report the most efficient contractor is Anderson Columbia. He submitted 110 bids and was the low bidder on 12
61 Contracts. His winning percentage is 55.5%. Whitehurst V.E. ranked second in being efficient as 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 low bidder 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 bidder on 18 contracts. Together they were awarded a total of 46 contracts. There is a 76.7% chance that Anderson Columbia or APAC-Southeast wins a contract when they are biding together. However, Anderson Columbia has 60.8% chance to win as to APAC-Southeast‘s 39.2% chance of winning.
Anderson APAC Whitehurst
Anderson APAC Whitehurst ----------------------------------110 .846 60 .545 28 .255 61 .555 28 .467 7 .250 60 .909 18 .300 28 .778 12 .429 66 .508 21 .318 28 .778 11 .393 28 .424 8 .286 36 .277 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 on 12 contracts. Together they were awarded a total of 19 contracts. There is a 67.8% chance that Anderson 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 Columbia‘s 36.9% chance of winning. APAC-Southeast and Whitehurst V.E. submitted bids on 28 contracts together. APACSoutheast was the low bidder on 8 contracts and Whitehurst V.E. was the low bidder on 11 contracts. Together they were awarded a total of 19 contracts. There is a 67.8% chance that APAC-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-Southeast‘s 28.6% chance of winning. CONTRACT E2K84 One of the most important finding through our analysis on this area is the domination of Anderson Columbia in this area particularly in Taylor, Columbia and Suwannee Counties. A total of 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
ratios for the above counties are below the Statewide and Area Four bid ratios. The bids over proposals ratios are also below the Statewide and Area Four ratios. The proposals over bid ratio in Columbia County is 51.9% which indicated only half of the contractors who requested proposals turned 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 of contracts let (23) but also ranked number one in state of Florida for awarding single bid contracts awarded to one contractor. All the single bid contracts in this county submitted and awarded to Anderson Columbia. The aggressive behavior of Anderson Columbia and the locations of his asphalt facilities allowed him to totally control and domination the market in counties mentioned above. Therefore, it seems surprising and out of the ordinary to see contractor such as Hubbard Construction to win a contract in Columbia County where he normally doesn’t submit any bid or compete. The contract E2K84 was let in September 19, 2007 in Columbia County. It received two bids from contractors that normally don’t compete in Columbia County. Hubbard Construction and PEAVY & Son submitted bids and Hubbard Construction was the low bidder for awarded amount of $2,174,994. Anderson Columbia requested the proposal for this contract but didn’t submit a bid. Why Anderson Columbia refused to bid and allow Hubbard Construction to win a contract in Columbia County where he dominates remains strange. Our search on Anderson Columbia activity 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 Duval County for an amount of $1,018,114. On the other hand, there were lots of contracts with minor bridge work type that Anderson Columbia had opportunity to submit bids on in the area that he normally works, than take a chance of involving himself in a possible illegal agreement with Hubbard Construction over the small contract. Therefore, the reason why Anderson Columbia refused to bid and allow Hubbard Construction to win the contract E2K84 remains unclear.
The first indicator that shows that market competition in this area requires major improvement resulted from bid and proposal ratios analysis. While the number of contracts let and awarded in this area is sufficient to attract many contractors, the number of contractors actually participate in competition is well below expectation. The proposals ratio for this area is 3.8 as
compared to the statewide ratio of 7.15. The bid ratio for this area is 2.8 as compared to the statewide ratio of 4.12. On the other hand in this area, 88.7% of those contractors requested proposals turn bid as compared to 57.6% for statewide contracts. This indicates that construction market 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 and monitoring resulted from market share analysis. The construction market in this area is dominated by Anderson Columbia as he received 56.81% of the total contract dollars awarded. The combination of APAC-Southeast and Whitehurst V.E. received 30% of the contract dollars awarded. The share of other contractors from contract dollars awarded is 13.9% that is well below our expectation. Anderson Columbia dominated Taylor, Suwannee and Columbia Counties as he received 100%, 87.3% and 84.9 of the contract dollars awarded in these counties respectively. Although the number of contracts let and awarded in these counties were adequate enough to attract other contract, 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 and Whitehurst V.E. managed to dominate these counties. A total of 20 awarded contracts received one bid. The Columbia County which is dominated by Anderson Columbia is account for ten of these single bid contracts. Anderson Columbia was the only bidder and was awarded all 20 contracts. On the hand, nine contracts that let 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 the low bidder on all nine contracts. The bids submitted by C.W. Roberts and PEAVY & Son are considered possible complementary bids to increase the bid ratio per contract in Taylor County and reduce the number of single bid contracts awarded to Anderson Columbia. While Anderson Columbia was able to use the locations of his asphalt facilities to dominate the market area, APAC-Southeast and Whitehurst V.E. just managed to show strength in counties where they own asphalt facilities. Anderson Columbia submitted a total of 110 bids. He submitted 30 (27.3%) bids in Taylor and 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 35 contracts (43.7%).
APAC-Southeast submitted a total 66 bids. He submitted 32 (48.5%) bids in Alachua and Bradford 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 7 contracts (20.5%). The number of contracts awarded to Anderson Columbia in Bradford County where APAC-Southeast owns an asphalt facility is the same as number of contracts awarded to APAC-Southeast (2). On the other APAC-Southeast was the low bidder on only one contract in Columbia County as compared to 17 contracts for Anderson Columbia. This is a clear indication
that APAC-Southeast as one of the major contractor in state of Florida is not competing aggressively against Anderson Columbia. Whitehurst V.E. didn’t show interest in competing in counties where he doesn’t own asphalt 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 other counties and was the low bidder on three contracts (37.5%). He submitted only one bi in Columbia County. We don’t know why he is not showing interest in competing in counties close to his asphalt facilities. CONCLUSION Our analysis from market area study in Area Four shows that market competition in this area requires improvements as well as close monitoring. We have discovered several indicators that 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 possible complementary bids by C.W. Roberts and PEAVY & Son, as well as facilities locations and the lack of interest by APAC-Southeast and Whitehurst V.E. to aggressively compete against Anderson 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 the number of contractors currently competing in this area is not sufficient. Therefore, high number of single bid contracts and the possibility of complementary bidding to reduce the number of single bid contracts are highly anticipated. But, the questions surrounding the bids received for contract E2K84 from Hubbard Construction and PEAVY & Son is an indication of possible illegal activities 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 among all contractors. We recommend if possible, breaking the large contracts with
several projects to smaller contracts and let some of the project as a different contact (Guardrails, Landscape, and Lighting). Our Analysis shows, APAC-Southeast and Whitehurst V.E. had more success against Anderson Columbia when several contracts let in the same letting in different counties. By careful planning and sequencing the lettings between Central Office and District Two, we might create better chance for other contractors to win contracts. Low number of bid ratio and lack of interest to bid We didn’t find any ligament reasons for APAC-Southeast or Whitehurst V.E. lack of interest in biddings more often in Columbia, Suwannee or Baker Counties since they own asphalt facilities in nearby counties. We also didn’t find any reasons for Hubbard Construction or Duval Asphalt with asphalt facilities in Duval County, not actively bidding in Baker, Union and Bradford Counties. We recommend not publishing the Potential Bidders List to create uncertainly among contractors to increase the number of bids. Complementary bidding and illegal activities We recommend contacting contractors and asking ligament questions we see sign of complementary bids. Creating Market Analysis Web site that shows our ability to monitor contractors bidding practices in regular bases is the best toll to stop these types of activities.
SIMILAR PATTERN (Anderson Columbia & APAC-Southeast) In conjunction between this study and previous study on District Three, we have discovered several indicators of pattern being develop between Anderson Columbia and APACSoutheast that require close monitoring. The indicators are: Lack of interest to bid on several counties in district three and Area Four although he owns
asphalt facility close by . Close percentages in number of contracts and Dollars APAC-Southeast Statewide Contracts 144 Dollars $730,097,172 District Three Contracts 21 14.5% 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, he shown strength in Alachua County and did poorly in Bradford County. Close percentages in contract dollars District Three Area Four Anderson $297,897,982 $261,404,996 APAC $101,420,605 $80,259,977 Percentage 34.0% 30.7% Dollars $101,420,605 13.9% Area Four Contracts 21 14.5% Dollars 80,259,977 11.0%
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue listening from where you left off, or restart the preview.