area 6 report

7/31/2019 Area 6 Report

1/27

FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

CONTRACTS ADMINISTRATION OFFICE

MARKET ANALYSIS SECTION

AREA SIX

BID MONITORING AND MARKET ANALYSIS STUDY

Market Analysis Section

Kwan-Li Ling

Reviewed by:

Nasser Pourfarzaneh

November 3, 2010

CONFIDENTIALPer 337.168 F.S.

1


2/27

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION. 1

SELECTION CRITERIA...... 1

SELECT MODEL... 2

Proposal/Bid Analysis ......................................................................................................................4Single-Bidder Contract .....................................................................................................................5Two-Bidder Contract ........................................................................................................................6Market Share Analysis by Top Vendors ..........................................................................................6Market Share Analysis by County ....................................................................................................9Hillsborough County ........................................................................................................................9Pasco County ....................................................................................................................................9Pinellas County .................................................................................................................................9

Polk County ......................................................................................................................................9Market Share Analysis by Year ......................................................................................................11Finding ............................................................................................................................................13Lane Construction ...........................................................................................................................14Apac-Southeast ...............................................................................................................................15Ajax Paving .....................................................................................................................................16Findings ..........................................................................................................................................21Findings ..........................................................................................................................................23Lane Construction and Apac-Southeast Bid Pattern in Polk County ............................................24

SUMMARY... 23

INTRODUCTION

This study monitors proposal and bidding patterns and performs market share analysis,vendor competition analysis, pricing analysis in Area Six. Our goal is to find indicators of bidcollusion: suspicious bidding patterns and/or suspicious pricing patterns.

The data was collected with specifications listed in Selection Criteria indicated below.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Area of Study: Area Six, a total of four counties (Hillsborough, Pasco,Pinellas, Polk)

Contract Letting Date: January 01, 2005 to December 31, 2009

2


3/27

Contract Types: All Construction, Traffic Operation contracts, Lump SumContracts, Design Build contracts let by Central Office and

District Office in Area Six.

Contract Letting Status: Allawarded contracts selected.

Contract Awarded Amount: > $250,000.

BAMS/DSS Models: Select Model, Market Share Model, Vendor CompetitionModel, Price Model.

Other: Identifying asphalt facility locations by using LIMSDatabase reports and telephone calls to verify and updatethe most recent change of facility location together within-house vendor maps, Microsoft Excel.

SELECT MODEL

Vendors in Area Six purchased 1575 proposals and submitted 848 bids in this study period.Low bidders worked on 213 contracts with a total of $1,925,996,310 awarded contract dollaramount over four counties in Area Six.

The total awarded contracts, total contract dollar amounts and percentages associated toeach individual county in Area Six are summarized in Table 1.

County

ContractNumber

ContractNumber (%)

AwardedAmount($)

AwardedAmount(%)

HILLSBOROUG 64 30.05% $1,001,487,2 52.00%

3


4/27

H 13

PASCO 26 12.21% $141,171,815 7.33%

PINELLAS 43 20.19% $461,267,815 23.95%

POLK 80 37.56% $322,069,467 16.72%

AREA 6 Total 213

100.00

%

$1,925,996,3

10 100.00%

STATEWIDE 1603$10,883,212,

919

Table 1

Hillsborough County received second highest in contract number, 30.0% (64 contracts) ofthe entire Area Sixs total contracts and 52.0% ($1,001,487,213) of the entire Area Sixs totalcontract awarded dollars. Hillsborough County received the most awarded contract dollarscompared to the other three counties in Area Six. There was one very large joint venture contractT7209 won by PCL Civil and Archer Western with new construction work type awarded for

$389,463,750 in this county. PCL Civil won another large road resurface contract over $100million dollars in this county.

Pinellas County received second highest awarded contract dollars, 23.95% and thirdhighest contract numbers, 20.19% in Area Six. Hubbard Construction won one large roadresurface contract over $100 million dollars in this county.

Polk County received the highest in contract numbers, but no large contract over $100million.

Both Hillsborough and Pinellas Counties got the majority of contracts and contract dollarsin Area Six. Together they had 50.2% of contracts and 76.0% of awarded contract dollars in AreaSix.

Proposal/Bid Analysis

We measure vendors participation of purchasing proposals and submitting bids bycomparing average proposal and bid ratio per contract from each county to average statewide ratio.Average statewide proposal ratio per contract is 7.29 and bid ratio is 4.12 per contract. Table 2lists detailed information of proposal, bid, contract numbers and ratio numbers associated witheach county in Area Six. It shows average proposal ratio in Area Six is slightly higher thanstatewide. But bid ratio is below statewide.

Location ContractNumber

ProposalsOrdered

BidsReceived

Ratio ofProposals/

Ratio ofBids/

4


5/27

Contracts ContractsSTATEWIDE 1603 11684 6599 7.29 4.12

AREA 6 213 1575 848 7.39 3.98HILLSBOROUGH 64 502 245 7.84 3.83

PASCO 26 234 135 9.00 5.19PINELLAS 43 362 186 8.42 4.33

POLK 80 477 282 5.96 3.53

Table 2

Polk County had the lowest vendor participation ratio both in proposal and bid ratio.Hillsborough County also did not do well in submitting bids. Graph 1 demonstrates vendorparticipation performance of proposal and bid in each county comparing to statewide average.Hillsborough County bid ratio was below statewide 0.29. Polk County proposal ratio was belowstatewide 1.33 and bid ratio was below statewide 0.59.

Graph 1

LOW COMPETITION

Single-Bidder Contract

There were a total of 13 single-bid contracts (it included two design build) in this studyperiod. Some of them were awarded with very large amount of contract dollars. Two largestsingle-bid construction contracts, one is T7070 won by Archer Western and the other is T7168won by Prince Contracting.

Table 5 describes detailed information of these two large single-bid contracts.

5


6/27

Contract No.

Let Date AwardedAmt

County Contract Type

ContractWork Type

ContractWinner

T7070 06/28/2006

$89,191,191

Pinellas CC Reconstruction

ArcherWestern

T7168 05/23/2007 $42,685,742 Hillsborough CC Misc PrinceContracting

Table 5

In addition to Table 5, Lane Construction won a $1 million road resurfacing single-biddercontract in Polk County. Ajax Paving won a $2 million single-bidder contract in HillsboroughCounty.

Two-Bidder Contract

Not only single-bid contracts brought down bid ratio, a large amount of two-biddercontracts will also drive bid ratio down. There were a total of 52 two-bidder contracts, and 14 ofthese two-bidder contracts were won by Lane Construction in Polk County. It is interesting that71% of Lane Construction bids were competing with Apac-Southeast among these two-biddercontracts.

Apac-Southeast also won 14 two-bidder contracts in Hillsborough, Pinellas and PolkCounties. Among these 14 two-bidder contracts, 64% were competing with Lane Construction and36% were competing with Ajax Paving.

Ajax Paving won a total of 8 two-bidder contracts in Hillsborough and Pinellas. Half ofthem were competing with Apac-Southeast.

These three top major vendors won 69% of total two-bidder contracts, and more than halfof the time Lane Construction and Apac-Southeast were competing with each other; Ajax Pavingwere competing with Apac-Southeast.

MARKET SHARE

Market Share Analysis by Top Vendors

In this section we analyze market shares among top major vendors and other non-top majorvendors in each county and overall Area Six. Top major vendors were chosen by who received themost contracts. Lane Construction, Apac-Southeast and Ajax Paving are the chosen major vendorsreceiving the highest contract numbers; 42, 36, 23 respectively. Ajax Paving had two different

6


7/27

vendor names and vendor numbers and we merge them in one. Ajax Paving Industries, Inc. woncontracts let from 1/12/2005 to 6/18/2008, a total of 19 contracts. Ajax Paving Industries ofFlorida, LLC won contracts let from 7/15/2008 12/17/2009, a total of 4 contracts.

Table 3 demonstrates the number of contracts these three top vendors and other vendors

worked on and percentage associated with each county. Together these three top vendors workedon 47.42% of Area Sixs contracts and the other vendors worked on 52.58%.

Counties Lane Const# contracts and% in County

Apac-Southeast# contracts and %in County

Ajax Paving# contracts and% in County

Others# contracts and% in County

Total# contracts and% in County

HILLSBO-ROUGH

7

10.94%

1015.63%

1421.88%

3350.00%

6430.05%

PASCO

3

11.54%

13.

85%1

3.85%21

80.77%26

12.21%

PINELLAS5

11.63%

6

13.95%

3274.42%

4320.19%

POLK32

40.00%20

25.00%

2

2.5%

2632.50%

8037.56%

Total42

19.72%37

16.90%23

10.80%111

52.58%213

100.00%

Table 3

Lane Construction won the most contracts, 42, occupying 20% of awarded contracts inArea Six. Apac-Southeast came in second, 17% and Ajax Paving was the third, 11%.

Polk County was awarded the most contracts, 80, occupying 38% of awarded contracts inArea Six. Hillsborough, Pinellas, Pasco was awarded with 64, 43, 26 contracts respectively whichoccupied 30%, 20%, 12% respectively in Area Six.

Table 4 demonstrates the three major vendors and non-major vendors total awarded

contract dollars and percentage associated with each county. These three major vendors received23.3% of total Area Six contract dollars and non-major vendors had a larger portion, 76.7%, due toseveral very large new construction and road resurface contracts won by PCL Civil, ArcherWestern, and Hubbard Construction.

Counties Lane Const$ Amt and % in

Apac-Southeast

Ajax Paving$ Amt and % in Others

Total $Amt and % in County

7


8/27

County$ Amt and % inCounty County

$ Amt and % inCounty

HILLSBO-ROUGH

$26,616,480

2.66%

$48,776,5604.87%

$86,129,092 8.60%

$839,965,081 83.87%

$1,001,487,213 52.00%

PASCO

$36,278,

39825.

70%$4,574,318

3.24%$4,019,903

2.85%$96,299,196

68.21%$141,171,815

7.33%

PINELLAS$7,376,447

1.60%

$22,144,963

4.80%

$431,746,405 93.60%

$461,267,81523.95%

POLK $106,064,562 32.93%

$102,976,901 31.97%

$3,439,0001.07%

$109,589,004 34.03%

$322,069,46716.72%

AREA 6Total

$168,959,440 8.77%

$163,704,226 8.50%

$115,732,958 6.01%

$1,477,599,686 76.72%

$1,925,996,310 100.00%

Table 4

Graph 2 shows the market share condition in pie chart among non-major and majorvendors.

Market Shares Total Dollars in Area SixContract Awarded Amount > $250,000

Year 2005 2009

Graph 2

8


9/27

Market Share Analysis by County

Hillsborough County

Hillsborough was the county receiving highest contract dollars in Area Six, 52%, a total of$1,001,487,213 contract dollars. Ajax paving, Apac-Southeast and Lane Construction were the topvendors who received $86,129,092, $48,776,560, $26,616,480 contract dollars respectively. Thesethree top vendors together occupied a total of 16% and the other vendors had 84% of the market inHillsborough County.

Pasco County

Pasco County had the smallest contract dollars in Area Six, 7%, a total of $141,171,815contract dollars. Three major contractors were all working in this county. Lane Construction,

Apac-Southeast and Ajax Paving received $36,278,398, $4,574,318, $4,019,903 contract dollarsrespectively. Together they had 32% of the market in Pasco County and the remaining contractorsshared the other 68%.

Pinellas County

Pinellas County had the second highest share of contract dollars in Area Six, 24%, a totalof $461,267,815 contract dollars. Ajax Paving and Apac-Southeast received $22,144,963,$7,376,447 contract dollars respectively. These two major contractors had a total of 6% of marketin Pinellas County; the other contractors shared a total of 94%.

Polk County

Pinellas County had the third highest share of contract dollars in Area Six, 17%, a total of$322,069,467. All four top major contractors received contracts in this county. Lane construction,Apac-Southeast, and Ajax Paving got $106,064,562, $102,976,901, $3,439,000 contract dollarsrespectively. These three top vendors together had 65% and the other vendors had 34% of PolkCounty market.

9


10/27

Graph 3

Graph 3 shows the three top major vendors relatively having a smaller percentagecompared to other vendors in Hillsborough, Pasco and Pinellas Counties. Due to other vendorslike PCL Civil, Prince Contracting won a few over $100 million dollar contracts in Hillsborough;Hubbard Construction, Archer Western won a few contracts greater than $50 and under $100millions in Pinellas. These large contracts may include bridge work, but were not necessarilybridge contracts.

10


11/27

Market Share Analysis by Year

None of these three major vendors dominated Area Sixs market; Graph 4 demonstrates thedynamic market shares with percentage contract awarded dollar amount by year. It looks like year2009 was a bad year for Lane Construction and Ajax paving.

Non-major vendors won over 92% of awarded contract dollars in year 2009. PCL andArcher Western won a joint venture contract worth $389 million and Hubbard Construction won avery large contract worth $109 million. Just these two contracts alone, occupied 73% of non-major vendors sub-total awarded dollars in year 2009.

Graph 4

Among these large contracts, there was only one bridge contract, the rest of them wereconstruction contracts. Some of these large contracts were single-bidder mentioned earlier in LowCompetition section. These large contracts by year were listed below:

Let Year Awarded Amount Won by Work Type(in millions)

________________________________________________________________2005 $ 76 Flatiron Constructors Bridge construction2006 $ 89 Archer Western New Construction2007 $ 103 PCL Civil New Construction

2007 $ 42 Prince Contracting Misc2008 $ 60 Prince Contracting Misc2009 $ 109 Hubbard Construction Re-construction2009 $ 389 PCL/Archer WesternNew Construction

11


12/27

VENDOR COMPETITION

In this section we analyze how top vendors compete with each other. The top vendors inArea Six were chosen by highest contract numbers that they received. Diagonally in the matrixbelow, Lane Construction, Apac-Southeast and Ajax-Paving were the chosen top vendors who

received 42, 37, 23 contracts respectively. These three top vendors won a total of 102 contracts;the rest of vendors won 111 contracts.

Lane Construction submitted 105 bids and won 42 contracts. Their success rate was 40%.Apac-Southeast had 32% and Ajax Paving had 26% success rate. Lane Construction was the bestperformer and also won the most contracts.

The total bids in this study period are 848. Lane Construction had 12% (105/848); Apac-Southeast had 14% (116/848); Ajax Paving had 10% (87/848) of total bids submitted in Area Six.The frequency of submitting bids (bid over contract ratio) were Lane Construction 49%, Apac-Southeast 55%, and Ajax-Paving 41%.

VENDOR COMPETITION MATRIX

SUPPLEMENTED WITH TOP VENDORS RANKED BY CONTRACT NUMBERS

SELECTEDLANE APAC AJAXVENDORS

LANE 105 0.49 80 0.76 50 0.48

42 0.40 32 0.40 15 0.30

APAC 80 0.69 116 0.55 71 0.61

26 0.33 37 0.32 20 0.28

AJAX 50 0.58 71 0.82 87 0.41

9 0.18 19 0.27 23 0.26

Off-diagonal elements in the vendor competition matrix are the frequency with which each

vendor competes with its rivals. Lane Construction and Apac-Southeast submitted a total of 80bids together in the same contracts; Lane Construction won 32 contracts (40%) and Apac-Southeast won 26 contracts (33%). If Lane Construction and Apac-Southeast teamed up, theirsuccess rate was 73%.

Lane Construction and Ajax Paving were competing in 50 contracts together; LaneConstruction won 15 contracts (30%) and Ajax Paving won 9 contracts (18%). If they teamed up,their success rate was 48%.

12


13/27

Apac-Southeast and Ajax Paving were competing in 71 contracts together. Apac-Southeastwon 20 contracts (28%); Ajax Paving won 19 contracts (27%), a difference of 1%. If they teamedup, their success rate was 55%.

Finding

None of top major vendors dominates the market. The frequency of Ajax Paving biddingwith Apac-Southeast was very high, 82%. When they competed together, their success rates wereonly 1% off each other. The frequency of Lane Construction bidding with Apac-Southeast wasvery high, 76%.

13


14/27

VENDOR ACTIVITY MAPS

The maps in this section provide a vision of where vendor business territories are and howthey operate business with or without asphalt facilities. Since asphalt work is related to distance

between contract work site and facility, these visual maps provide meaning to our study. Theyshow the major contractors asphalt facility locations; total number of bids won and lost in eachcounty of Area Six; as well as geographic location of contracts.

Lane Construction

Lane Construction is ranked number one major contractor for the 42 contracts they won inArea Six. They won 32 and lost 23 contracts in Polk County. They own two asphalt facilities inPolk County. They had 40% of Polk Countys business. They won seven contracts in

Hillsborough with one facility and won three contracts in Pasco. They did not win any contract inPinellas.

Area SixLane Construction

Year 2005 - 2009

Map 1

14


15/27

Apac-Southeast

Apac-Southeast is ranked the second major contractor for the number of contracts theywon, a total of 37, in Area Six. They have a total of four facilities, and each county in Area Sixhas one facility. They did not do well in Pasco County, only winning one contract and losing

twelve despite owning a facility there. Land Construction won 26%; D.A.B. won 25% and SemaConstruction won 21% of contract dollars in Pasco County.

Area SixApac-Southeast

Year 2005 - 2009

Map 2

15


16/27

Ajax Paving

Ajax paving is ranked 3rd contractor in Area Six. They won most contracts in Hillsboroughand Pinellas Counties. They have one asphalt facility in Hillsborough County and one in PascoCounty. They submitted the most bids, won the most contracts and lost the most contracts in

Hillsborough County. Even though they have facilities in Pasco County, they did not do wellthere; they only won one contract and lost fourteen.

Area SixAjax Paving

Year 2005 - 2009

Map 3

16


17/27

PRICE ANALYSIS

From previous sections we learn that Archer Western was a single bidder that won a verylarge construction contract T7070 ($89 million) in Pinellas County. In this section we analyzecontract T7070 asphalt concrete prices compared to other contracts let in the same year and near-

by areas. We want to know whether Archer Western raised prices due to no other competitor.

Price model reports show the top 30 items being spent in this study period. Table 5 liststhe top seven asphaltic concrete materials and total dollars spent.

Rank Item Number Item Description Total $ Spent2 0334 1 13 Superpave Asphaltic Conc, Traffic C $54,448,450

14 0334 1 23 Superpave Asphaltic Conc, Traffic C,PG76-22

$18,605,458

15 0334 1 14 Superpave Asphaltic Conc, Traffic D $17,464,83717 0337 7 22 Asphaltic Conc FC, Inc Bit, FC-5, PG76-

22$15,687,040

19 0334 1 24 Superpave Asphaltic Conc, Traffic D,PG76-22

$14,024,575

21 0337 7 6 Asphaltic Conc FC, Inc Bit, FC-5, PG76 $12,888,67328 0337 7 5 Asphaltic Conc FC, Inc Bit, FC-5, PG76 $11,310,366

Table 5

Table 6 lists all asphalt concrete items in contract T7070 (those items were omitted if thequantities were less than 500 tons). It cost contract T7070 approximately $5 million dollars onasphalt concrete materials.

ContractT7070 ItemNumber

UnitPrice

Quantity Sub-Total

0327 70 6 $ 7.5 8,309 $62,317.50

0327 70 11 $ 8.4 23,800$199,920.0

00327 70 19 $ 8.5 1,114 $9,469.00

0334 1 12 $135.0 10,519$1,420,092

.00

0334 1 14 $135.0 5,971$806,193.0

0

0334 1 24 $135.0 8,953 $1,208,668.50

0337 7 5 $150.0 1,080$162,060.0

0

0337 7 6 $155.0 4,982$772,318.5

0

0337 7 22 $150.0 2,722$408,315.0

0Total $5,049,353

17


18/27

.50

Table 6

The unit price fluctuated with quantity. Typically when quantities are less than 1,000 tons,

the unit price can grow geometrically three times; when quantities are greater than 10,000 tons, theunit price may drop to half. We use a scatter graph to plot out all contracts let by year 2006 inHillsborough and Pinellas Counties in asphalt concrete item 0327, 0334 and 0337 in order to get acloser comparison on contract T7070 with other contracts let in the same year and near-bylocations, see Graph 5, 6, 7.

Milling Exist Asphalt PavingLet by year 2006 in Hillsborough and Pinellas

Graph 5

Super Pave Asphalt ConcreteLet by year 2006 in Hillsborough and Pinellas

Graph 6

Asphalt Concrete Friction INC BIT/RBR Let by year 2006 in Hillsborough and Pinellas

18


19/27

Graph 7

T7070 unit price $7.50 (quantity 8,309 tons) on item 0327 70 6 was very high compared toE7D72 (let 09/12/2006) unit price $3.51 (quantity 4,743) and all other five contracts except T7130in Table 7.

Contract ID

Let Date County Item No ItemUnitPrice

ItemQuantity

T7130 01/25/2006

Pinellas 0327 706

$10.00 3,006

T7070 06/28/2006

Pinellas 0327 706

$ 7.50 8,309

E7D72 09/13/2006

Hillsborough

0327 706

$ 3.51 4,743

T7154 12/13/2006

Pinellas 0327 706

$ 1.75 23,642

E7D81 10/11/2006 Hillsborough 0327 706 $ 5.65 38,520

T7135 04/26/2006

Hillsborough

0327 706

$ 5.72 30,615

T7146 07/26/2006

Hillsborough

0327 706

$ 4.95 58,058

Table 7

T7070 unit price $8.4 (quantity 23,800 tons) on item 0327 70 11 was high compared toT7135 (let 04/26/2006) unit price $8.32 (quantity 1,951 tons) and other contracts in Table 8.

Contract ID


ItemQuantity

T7070 06/28/2006

Pinellas 0327 7011

$8.40 23,800

T7135 04/26/2006

Hillsborough

0327 7011

$8.32 1,951

19


20/27

E7D81 10/11/2006

Hillsborough

0327 7011

$6.90 86,609

Table 8

T7070 item 0327 70 19 does not have other contracts to compare in Hillsborough andPinellas Counties of year 2006.

T7070 unit price $135.0 (quantity 10,519 tons) on item 0334 1 12 was very high comparedto E8G87 (let 05/23/2006) unit price $105.0 (quantity 10,794 tons) and other contract in Table 9.

Contract ID


ItemQuantity

T7070 06/28/2006

Pinellas 0334 112

$135.00 10,519

E8G87 05/23/2006

Hillsborough

0334 112

$105.00 10,794

T7102 08/30/2006

Hillsborough

0334 112

$131.31 3,148

Table 9

T7070 unit price $135.0 (quantity 5,971 tons) on item 0334 1 14 was high compared toT7102 (let 08/30/2006) unit price $131.31 (quantity 3,670 tons) and other contracts in Table 10.

Contract ID

Let Date County Item No ItemUnit

Price

ItemQuantity

T7070 06/28/2006

Pinellas 0334 114

$135.00 10,519

T7102 08/30/2006

Hillsborough

0334 114

$131.31 3,670

T7103 01/25/2006

Hillsborough

0334 114

$117.80 1,088

Table 10

T7070 unit price $135.0 (quantity 8,953 tons) on item 0334 1 24 was high compared to

T7103 (let 01/23/2006) unit price $123.5 (quantity 578 tons) in Table 11. T7102 unit price$139.39 was higher than T7070, normal as prices drop slightly when quantity is greater than tenthousand tons.

Contract ID


ItemQuantity

T7070 06/28/20 Pinellas 0334 1 $135.00 10,519

20


21/27

06 24T7102 08/30/20

06Hillsborough

0334 124

$139.39 4,130

T7103 01/25/2006

Hillsborough

0334 124

$123.50 578

Table 11

T7070 unit price $150.0 (quantity 1,080 tons) on item 0337 7 5 was high compared toT7135 (let 04/26/2006) unit price $113.0 (quantity 6,935 tons) in Table 12.

Contract ID


ItemQuantity

T7070 06/28/2006

Pinellas 0337 75

$150.00 1,080

T7135 04/26/20

06

Hillsborou

gh

0337 7

5

$113.00 6,935

Table 12

T7070 unit price $155.0 (quantity 4,982 tons) on item 0337 7 6 wasnot high compared toE7D81 (let 10/11/2006) unit price $170.0 (quantity 3,081 tons) and other contracts in Table 13.

Contract ID


ItemQuantity

E7D81 10/11/2006

Hillsborough

0337 76

$170.00 3,081

T7070 06/28/2006

Pinellas 0337 76

$155.00 4,982

T7154 12/13/2006

Pinellas 0334 76

$165.50 1,891

Table 13

T7070 item 0337 7 22 does not have close to the quantity of contracts let by year 2006 inHillsborough and Pinellas Counties to compare.

Findings

From the above nine asphalt concrete items of comparison between T7070 unit price andall contracts involving those items in Hillsborough and Pinellas Counties, we conclude for T7070:

6 of them (item unit prices) were high or very high;1 of them (item unit prices) was not high;

21


22/27

2 of them (item unit prices) did not have other data to compare.

We extend the scope of data from Hillsborough and Pinellas Counties to entire Area Six forcomparison. Table 14 is a summary of statistics data we gathered from Price model reports andcombined with T7070 unit price for comparison. Last column (Where does T7070 price stand?) ofTable 14 shows the result of comparison.

Item #use

Aver-agePrice

Stand-ard

S. D.compare to

75th

%ilePrice

MaxPrice

T7070Price

MaxPriceQty

WheredoesT7070

22


23/27

Devia-tion

otheryears

County

pricestand?

0327 706

105.3

43.0

8high 7.50 10.00 7.50 75%ile

0327 7011

4 6.28

3.26

aboveaverage

8.36 8.40 8.40 Highest

0327 7019

27.5

71.3

2

belowaverage

8.50 8.50 8.50Highest

0334 112

8132.0

144.5

8

aboveaverage

157.50 215.00135.0

0

Not in10,15**

area 6 report

Documents