Analysis of Material Source 

Mergers and Acquisitions 

on Project Delivery Quality 

and Costs 

FHWA Publication No.: FHWA-HRT-22-081

FHWA Contact: Matthew Corrigan (ORCID: 0000-0002-1230-8462), 

HRDI-20, 202-493-3365, Matthew.Corrigan@dot.gov

This document is a technical summary of the FHWA report Analysis of 

Material Source Mergers and Acquisitions on Project Delivery Quality 

and Costs (FHWA-HRT-22-082).

INTRODUCTION

Merger and acquisition (M&A) activity, particularly in the transportation 

materials and construction industry, is analyzed relatively infrequently. 

However, this activity can significantly affect project completion, market 

control, and pricing. In many cases, collaboration between firms with 

similar goals and corporate growth strategies in a healthy market motivate 

consolidations. Attempts to increase market share and efforts targeting wider 

market access may also be factors in M&A activity. Companies may engage in 

consolidation activity with other entities possessing complementary strengths 

and assets. They may also want to consolidate with other companies to 

increase the diversity of the product they can offer to the market.

TECHBRIEF

Research, Development, 

and Technology

Turner-Fairbank Highway 

Research Center

6300 Georgetown Pike

McLean, VA 22101-2296

https://highways.dot.gov/research

Figure 1. Diagram. M&A products.

Source: FHWA.

M&A activity can potentially eliminate cost brackets, harm competition, create 

inequitable market control, or result in price increases (figure 1). Any of these 

occurrences within the transportation materials and construction industry can 

alter bidding processes, consumer behaviors, and market attributes. The goal of 

this study was to investigate M&A activity and help transportation professionals 

become aware of how to identify consolidation activities and the influences 

these activities can have. 
2

In 2006, an American Association of State Highway 

and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) survey found 

11 of 38 participating States identified M&A activity as a 

prime driver behind bid price increases and competition 

decreases (FHWA 2006). A similar AASHTO survey in 

2015 queried 32 States, and 17 expressed concerns about 

negative impacts of merger activities on bid prices.1

 Due 

diligence regarding fair bidding processes is required, 

and examining the effects of M&A activity on project 

costs has become necessary.

DATA ANALYSIS AND CHALLENGES

Data Processing and Analysis

To assess the effects of M&A activity, the team examined 

data across the United States to identify significant 

consolidation and pricing effects. Thirty-one States 

1 Committee on AASHTO Survey on Merger and Acquisition Activity; reported out during Subcommittee on Construction conference call in August 

2015 and personal correspondence between authors and Marc Mastronardi in December 2017.

were identified as the initial analysis target for this 

study (table 1). Figure 2 shows the breakdown of the 

AASHTO regions.

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) 

supplied access to an Oman Systems, Inc., dataset 

containing quarterly bid price data from States, counties, 

and districts. The bid data included pay items and 

descriptions, quantities, units and prices, job numbers, 

bid dates, and project categories. State data analysis 

required sorting bid data for every year from 2006 

through the third quarter of 2016. (Fourth-quarter data 

were unavailable during the analysis stage of this study.) 

Winning projects were sorted to include only those 

with materials commonly appearing in road-building 

projects, including concrete, asphalt, aggregate, and 

granular backfill materials. These relevant winning bid 

Figure 2. Map. AASHTO regions in the United States (Historical MapChart 2022).

Original map © 2021 MapChart. Modified by FHWA to show AASHTO regions.

Table 1. Analysis States.

AASHTO REGION STATES SELECTED 

1 Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania, and Vermont

2 Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia

3 Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Ohio, and Wisconsin

4 Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Oregon, and Utah
3

projects were then sorted by date and matched with 

corresponding contractor names and total project costs 

using Bid Express®, a software-based service provided 

by Infotech®, and historical bid data from individual 

States (collected both through personal contacts and from 

State public websites) when available (Infotech 2022). 

Individual States also provided known information on 

M&A activity. The research team also collected published 

information on acquisitions available through press 

releases and industry publications.

After construction projects were matched with 

contractor and pricing information, the researchers 

completed a secondary State-by-State investigation. 

This investigation involved analyzing the frequency of 

bidding by individual firms, item price changes within 

and across analysis years, and regional pricing analysis. 

By analyzing each individual State for unusually low or 

high prices, the team could identify and further analyze 

regions, projects, or years with disproportional costs. 

The researchers compared price dips and spikes against 

economic and market events (such as material shortages) 

and any merger, acquisition, or consolidation activity 

known in the area.

The team also analyzed State unit price data. Many State 

department of transportation (DOT) offices keep records 

of historical unit price data for all bid items included in 

lettings, sorted by date range. These data were requested 

for States when available and compared against actual 

unit prices of materials in bids for the corresponding 

years. The team identified abnormalities, including 

significant spikes above or below the unit price for that 

year. By using this analysis in conjunction with the 

dataset, these abnormalities could be attributed to specific 

projects, regions, and firms within the State. At that 

point, firm or material supply-related activities could be 

investigated. The following is a step-by-step description 

of the data analysis:

1. The raw data sheet for 1 yr (e.g., 2006) was opened, 

and filters were added for each column (State, pay 

item, description, quantity, unit, price, job number, 

bid date, county, and project type).

2. The State column was filtered to select one State 

(e.g., Virginia).

3. The description column was sorted to select concrete, 

asphalt, and aggregate items. This study limited 

analysis to only concrete, asphalt, and aggregate 

construction materials. A different study could 

be developed to look at other project component 

costs, such as engineering, geotechnical, signs, 

and testing equipment.

4. This selection was then copied and pasted into its own 

spreadsheet file.

5. Step 1 through step 3 were repeated with each year’s 

raw data sheet, and each selection was pasted into the 

State-specific spreadsheet in chronological order.

6. The researchers attempted to identify, within each 

State-specific sheet, the most frequently occurring 

specific item for three material categories (concrete, 

asphalt, and aggregate). The more data points 

available for analysis, the more significant any results 

would be. However, in some States, no one item was 

used often enough to yield a meaningful analysis. 

This challenge is described in more detail in the Key 

Challenges subsection.

7. The data were separated for each specific item 

selected within one State by year. The following 

values were calculated for the one item for each 

year: average price for the year, maximum price 

for the year, minimum price for the year, and 

standard deviation.

8. A graph of each specific item’s average price versus 

year was created for each State, resulting in two to 

three graphs per State (because some States only 

yielded two items for detailed analysis).

9. A table was then created for each specific item to 

display average price, maximum price, minimum 

price, and standard deviation for each year. This 

process resulted in two to three graphs and a 

corresponding table associated with each graph for 

every State.

10. Any unusual prices—such as very high average or 

maximum prices or very low average or minimum 

prices—or large standard deviations were flagged for 

further analysis.

11. Further analysis of unusual prices involved finding 

the item in the State’s data sheet. From here, the 

researchers determined how often the unusual price(s) 

occurred. The job number, bid date, and county for 

these prices were identified. Then the job number 

and bid dates were used to find more details on this 

project through a combination of the State’s DOT 

website and Bid Express. The project location was 

also investigated to see whether transportation costs 

or proximity to large urban areas perhaps played a 

role in the price.

12. Anecdotal information gathered from the State was 

also analyzed to assess if other factors contributed 

to the price, such as possible M&A activity, material 

shortages, economic conditions, and so on. This 

anecdotal information was cataloged and documented.
4

Key Challenges

Challenges and observations associated with this work 

are discussed in the following subsections.

Appropriate Bid Item Selection

It was evident from the beginning that selecting the relevant 

bid items from the large datasets for each project to match 

the materials being analyzed in this study would be 

challenging. Subsequently, evaluating these items against 

impacts from known mergers or acquisitions also proved 

cumbersome. Subject matter experts with estimating, 

construction, and bid-letting experience assisted in this 

data and bid item selection process. Next, the team matched 

these data items with contractor and price information 

found through State DOT websites and collected these 

data. Data were also collected online from Bid Express 

and required manual interventions, including matching 

data from individual projects shown in Bid Express. The 

lack of organization of the Bid Express data, as well as 

the variety of data formats provided by State DOTs (e.g., 

Excel® spreadsheets, PDF documents, text files), made 

the initial data matching difficult and time-consuming.

Trend Analysis and Comparison Difficulties Due 

to Inconsistent Individual Contractor Usage 

of Given Bid Items Across a Set Period 

Many State DOTs keep a record of historical unit price 

data for all bid items included in lettings, sorted by date 

range. These data were requested for States of interest 

and were relatively easy to obtain and process. Items of 

interest included granular backfill, aggregate, concrete 

pavement, and asphalt pavement materials. These items 

were selected from the historical unit price datasets for 

comparison against the actual unit prices of those items 

in bids for corresponding years, as obtained from the 

Oman Systems, Inc., dataset.

Identifying which combination of contractor and 

item number would yield data for a majority of the 

analysis period (2006–2016) was one of the team’s 

major challenges. There was no computer program that 

allowed for initial sorting to identify contractors that 

used a particular item of interest—as reported in both 

the FHWA and State DOT unit price data across most of 

the 10-yr analysis period—versus contractors that did 

not use the item. Consequently, time spent searching 

data by contractor would yield contractors that did 

not use the items of interest at all or only used them 

for 1 or 2 yr during the analysis period. Thus, analysis 

for that contractor across the whole 10-yr period was 

not possible. This process was further complicated by 

repeated use of “penny bids” or lower than expected 

pricing in certain bid items. The researchers were unable 

to review several known quantities individually due to 

these large pricing fluctuations across contractors.

Because of the aforementioned challenges, identifying 

contractors that consistently bid a particular item in the 

State’s unit price data for at least 6 of the 10-yr period 

without massive fluctuations was time-consuming. 

The team accomplish this process mostly by sampling 

and checking work. Some insights were considered, 

including identifying very common or popular items, 

such as asphalt PG 58-28 paving grade asphalt binder 

in Wisconsin. This search yielded three contractors 

that used this item in projects over multiple years in 

the analysis period. In retrospect, this analysis could 

potentially be streamlined using a different methodology, 

such as using an experienced computer program coder 

to write scripts that could replicate these data sorting 

and matching processes in much less time, yielding 

more time for analysis of data trends and individual 

State case studies. States could, however, build a 

database and track these items proactively to assess 

the impact of the changes on the contractor pool.

Despite this rigorous and thorough analysis, the 

researchers did not identify any clearly defined, 

quantitative evidence of M&A impacts on pricing. 

Without these numerical examples, the researchers could 

not identify a quantitative approach to determining the 

impacts of this M&A activity on pricing.

LEGAL ANALYSIS

The team completed a desk scan to review prior merger 

cases in markets related to the transportation industry. 

The goal was to identify issues, antitrust incidents, and 

related activities. A review was conducted of how the 

Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Federal Trade 

Commission (FTC) Horizontal Merger Guidelines

were applied to these mergers in the highway materials 

and construction fields (DOJ and FTC 2010). Current 

antitrust and economics literature was also analyzed, 

including a retrospective analysis of merger activity.

The purpose of the legal analysis was to provide 

resources and documentation for prioritizing possible 

State and Federal enforcement and monitoring efforts 

in markets related to highway materials and construction 

providers. However, case law ultimately determines 

actions taken, and most transportation construction 

materials markets do not have viable spare competitors. 

Another issue contributing to the impacts of M&A 

activity is the narrowing of product definitions (such as 

“aggregate” versus “qualified aggregate”). From case law, 

some trends were identified. Road-building materials are 

almost universally regarded as homogenous products, 

and, accordingly, courts routinely focused on evidence 

of postmerger control of output capacity when assessing 

anticompetitive effects.
5

Similarly, narrow geographies contribute as well: costs 

may be affected by high transportation costs, barriers 

to entry, and high sunk costs. No cases were identified 

where the potential entry or creation of a new entity 

was sufficiently realistic to offset anticompetitive 

effects. Rather, market entry was only feasible when an 

established competitor could purchase divested assets.

Market share strength can be determined using the 

Herfindahl-Hirschman Index (HHI) by determining 

individual firms’ market shares in the relevant 

product and geographical market (DOJ 2018). These 

market shares are then squared and added together 

to determine the final HHI. The closer a market is to 

a monopoly, the higher the market’s concentration 

(and the lower its competition).This process gives 

proportionately greater weight to larger market shares, 

and, in general, an HHI score of greater than 2,500 

reflects a highly concentrated market likely to trigger 

interest from the FTC and the DOJ. A merger resulting 

in an increase in HHI of 100–200 points is also likely 

to raise competitive concerns sufficient to warrant 

agency scrutiny. Evaluating market share is a valuable 

tool to assess potential pressures on competition.

The legal analysis and literature reviewed for this study 

showed some price increases accompanied merger 

outcomes in most cases, regardless of policy action taken 

(Kwoka 2013). However, the amount of the increase 

varied considerably by the type of policy action taken. 

One study in Michigan found a merger that resulted in 

an 18.0 percent immediate increase in price, but two other 

studies found no statistical increase (Duplantis 2010). 

That Michigan effort also demonstrated no price 

increases 3 yr later. The study noted a 6.0 percent lower 

price for each doubling in the number of bidders and 

5.6 percent lower prices for each doubling in the quantity 

of asphalt, potentially demonstrating strong support 

for project bundling to capture these lower prices.

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR STATES

The research team synthesized findings to provide 

guidance for State DOTs regarding identifying and 

assessing M&A activity. Case studies were conducted 

on nine selected States. Using the data, case law, 

literature, and case study interview results, the researchers 

identified a general set of recommended practices.

State Case Studies

The team completed case studies on selected States 

to gather further insights on State practices for M&A 

monitoring, project estimating, and bid letting. Nine 

States were selected: Arizona, Colorado, Georgia, 

Missouri, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Tennessee, and 

Wisconsin (figure 3). West Virginia was selected initially 

but declined to participate due to ongoing litigation 

regarding M&A activity.

For each State, bid items of interest were selected for 

price trend analysis. Of the items of interest, some 

yielded use data for multiple years and multiple 

Figure 3. Map. Case study States (Historical MapChart 2022).

Original map © 2021 MapChart. Modified by FHWA to show the case study States.
6

projects, whereas others did not. For example, 

some selected items yielded data for five or fewer 

projects using the item across the analysis period. 

Stronger trend information is gathered with larger 

sample sizes; therefore, the researchers selected 

larger sample size items (items yielding more 

results) for detailed analysis in the case studies.

The study objective was to gain further State-specific 

information on the state of the practice and gain 

additional insights from selected States. The scope 

included analysis of the market and economic conditions 

of the local and State transportation region to assess the 

impact of supply on costs and quality. Case studies were 

gathered from in-person interviews of representatives 

from each State that included questions on prime 

contractor makeup; M&A activities within the State in 

aggregate, asphalt, and concrete areas; material supplier 

information; competition issues or concerns; bidding 

processes and analysis; unit prices; and general advice 

or observations.

In general, firm sizes across States range from small, 

family owned firms to large, publicly traded ones. 

While some States noted a decline in the number of 

firms, the number was generally stable. While limited 

proactive monitoring of M&A activity is a regular 

practice in the States, all States reported having some 

information available. Most States are familiar with 

providing information for screening when necessary. 

Some consolidation activity occurred among suppliers 

in the early 2000s, but there has not been much recent 

activity. Some issues have arisen due to land use 

restrictions and zoning, but, overall, competition appears 

to be healthy. More details are provided in the case 

studies in the final report (Silber and Bittner n.d.).

Identifying M&A Activity Remains Critical 

for State Analysis

Two main steps are needed when monitoring for 

negative impacts of M&A activity: first, States must 

identify the activity is taking place; and, second, they 

must assess the impacts (if any) this activity is having 

on pricing, competition, and market share. Guidance 

for identification of M&A activity is discussed in the 

following subsections. Many States reported limited 

proactive monitoring of M&A activity and reported 

further investigation only when prices rose dramatically 

above their internal engineers’ estimates.

Proactive Monitoring

Even if no M&A activity was identified in previous 

years, States should continually monitor via the 

methods mentioned here. Proactive monitoring allows 

for more complete datasets and earlier identification 

of abnormalities in pricing and competition, whether 

they are related to M&As or not. Early identification 

of abnormalities in bidding practices or pricing will 

allow States to investigate root causes, which may 

include material shortages or land use restrictions. 

By monitoring and collecting these data, States can 

create a more complete dataset. More complete, 

standardized, and high-quality data allow for 

possible future applications in predictive modeling 

to detect M&A activity and related impacts.

Among the preferred practices the team identified are 

close coordination with professional trade associations 

and assessment of industry health by monitoring 

company names and certified bidder lists. These two 

steps allow State agencies to identify market entrants 

and locations when possible. In many cases, name 

changes and ownership changes are synonymous. 

This monitoring is particularly important in cases 

with subsidiary or joint ownership activities.

Estimation Processes

The research team discovered wide variation in the 

estimation processes used to generate project estimates 

across the analyzed States. Some States have had 

success with an independent, in house estimation team 

responsible for following the process and generating 

project estimations. Overall, the case study States use 

historical prices to determine if submitted bid prices are 

acceptable. Independent analysis allows for estimations 

to be kept consistent, and the estimation team can then 

assist in examining unbalanced bids.

Tracking Firm Information

Understanding the makeup of the firms bidding on 

projects is vital for States. Many States reported having 

consistent pools of firms bidding on projects across years. 

Tracking firm names over time can aid in identifying 

merger activity. In addition to firm names and size, 

understanding where contractors are located, what their 

specializations are, and what projects they work on can 

help States identify competition issues. Use of project 

software such as AASHTOWare® Project SiteManagerTM 

construction management systems, or similar, can also 

allow States to track project status over the project lifetime 

and evaluate contractor performance (AASHTO n.d.).

Regional Monitoring

Many States are divided into regions or districts for 

management purposes. Each region may have its own 

unique struggles or challenges with competition or 

material sourcing. For States with very diverse regions 

or districts, monitoring can be broken up into regional 

offices, where each region creates a team responsible 

for M&A monitoring and tracking.
7

Unbalanced Bid Analysis

A key indicator of M&A activity impacts includes 

abnormal pricing during bidding. Some States reported 

already using unbalanced bid analysis. The researchers 

recommend all States adopt an unbalanced bid analysis 

process consistent with FHWA’s policy for “Award of 

contract and concurrence in award” in 23 CFR § 635.114 

(Code of Federal Regulations 2021).

Tracking Cost Indexes

Construction cost indexes are a useful tool for tracking 

price trends over time and comparing these trends to 

those seen in localized bid pricing. Most construction 

indexes use cost of inputs, including labor, material, 

and equipment, when developing the data. The cost 

indexes can measure price movement for key objects 

over time or by location. By tracking cost indexes 

for key materials (e.g., Wisconsin tracks 100 items), 

usually common bid items, a State can identify more 

easily if a bid price change is due to M&A activity or 

other sources. At a minimum, this comparison against 

indexes allows for the identification of potential 

issues throughout each year’s budget setting.

Diminishing Negative Impacts 

of M&A Activity

Not all M&A activity has a negative impact on a market. 

After States identify that activity exists, using a clear 

and systematic process for assessing the impacts of this 

activity to determine if the effects are negative is equally 

important. Many States observed that trade associations 

or agencies such as AASHTO were a reliable source of 

information on M&A tracking and impacts. Also, agency 

oversight of State data and activity can allow for merger 

effects to be identified throughout the country.

If a State has identified M&A activity as the source 

of bidding, pricing, or competition issues, several key 

steps can be taken. First, the State should complete an 

analysis of any bids identified as unbalanced. Identifying 

abnormalities in bid pricing not caused by material 

shortages can allow the State to better understand factors 

driving the price up (or down). Part of this price analysis 

should include collaboration and comparison with 

neighboring States.

Second, on completion of the bid analysis, the State 

should work to identify which areas of the State or 

which projects are being affected (e.g., all projects 

involving aggregates, all projects in the southeast 

region). This step will lead to identifying where the 

competition issues are being experienced. If an area is 

identified as having minimal bidders or suppliers, four 

main options should be considered to mitigate these 

impacts: control material supplies at the State or agency 

level, bid smaller lettings more often, utilize project 

bundling, and utilize alternative contracting methods. 

As discussed, some research has shown a positive benefit 

to pricing by leveraging larger numbers of bidders.

If a pricing concern leads to identification of an area 

with minimal bidders and suppliers due to recent 

M&A activity, the State could consider providing 

publicly owned or State-controlled sources for those 

project materials. Areas with minimal bidders can also 

be aided by bidding projects more often (weekly or 

biweekly) instead of monthly, for example, thereby 

allowing more companies to bid a higher number of 

proposals in smaller lettings. Project bundling is another 

method States can use to increase competition in an 

area with minimal competition or bidding. Project 

bundling could incentivize contractors to move into 

an area in which they may not currently work.

States have also had success by using price adjustment 

clauses for certain materials and rejecting noncompetitive 

bids and readvertising (AASHTO/FHWA 2012). Several 

other approaches have been attempted with varying 

levels of success in attracting additional bidders. Among 

the most prevalent in the survey were balancing work 

types, allowing use of alternative materials, and rejecting 

noncompetitive bids.

CONCLUSION AND FUTURE RESEARCH

While the quantitative analysis revealed instances of 

mathematically unbalanced bid prices, price anomalies, 

and items of interest, the research could not identify a 

quantitative approach to determining negative impacts 

of M&A activity on pricing through the data analysis 

completed. There was no apparent link between 

M&A activity in the areas and reported bid prices on 

winning projects. The research team identified some 

potential opportunities to better monitor and complete 

project conduct and bidding, including potential use of 

indexes to determine market share and market power, 

or additional scrutiny on unbalanced or complementary 

bidding. Close communication with the industry, 

regular review of prices, and assessment of regional 

information were all identified as preferred practices 

by the research team and subject matter experts.

Potential future related research could include 

application and guidance for applying HHI analysis 

at the State and regional levels, adopting standards 

for price estimation, and understanding the impact 

of alternative contract methods and project bundling 

on overall project costs and completion.
8

JANUARY 2023 FHWA-HRT-22-081

HRDI-20/01-23(WEB)E

Researchers—This study was conducted by Jason Bittner (ORCID: 0000-0002-7920-8773) and Hannah 

Silber (ORCID: 0000-0003-0211-7934) of Applied Research Associates, Inc., under FHWA contract number 

DTFH6117C0002L.

Distribution—This TechBrief is being distributed according to a standard distribution. Direct distribution is being 

made to the FHWA divisions and Resource Center.

Availability—This TechBrief may be obtained at https://highways.dot.gov/research.

Key Words—Mergers and acquisitions, pricing, construction cost, road-building materials, market share, competition.

Notice—This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) in 

the interest of information exchange. The U.S. Government assumes no liability for the use of the information contained 

in this document. The U.S. Government does not endorse products or manufacturers. Trademarks or manufacturers’ 

names appear in this TechBrief only because they are considered essential to the objective of the document.

Quality Assurance Statement—The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) provides high quality information to 

serve Government, industry, and the public in a manner that promotes public understanding. Standards and policies 

are used to ensure and maximize the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of its information. FHWA periodically 

reviews quality issues and adjusts its programs and processes to ensure continuous quality improvement.

Recommended citation: Federal Highway Administration, Analysis of Material 

Source Mergers and Acquisitions on Project Delivery Quality and Costs

(Washington, DC: 2023) https://doi.org/10.21949/1521911

REFERENCES

AASHTO. n.d. AASHTOWare Project 4.6 (software). https://

www.aashtowareproject.org/, last accessed May 1, 2022.

AASHTO/FHWA. 2012. AASHTO/FHWA Survey 

on Construction Cost Increases and Competition. 

Washington, DC: American Association of State Highway 

and Transportation Officials. http://sp.construction.

transportation.org/Documents/Surveys/Construction%20

survey_Rv1_050112.pdf, last accessed May 5, 2022.

Code of Federal Regulations. 2021. “Award of contract 

and concurrence in award.” 23 CFR § 635.114.

DOJ. 2018. “Herfindahl-Hirschman Index” (webpage). 

https://www.justice.gov/atr/herfindahl-hirschman-index, 

last accessed May 1, 2022.

DOJ and FTC. 2010. Horizontal Merger Guidelines. 

Washington, DC: Department of Justice. https://

www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/attachments/mergerreview/100819hmg.pdf, last accessed May 1, 2022.

Duplantis, R. M. 2010. “Estimating and Predicting 

Merger Effects and Pass-Through Rates.” Doctoral 

dissertation. Northeastern University. https://www.

proquest.com/openview/5b89676bbb76f339f83a0bb5c71

2aca3/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=18750, last accessed 

December 7, 2021.

FHWA. 2006. “Summary of Responses AASHTO/

FHWA Survey on Construction Cost Increases and 

Competition, April 2006 (Revised May 18, 2006 for AL 

and TX responses)” (web page). https://www.fhwa.dot.

gov/programadmin/contracts/priccomp.cfm, last accessed 

May 1, 2022.

Historical MapChart. 2022. “MapChart” (web page). 

https://historicalmapchart.net/, last accessed May 1, 2022.

Infotech. 2022. Bid Express (software). https://www.

bidexpress.com/login?return_to=%2F, last accessed 

May 1, 2022.

Kwoka, J. 2013. “Does Merger Control Work: A 

Retrospective on U.S. Enforcement Actions and Merger 

Outcomes.” Antitrust Law Journal 78, no. 3: 619–650.

Silber H., and J. Bittner. n.d. Analysis of Material 

Source Mergers and Acquisitions on Project Delivery 

Quality and Costs. Report No. FHWA-HRT-22-082. 

Washington, DC: Federal Highway Administration 

(Forthcoming).