OKLAHOMA CITY, OK – August 22, 2026 (STL.News) Price-Fixing Scheme – A federal jury has convicted an erosion-control company, one of its executives, and an employee for participating in a five-year price-fixing conspiracy involving more than $100 million in publicly funded transportation construction contracts across Oklahoma, according to the U.S. Department of Justice.
Sioux Erosion Control Inc., company part-owner and Vice President BG Dale Biscoe, and employee Randall David Shelton were convicted of participating in the conspiracy following a federal trial in Oklahoma City, the Justice Department announced Aug. 20.
Prosecutors said the defendants conspired with competitors in Oklahoma’s erosion-control industry between September 2017 and April 2023 to raise and maintain prices for products and services used on highway construction and repair projects.
The case involved erosion-control work, including sod, commonly used on highway projects to help control soil and rock runoff.
Evidence presented at trial showed the conspiracy went beyond pricing agreements, according to federal prosecutors. Participants also divided contracts geographically and rigged bids by intentionally submitting inflated bids or declining to bid on certain projects.
The verdict brings the total number of defendants convicted in the investigation to seven — six individuals and one company.
Price-Fixing Scheme – $100 million in public infrastructure contracts targeted
The scale of the contracts involved makes the case particularly significant for taxpayers.
The Justice Department said the conspiracy targeted more than $100 million in publicly funded transportation construction contracts across Oklahoma.
Public construction agencies typically depend on competitive bidding to obtain the best available combination of price, quality and performance. Contractors competing independently are expected to determine their prices without coordinating with rivals.
Price fixing and bid rigging undermine that process.
When competitors secretly agree on prices, divide markets or determine in advance which company will submit the winning bid, the government can end up paying more than it would have under genuine competition.
According to evidence presented at trial, Sioux, Biscoe and Shelton worked with competitors to raise and maintain prices for erosion-control products and services.
Prosecutors also said conspirators allocated contracts across different areas of Oklahoma.
In other instances, participants allegedly helped manipulate bidding by submitting deliberately high-priced bids or refusing to compete for a contract.
Those practices can give the appearance of competition even when competitors have already agreed among themselves how bidding will proceed.
Oklahoma Price-Fixing Scheme – Jury convicts company, executive and employee
The convictions represent the latest development in a broader federal antitrust investigation.
Sioux Erosion Control, Biscoe and Shelton were each convicted of participating in the price-fixing conspiracy.
Four other defendants — Stanley Mark Smith, Roy Henry Henrich, Ryan Ashley Sullivan and James Travis Feazel — previously pleaded guilty for their roles in the same charged conspiracy and are awaiting sentencing.
Altogether, federal authorities charged six individuals and one company during the investigation. All seven defendants have now either pleaded guilty or been convicted at trial.
The result is notable because criminal antitrust cases can involve complex evidence about communications among competitors, bidding decisions, contract allocations and pricing over extended periods.
In this case, prosecutors presented evidence concerning conduct spanning approximately five and a half years.
The conspiracy began in September 2017 and continued until April 2023, according to the Justice Department.
Prosecutors say taxpayers paid the price
Federal officials characterized the conduct as an attack on the integrity of public procurement.
Associate Attorney General Stanley E. Woodward Jr. said Americans should be able to expect taxpayer-funded contracts to be awarded through genuine competition, not undisclosed arrangements among competing companies.
Acting Deputy Assistant Attorney General Daniel W. Glad of the Justice Department’s Antitrust Division said the defendants had rigged bids and raised prices on highway projects across Oklahoma.
The government’s position is straightforward: when competitors coordinate rather than compete, taxpayers may ultimately bear the additional cost.
That concern can matter more in transportation construction because road and highway projects often involve substantial federal and state funding.
Federal antitrust enforcement is therefore not limited to consumer products purchased directly by households. It also applies to government agencies’ procurement of goods and services.
How bid rigging can affect government contracts
Bid rigging generally occurs when supposedly competing businesses coordinate their bids instead of independently competing for a contract.
Such arrangements can operate in several ways.
One participant may agree not to submit a bid so another company faces less competition. A company may submit a deliberately high bid knowing that a designated competitor is supposed to win. Competitors can also divide geographic territories or customers, effectively agreeing not to challenge each other in certain markets.
The Justice Department said evidence in the Oklahoma case included both intentionally high bids and decisions not to bid.
Prosecutors also established that participants agreed to allocate contracts across different parts of Oklahoma.
Combined with agreements to raise and maintain prices, those arrangements restricted the competitive process that public agencies rely upon when awarding transportation contracts.
The case consequently involved several forms of alleged collusion operating within the same industry.
Highway erosion control was at the center of the conspiracy
Although erosion-control work may represent only one component of a major highway construction project, it performs an important function.
Erosion-control products and services help prevent soil or rock from washing away from construction areas. Sod and related materials can stabilize disturbed land around highways, bridges, and other transportation infrastructure.
Government agencies routinely purchase those services as part of highway construction and repair projects.
The federal case demonstrates how even specialized portions of large public construction contracts can become targets for anticompetitive conduct.
Rather than focusing on the entire highway contract, competitors can potentially coordinate prices for individual products, subcontracting services or specialized construction work.
Federal authorities contend that is what occurred in Oklahoma.
Individual defendants face possible prison sentences
Biscoe and Shelton face significant potential penalties following their convictions.
Under federal antitrust law, the maximum penalty for an individual convicted of the offense is 10 years in prison and a criminal fine of up to $1 million.
Sioux Erosion Control faces a maximum corporate criminal fine of $100 million.
Those figures are not necessarily the final limits on potential financial penalties.
The Justice Department said a criminal fine may be increased to twice the gain derived from the crime or twice the loss suffered by victims if either amount exceeds the standard statutory maximum.
A federal court will ultimately determine sentences and fines under applicable law and sentencing requirements.
The Justice Department announcement did not provide sentencing dates for Biscoe, Shelton or Sioux.
The four defendants who previously pleaded guilty also remain awaiting sentencing.
FBI and Transportation Department investigated
The U.S. Department of Transportation Office of Inspector General and the FBI’s Oklahoma City Field Office conducted the investigation.
Trial Attorneys Marc Hedrich and Matthew Grisier of the Antitrust Division’s Washington Criminal Section and Senior Litigation Counsel Gary Bell prosecuted the case.
The prosecution also falls within the broader mission of the Justice Department’s Procurement Collusion Strike Force.
The strike force was established to combat antitrust crimes and related fraudulent schemes involving government procurement and taxpayer-funded programs at the federal, state and local levels.
Its work targets conduct including bid rigging, price fixing and market allocation.
The Oklahoma case illustrates the type of conduct the initiative was designed to identify and prosecute — competitors allegedly coordinating how they would pursue publicly financed contracts instead of competing independently.
DOJ encourages whistleblowers to report collusion
Federal authorities are also encouraging people with knowledge of similar arrangements to report them.
The Justice Department operates an Antitrust Whistleblower Rewards Program covering certain antitrust and related offenses.
Under the program, individuals who voluntarily provide original information that results in criminal fines or other recoveries of at least $1 million may qualify for a financial award.
Awards can range from 15% to 30% of the money collected, according to the Justice Department.
That creates a potentially substantial incentive for employees, contractors or others with inside knowledge of price fixing, bid rigging or market allocation to report suspected violations.
Why the Oklahoma verdict matters
The case’s significance extends beyond the individual defendants.
State and federal governments spend billions of taxpayer dollars every year on roads, bridges and other public infrastructure. Competitive procurement is intended to help ensure those dollars are spent efficiently.
When contractors secretly coordinate their bids or prices, taxpayers may lose the savings that legitimate competition is supposed to generate.
The Oklahoma conspiracy affected contracts valued at more than $100 million, although that figure represents the publicly funded transportation contracts targeted by the conspiracy and should not be interpreted as a finding that taxpayers suffered $100 million in losses.
That distinction is important.
The Justice Department has not said the entire value of those contracts constituted an overcharge or taxpayer loss. Rather, prosecutors established that the price-fixing conspiracy targeted contracts collectively worth more than $100 million.
Determining the financial consequences of collusion can involve comparing actual contract prices with what government agencies might have paid under competitive conditions.
Seven defendants now convicted
The latest jury verdict effectively completes the conviction phase for all seven defendants publicly identified in the investigation.
Smith, Henrich, Sullivan and Feazel admitted their participation through guilty pleas.
Biscoe, Shelton and Sioux contested the government’s case at trial but a federal jury found them guilty.
The result gives federal prosecutors seven convictions — six individuals and one corporation — arising from the Oklahoma erosion-control investigation.
Attention will now shift toward sentencing and the financial penalties imposed by the federal court.
The outcome could also have broader implications for contractors participating in government procurement programs.
Federal investigators continue to emphasize that agreements among competitors concerning prices, customers, territories or bids can result in criminal prosecution rather than simply civil penalties.
For taxpayers, the case underscores why competitive bidding rules exist.
Public agencies depend on contractors competing against one another to help control infrastructure project costs. When competitors secretly cooperate instead, the competitive safeguard built into the bidding process can disappear.
In Oklahoma, a federal jury has now concluded beyond a reasonable doubt that Sioux Erosion Control, Biscoe and Shelton participated in precisely that type of conspiracy.
The remaining question is what penalties the court will impose.
Primary source: U.S. Department of Justice case announcement. The DOJ release was issued Aug. 20 and updated Aug. 21, 2026.
A federal jury convicted Sioux Erosion Control Inc., BG Dale Biscoe, and Randall David Shelton. Stanley Mark Smith, Roy Henry Henrich, Ryan Ashley Sullivan and James Travis Feazel previously pleaded guilty. The federal court will determine the sentences.
