This paper revisits a particular case involvingtwo dairy processing companies accused ofrigging bids in northern Kentucky schooldistricts during the 1980s. Evidence andarguments presented to support a conclusion ofovert collusion are reassessed. Analyses ofincumbency rates, market shares, bid levels, biddispersions, bid distance relationships, exactbidding differentials, and bids from hellindicate that the two dairies may have beenengaged in tacit collusion instead of overt collusion.