Editorial: Overpaying for Pittsburgh's vehicle maintenance makes no financial sense

Imagine you are trying to save money on your grocery budget while making sure you get the food you need at the same time. You sign up for a subscription service that promises groceries for a flat fee every month.

It’s a common scenario. It’s the business model behind dozens of meal delivery plans and shopping apps.

But in this case, your flat fee is pretty high — maybe $1,000 a month. The groceries you get don’t total nearly that much. And somehow you never seem to have milk for breakfast or bread to make sandwiches.

Would that be a good deal? Should you keep paying for that subscription?

That’s the position Pittsburgh Controller Rachael Heisler finds herself in — with one difference. Someone else signed up.

Heisler has been refusing to pay Transdev, an Illinois-based company. The city has a contract with Transdev to maintain the vehicle fleet — everything from ambulances to garbage trucks. For $707,000, the company is tasked with the routine work that keeps the vehicles on the road and doing their jobs.

The problem? That might not be what the work costs. Say oil changes and such cost only $600,000. The contract says Transdev needs to return the overage, but not all of it. The company has to give back 80% and gets to pocket the rest for its trouble. That’s meant the company has gotten to keep $10,000 to $18,000 a month so far this year.

That might be acceptable. After all, it is consistent with the terms of the contract. And while the Gainey administration is defending it, the system predates the mayor’s tenure. Transdev, formerly First Vehicle, has contracted with the city for decades. Should Heisler just let it go?

Well, it’s not like the fleet is doing great. It’s aging and plagued by problems. Everyone agrees that what the city really needs are new vehicles, but those are costly.

That seems to drive home one point: The city can’t afford to pay for work that isn’t getting done.

It might be contractually sound and the legal department has advised Heisler to pay up. However, those same lawyers agree that Heisler’s desire to pay for the work done instead of overpaying and getting refunds makes more sense. Both the controller and legal have urged City Council not to enter into such contracts again.

That’s smart. Overpaying and getting a refund but keeping a percentage for your trouble? That’s literally the kind of scheme people are cautioned not to fall for on Craigslist or Facebook.

Maybe if the city were paying only for the work its vehicles needed and received, it could better afford to replace its unreliable fleet and better serve the city’s residents and visitors.