Court of Accounts Analysis on IBB: The Paradox of 'Purchasing at 3 Months' Rental Cost' in Vehicle Tenders

The audit report prepared by the Presidency of the Court of Accounts, which has resonated widely in the public sphere, has placed the cost management of the Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality's (IBB) vehicle leasing operations under a microscope. The most striking finding in the report concerns the discrepancies in the calculation of 'approximate costs' for the '2026 vehicle leasing service procurement' tender, which has a total contract value of 3,375,868,924 TL. Auditors officially recorded that the approximate costs determined for certain vehicle groups, particularly heavy machinery and specially equipped vehicles excluding passenger cars, were completely detached from market realities and contained inefficiencies that could lead to public loss.

The core factual focus of the news is the massive gap between the results of the market research conducted by IBB for various vehicles grouped into 17 different categories and the figures that emerged as a result of the tender. The Court of Accounts noted that the administration requested price quotes from 5 different firms during the determination of the approximate cost, but one of these firms also won the tender as the contractor, raising questions about the competitive and transparent nature of the process. In the report, the cost table observed in the vehicles classified as Group 6 was presented as the most concrete example of inefficiency, described as 'contrary to the ordinary flow of life.'

Background of the Development

The procurement of goods and services by public institutions in Türkiye is strictly disciplined by the Public Procurement Law No. 4734 and relevant implementation regulations. According to this legislation, it is of vital importance for the protection of public resources that the 'approximate cost' is determined realistically before a tender is launched. Administrations are required to utilize prices determined by public institutions, prices from similar past tenders, data from relevant chambers of commerce, and comprehensive market research when determining this cost. In this massive tender planned by IBB for 2026, the way these mechanisms were operated fell under the audit radar.

The IBB administration defined 17 different vehicle groups for the tender in question and requested price quotes from 5 firms to be used in the approximate cost calculation. However, according to the Court of Accounts' examination, the data obtained during this process remained far from reflecting market rates. Especially in categories other than passenger vehicles, the fact that rental costs approached the vehicle's own value raised the question of why the administration chose the much more costly leasing method instead of evaluating the purchase option. This situation is analyzed not just as a budget item error, but also as a strategic management choice.

In previous years, vehicle leasing tenders of local governments have frequently been a subject of debate; however, the 'purchase for 3 months' rental cost' finding in this report by the Court of Accounts has demonstrated the dimensions of inefficiency with mathematical certainty. The fact that IBB's response to these findings was limited to merely providing the legal definition of the term 'approximate cost' is interpreted as a failure to technically refute the concrete allegations in the audit report.

Expert and Industry Insights

Financial analysts and public procurement experts state that it is impossible to explain the data presented by the Court of Accounts with economic rationality. Setting one-third of a vehicle's insurance value (market rayiç value) as a single month's rental fee means the return on investment (ROI) is three months, which is not accepted as a sustainable model in any field of commercial life. Industry representatives emphasize that under normal conditions, the monthly fee in long-term vehicle leases should vary between 2% and 5% of the vehicle's total value.

Technical evaluations made in light of the data in the Court of Accounts report are summarized under the following headings:

• Lack of Cost-Benefit Analysis: The administration's leasing of a vehicle that it could own for a 3-month rental fee is contrary to basic economic principles.
• Flaw in Market Research: It is evaluated that the quotes from the 5 firms used while determining the approximate cost did not reflect market realities, and the fact that one of these firms won the tender may have restricted competition.
• Disproportion Between Insurance Value and Rent: Paying 496,000 TL monthly rent for a vehicle with an insurance value of 1,493,355 TL is the clearest evidence that public resources were not used efficiently.
• Violation of Legislation: It is observed that the provision in the Service Procurement Tenders Implementation Regulation stating that 'the approximate cost must be in accordance with market rates' was violated.
• Strategic Planning Error: Choosing the leasing model instead of purchasing for long-term needs with such high differences points to a corporate planning error.

Economic and Social Implications

Such audit findings have deep effects on public trust and public finance beyond being just numerical data. The fact that an institution managing a massive budget like Istanbul overlooked such high cost differences in a 3.3 billion TL tender strengthens the perception among tax-paying citizens that 'resources are being wasted.' In a period where economic difficulties are experienced and public austerity measures are implemented at the highest level, such expenditures wound social justice and the public conscience.

From an economic perspective, it should not be forgotten that the excess amounts paid by IBB in this tender are resources subtracted from the city's other infrastructure, transportation, or social aid projects. This situation, which the Court of Accounts describes as 'contrary to the ordinary flow of life,' shows that the principles of 'effectiveness, economy, and efficiency' in public financial management have been violated. From the perspective of market balances, the fact that public institutions hold tenders with prices far above market rates distorts the price perception in the sector and creates an artificial dearness.

Furthermore, the reflection of the relationship between the firms providing quotes and the firm winning the tender in the audit report shakes confidence in the tender system. The failure to ensure transparency and competition in public tenders makes it impossible to obtain quality service at an affordable price in the long run and leads to certain capital groups gaining unfair advantages from public resources.

Future Projections and Outlook

This report by the Court of Accounts has the potential to trigger a serious administrative and legal process for the IBB administration. In the coming period, it is expected that administrative investigations will be opened regarding those responsible for this tender and that the compensation of public loss will be sought. Additionally, it is among the likely scenarios that the Ministry of Interior's civil inspectors will accept the report as a notice and initiate a more in-depth investigation.

The defense to be made and the measures to be taken by the IBB after this stage are of critical importance. It has become a necessity for the municipal administration to make approximate cost determination processes more transparent, to activate digital price tracking systems, and to share the 'leasing or purchasing?' analysis with the public before every tender. It is a matter of curiosity whether this contract, which will last until 2026, will be revised in line with the Court of Accounts findings or whether the exorbitantly priced items will be canceled.

In conclusion, this development is a turning point for the audit of local governments in Türkiye. The stance to be taken by judicial and audit bodies against the consumption of public resources with leasing models that 'amortize themselves in 3 months' will also set a standard for similar future tenders. Citizens and non-governmental organizations will continue to apply pressure as followers of this process for the establishment of a transparent management approach.