On the plus side, once something has existed and people get used to it, it's a little harder to take it away.

Also, there's probably reason to be more concerned about the City's side of the contract, than the vendor's side of the fulfillment. Even if you look at notorious failures, say university dining services, who's really to blame - the contractors for doing hard nosed business, or the university for renewing a universally unpopular contract?

What would be great: One membership spanning two competing vendors, with vendor payment by usage share.