When Moon switched engineering firms Jan. 7, it was done on a 3-2 vote amidst charges that the information provided was sketchy and the move seemed pre-determined.

The firm hired was Remington, Vernick & Beach, a newcomer to the Western Pennsylvania engineering ranks. It replaced Lennon Smith Souleret, a Coraopolis firm that had served the township for two decades.

"When I asked for a proposal all I got was a rate sheet with the costs plus 10 percent," Moon commissioner Marvin Eicher said at the time.

When Robinson switched engineering firms Feb. 11, it was done on a 3-2 vote amidst charges that the information provided was sketchy and the move seemed pre-determined.

The firm hired was Remington, Vernick & Beach. It replaced Lennon Smith Souleret, which had served the township for 16 years.

The move so disgusted Commissioner Jerry Brouker that he walked out of the meeting. He said he believed the hiring had been decided before the board even talked, and said that "right and reason went out the window tonight."

In both cases, the three voting for the contract were Democrats, and the two voting against were Republicans. In neither case was anyone critical of Lennon Smith Souleret; both board chairmen said the move was made to save money.

In neighboring Kennedy, meanwhile, the HRG engineer that had served the township left the firm to take another job last summer. Kennedy, which is heavily Democratic, dropped HRG and hired Remington, Vernick & Beach.

Coincidence? Perhaps. The Philadelphia-based firm recently opened a Pittsburgh office and is aggressively looking for work. Its parent firm, New Jersey-based Remington & Vernick, is a large firm with a long list of awards and projects to its name. And in Robinson at least, its proposal really was the lowest in terms of dollars and cents.

But Michael Vennum isn't buying it. A failed candidate for Robinson commissioner, he does believe that money was a factor -- but thinks it's more about money contributed to statewide Democratic candidates.

"It's curious to me how a New Jersey-based firm comes into Pennsylvania, starts contributing bucketloads of cash to statewide campaigns and now is getting work here," Mr. Vennum said.

And the firm does indeed make heavy contributions, and primarily on the Democratic side in high-profile Pennsylvania races.

According to state records, employees of Philadelphia-based Remington, Vernick & Beach and its New Jersey-based parent firm, Remington & Vernick, gave at least $32,000 to Gov. Ed Rendell from 2002 to 2006, at least $52,000 in recent donations to current state treasurer candidate John Cordisco and at least $78,500 from 2002 to 2007 to state Sen. Vince Fumo of Philadelphia, a long-time legislative power player now facing federal corruption charges.

Those three are Democrats, and partner Craig Remington, a New Jersey resident, also made a $2,500 contribution to the Allegheny County Democratic Committee in 2006-07.

Mr. Remington could not be reached for comment.

The most significant contribution to a Republican candidate, meanwhile, was $8,000 to Mike Fisher during his campaign against Mr. Rendell in 2002. However, Thomas Beach of the firm's Philadelphia subsidiary gave almost $10,000 to the Bucks County Republican Committee from 2001 to 2007.

By contrast, employees of Lennon Smith Souleret gave a total of $3,900 to three different candidates over the same time frame: $1,800 in 2005-06 to state Rep. Mark Mustio, a Republican from Moon; $1,500 in 2007 to State Rep. Harry Readshaw, a Democrat from Carrick, and $900 in 2003 to Beaver County Common Pleas Judge John Dohanich.

Employees of Nira Engineers of Coraopolis, which was also interviewed for the Robinson appointment, made a total of $4,600 worth of contributions in the same time frame, including $2,000 in 2001 to state Treasurer Barbara Hafer, who was at the time considering a run for governor as a Republican but changed parties in 2003; and $1,000 in 2002 to State Rep. Nick Kotik, a Democrat from Robinson, along with other smaller gifts.

The fourth firm interviewed, the statewide HRG, has a political action committee and has made significant contributions to candidates all over the state on both sides of the political divide. Employees in the Cranberry office contributed money to the PAC, but not to individual candidates.

There are two ways to look at that.

On the bright side, the firm boasts of having friends in government, which can help it obtain grants for its clients and can help streamline the regulatory process. "Mr. Remington himself said they were well-connected politically," Mr. Brouker said.

On the dark side, it smacks of a practice called "pay for play," in which professional firms fill political coffers and get government work in return.

Such activity is legal unless there is a direct quid pro quo -- an agreement ahead of time that a contract will be given in exchange for a contribution -- but has become enough of a concern in New Jersey and Eastern Pennsylvania that dozens of municipalities have passed local ordinances forbidding it, and New Jersey in 2005 passed a statewide law to limit it.

Press coverage of the problem in that area has repeatedly focused on Remington & Vernick and its subsidiaries

"In addition to the hidden costs of this practice, pay-to-play also promotes the selection of contractors based on their political contributions instead of their professional merits. It's been a prime source of political corruption in New Jersey and Philadelphia," said a May 2007 Philadelphia Inquirer editorial supporting laws curbing the practice.

The editorial went on to say the proposed limits "would impact firms such as Remington & Vernick of Haddonfield, which has received as much as $1 million in no-bid engineering work from Cherry Hill Township over a three-year period and has been a generous campaign donor to both the Camden County Democratic committee and to township candidates."

The firm was in 1997 convicted of forgery and evasion of campaign finance laws in New Jersey. The charge was that the firm set up two political committees so that it could funnel contributions to its chosen candidates and give more than the $1,500-per-person legal limit.

At the Feb. 11 Robinson meeting, solicitor Sam Kamin noted the conviction is 11 years old, and commissioners' Chairman Dan Tallon read a letter from Edward Vernick, a partner in the firm, which attributed the conviction to confusing contribution laws passed in New Jersey in 1990, which resulted in convictions for a number of other firms as well.

The letter also defended the firm's reputation, noting that it only represents municipalities, not developers, to avoid any conflicts of interest.

"I would never place my firm in a position that would be determined as illegal or unethical," the letter concluded.

Mr. Tallon said the letter laid to rest the concerns he had after researching the firm's background.

He said he spent an hour and half online checking the allegations against Remington & Vernick, and that other than the 1997 case, "the other things I dug up were very positive."

It is also clear from state records that Remington & Vernick is not engaging in any direct pay-to-play activities here -- there are no records of political contributions from the firm's employees to local candidates.

But Mr. Brouker said that, given Lennon Smith Souleret's long service with the township, the fact that the commissioners and township staff were happy with their work and the clouds hanging over Remington & Vernick's past, he was shocked that his colleagues on the board would hire the out-of-town firm.

"Why would you take a chance on somebody with a questionable background like that?" he asked.

At the Feb. 11 meeting, Mr. Tallon said the hiring was "based purely on economics," noting that Remington, Vernick & Beach had not asked for a retainer and offered a discounted hourly rate when doing capital projects for the township. That's significant because those costs are picked up wholly by the township, while developers shoulder the engineering costs associated with their developments.

He reiterated this week that the potential savings was the key element in his decision. "Looking at the costs and the proposals and based on the interview, I felt quite comfortable," he said, though he noted that "because of the allegations that have been brought up, I'm certainly going to keep my eyes open."

Robinson Manager Rich Charnovich said that while the proposals submitted by the engineering firms are complicated, there should be a savings with Remington, Vernick & Beach, though whether the savings is significant "depends on what your definition of significant is."

Mr. Charnovich said Remington, Vernick & Beach listed a rate of $100 an hour and no retainer; Lennon Smith Souleret listed a rate of $108 and hour and a $4,800 annual retainer.

More significantly, he said Remington offered a rate of $75 per hour for township projects, undercutting Lennon's bid of $105 -- though he also noted that the comparisons are made difficult because there are different rates for different engineers and for different services.

Mr. Charnovich said he did not make a recommendation to the board, and that he would have been happy with either of the proposals.

He noted, though, that like Mr. Tallon, the allegations would have him scrutinizing business closely. "That shady stuff is not going to happen in Robinson," he said.