Back to Squawk list
  • 16

US Air Force wildly overpaid Boeing by almost 8,000% for C-17 aircraft bathroom soap dispensers, Pentagon watchdog finds

Submitted
The US Air Force majorly overpaid for C-17 spare parts, including bathroom soap dispensers, per a Pentagon watchdog. The dispensers were 80 times more expensive than the commercially available alternative. The audit of C-17 part purchases was done in response to a DoD Hotline allegation. The US Air Force overpaid for spare parts for a C-17 military transport aircraft manufactured by Boeing, according to a new watchdog report. In one example, an audit found, the service paid more than 80 times… (www.msn.com) More...

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]


tsohindbq
Michael Stenberg 13
This happens due to the way government purchases items. Too many layers of people and different agencies handling it. It’s been going on for years, but few on the outside understand it. I needed a vacuum for my building in 1983 and had to order it via the GSA catalogue for nearly $500. I could have gotten one at Sears for $50.
[I edited linbb’s note to fit my experience]
CHRISMORGAN
CHRIS MORGAN 6
Why does a soap dispenser HAVE to be supported by reims of paperwork? It's hardly a critical engineering item; did anyone ever think of looking on-line, under 'cheap soap dispensers'?
ScottBaysinger
GSA rules specifically prohibit this. And they mean f$%king business.
Thompsor
Ron Thompson 5
remember the C-5 toilet price! Nothing has changed in the aq. process!
NancyRovenstine
Nancy Rovenstine 13
So tired of governmental waste. Both sides do it!
pheliks
John Graham 6
Has anyone in the airforce ever gone to home depot and bought a soap dispenser with 8000% markup? What's wrong with these nitwits? No wonder we have children in Florida that have to brush their teeth in gas station bathrooms every morning and change their cloths in their live-in car
macclad1
macclad1 1
someone, who if elected, is bringing on a person, whose career in one area of endeavor has been to lower the cost of his service, to improve government efficiency. Let's see if that happens and I am delighted to hold him accountable. I'm quite sure he's hears about this particular boondoggle.
lbflight
Burke Files 5
Every time something happens that someone dislikes or causes a red-faced moment, a regulation or a policy is drafted to ensure that it will never ever happen again. And that is why we stories like this:

U.S. Air Force paid about $10,000 each to replace toilet seat covers on the C-5 Galaxy.
The Pentagon's $435 hammer.
The Pentagon spent $16 million on electronic breast pumps.

and no surprise that

The Pentagon failed an independent audit of its accounting systems for the sixth consecutive year.
nasdisco
Chris B 8
This is how US taxpayers keep Boeing solvent and out of Chapter 11.
akovia
akovia 3
Not for much longer, I fear. Boeing has finally screwed the pooch.
Mikedryden
Mike Dryden 4
Why is it x80 more? Because someone wrote a (or more likely, modified an old) specification that meant that the commercial, off the shelf (COTS) part wasn't acceptable because it doesn't come with paperwork. Either the manufacturer didn't ask for dispensation from the requirement because they answer is always no, or they did ask and the answer was no because it would have to go back to the head of AMC for sign off, which just gets too hard and takes too long. And there is a good chance the answer will be no anyway. So they things need to get made specifically for the contract. Then spares need to be maintained. And rather than make 5,000 like they would in commercial land, they make 10, because that's all that get ordered.

Each dispenser will come with paperwork that weighs more than the dispenser does. But it will be (well... should be) traceable from its spot in the airframe to the batch number of the material it was made from and the guy who signed it off as right.

The cost of the investigation and the change in specifications will cost more than the $1M that was "majorly overpaid". 'majorly overpaid'... in a 'business' rag. What the hell happened to decent use of language in reporting?
jpatrix
patrick bloem 2
It did not come with a PPAP from Home Depot!
howardkoor
Howard Koor 1
Thanks for your insight. What a shame.
lanceanz
Lance Andrewes 4
"Almost 8,000%" sounds a lot worse than "80x", but I was interested to know the actual price paid per dispenser. Surely that is the most useful metric?

I found the original audit report on the DOD site, however crucial information is redacted. It tells us that they overpaid by $US149,072, based on the price of a "typical commercial counter-mounted soap dispenser". They give a photo of a Brobick B-82216 which I found on Amazon US for $US56. If they'd bought in bulk from Brobick I'm sure they could have paid a lot less. Since the DOD redacted all individual prices and the quantity purchased, and my brain is rusty, I asked Microsoft Copilot to run the numbers. Based on a unit cost of $56, the USAF bought 33 dispensers at about $4,500 each. But let's say that the non-inflated price was $40 per item. In that case the USAF bought 47 dispensers at $3,217 each.

Over many years of working for my government I've often been frustrated by the way money is misspent. In particular I've seen hundreds of thousands and even millions spent on IT projects that are simply abandoned. If these soap dispensers let the crew maintain hand-hygiene on their C-17, then it is money well (over)spent. :-)
druck13
druck13 5
Sorry, you used Copilot for something that required numerical facts?
vaclavkoranda
Vaclav Koranda 4
We had a similar case in my country many years ago. A new police president decided to enhance the police's public image by standardizing the counters in all police stations with a unified fancy design. Local police chiefs received the design and a budget for implementation, allowing them to select a local vendor to fit the counters into the specific layout of each station. Then, some 'clever' watchdog noticed that many local police chiefs had apparently purchased severely overpriced counters. It turned into a major media scandal with allegations of corruption. Later, it was revealed that these police chiefs had used the funds to cover essential building repairs—such as fixing leaking roofs—for which they had never received a budget, instead of just purchasing fancy new counters.
DracoVolantis
DracoVolantis 4
That is very interesting. So the people just trying to get necessary things done ended up being labelled as "corrupt". Things are seldom "black and white". It's easy and comforting to imagine a world where people are just "good" (us) and "bad" (them) instead of trying to understand what is going on and solve the problems...
jkeifer3
Joe Keifer 4
I remember when I was in government service, you could purchase complete Skilcraft ball point pens from the GSA for about ten cents apiece.

If you tried to purchase just the refills, they would charge you a buck fifty for each refill.
linbb
linbb 5
Happens all the time due to the way government purchases items. Too many layers of people and different agencies handling it. Its a problem thats been going on for years few on the outside understand it. Yes you can walk into Home Depot and get it cheaper but the way they buy there are layers upon layers that handle that purchase order.
TorstenHoff
Torsten Hoff 11
Another contributing factor is that anything involving aircraft is tested, certified and documented to higher standards than non-aviation analogues. The entire supply chain is tracked, which is why common things like bolts and washers get exponentially more expensive.
ko25701
ko25701 4
You're right, but we all know that the wasteful spending on non critical parts does not improve safety.
allmimsey47
Larry Graham 2
Yes, we knew why aircraft parts were far, far more expensive in the 60s when I was in the AF and no one has been able to change it. Old, old news.
rpt777
Why did the air force buy them? Why didn’t they shop around?
CHBHA
CB HARDY 2
There's got to be a logical explanation. Doesn't there? Doesn't there? arrrrgh!
a1brainiac
a1brainiac 3
I would say Boeing's behavior should be considered as CRIMINAL
belzybob
belzybob 2
Its been going on for years. KC135 toilet seats and fire axes came up as an issue decades ago.
msetera
msetera 2
That money did not buy soap dispensers. It bought other things they didn't want records of.
akovia
akovia 0
Citation please.
pwahle2012
Patrick Wahle 2
As an aircraft owner we all went through the overpriced world of aircraft parts. I doubt all those ‘certified” parts when through the screening process.
In fact this is part of the overpriced world of insurance. Who would want to see his insurance coverage denied because the sun shade was not FAA approved?
Baywooff
James Bruton 2
This isn't government waste. No one is that stupid. This is corruption. As the saying goes Follow the Money". Someone or some group is getting rich.

[This poster has been suspended.]

Nooge
Nooge -1
Speaking of stupid

We will spend close to 1 Trillion on Defense...mostly of that spending to deter China and Russia

We sent 5% of that budget a great ROI for The Great USA

Brookings

The Russian military has lost significant amounts of equipment. The Oryx website reports 8,000 pieces of equipment destroyed, damaged, abandoned, or captured, including some 1,500 tanks, 700 armored fighting vehicles, and 1,700 infantry fighting vehicles. Oryx advises that its numbers significantly understate the true nature of Russian losses, as it counts only equipment for which it has unique photo or videographic evidence of its fate. Others report much heavier losses. U.S. Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin commented that the Russian military had lost “staggering” numbers of tanks and other armored vehicles, adding that Western trade restrictions on microchips would inhibit production of replacements.
PBS
Mar 26, 2024
Ukraine says a third of Russian warships in the Black Sea have been destroyed or disabled. KYIV, Ukraine (AP) — Ukraine has sunk or disabled a third of all Russian warships in the Black Sea in just over two years of war, the navy spokesman said Tuesday, a heavy blow to Moscow's military capability
howardkoor
Howard Koor 1
The $10,000 Toilet Seat Cover, or Why Do Government Systems Cost So Much?

https://christianbsmart.com/the-10000-toilet-seat-cover-or-why-do-government-systems-cost-so-much/
briansfreeman
Brian Freeman 1
The government is a living, breathing organism that is simply out of control. I know. I worked in it for 30 years. Case in point - I get paid THREE pensions, the first of which I started drawing at the age of 40 (and no, none of them are disability.)

It will never change. I grabbed my piece of the pie - might as well get yours.
tgrugle
Thomas Grugle 1
Sometimes other "things" are wrapped up in payments to defense contractors.
ed7778
Stop quibbling about money. The C-17 is a Government project.
Jaime1949
Jaime Terrassa 1
and they say don't have money what a bunch of bull
LeanderWilliams
Over billing the government has been an issue with defense contractors ever since I can remember. I wouldn't have a problem with aviation manufacturers costing more than commercially available parts if nothing more than for quality. Would you want a spark plug manufactured by Champion or Joe's Spark Plugs? Or an engine made by Mattel instead of GE or Pratt & Whitney.. I cannot, however, see a toilet paper dispenser as a mission-critical component.
Pmyokhin
Peter Myo Khin 1
I guess it was the KC 135 and not the C-5..
varneyland
Brian Varney 1
Back in my government contracting days the six hundred dollars for one toilet seat was the inside stuff that was the supplier’s joke. This soap dispenser thing takes the cake! Thanks for your “summary statement,” John Graham.
DougHaviland
Doug Haviland 1
Like all things Gubermint, the product can not be purchased until the paperwork outweighs the product by at least 5x.
DracoVolantis
DracoVolantis 1
I would not be surprised if "Made in USA" bathroom soap dispensers are indeed 80x more expensive than "Made in China" "commercially available alternative". I'm not saying that's the case here (the article didn't give such details), but just a thought.
slickviccom
VICTOR SPURIO 0
Drop the soap dispensers. Use the dispensers we all have in our own bathrooms.
For this Criminal Act, the Pair of New Air Force One's.......WE WILL GET BOTH
AT THE NEW BOEING SALES RATE..........2 PLANES FOR THE PRICE OF ONE PLANE.
douglaswaynebarnes
Wayne Barnes -1
Maybe Elon can find some of this kind of waste and stop it.

[This comment was deleted.]

Pmyokhin
Peter Myo Khin 9
What has this got to do with term limits and draining the swamp? Let's leave politics out of this discussion. No different than the $$$$ C-5 toilet seats of a couple of decades ago. Just lack of contracting oversight at DOD. Can be fixed with pushback.
Pmyokhin
Peter Myo Khin 1
I guess it was the KC 135 and not the C 5

[This poster has been suspended.]

[This poster has been suspended.]

Nooge
Nooge -2
Put Elon over illegal entry ... I think Elon Musk will do a great job at something like this since he and his brother have experience
Nooge
Nooge 2
We did in 2020

[This poster has been suspended.]

UU539771
mark robinson 4
Maybe he should have started with his own decision to overpay by $20 BILLION for Twitter.....
Hardly a good track record, is it?
randyeveret
randy everett 2
You should advise Elon on his business practice. Maybe buy Twitter from him and show him how it's done.
CHRISMORGAN
CHRIS MORGAN 0
Advantage Robinson, Overdue to serve

[This comment was deleted.]

Login

Don't have an account? Register now (free) for customized features, flight alerts, and more!
Did you know that FlightAware flight tracking is supported by advertising?
You can help us keep FlightAware free by allowing ads from FlightAware.com. We work hard to keep our advertising relevant and unobtrusive to create a great experience. It's quick and easy to whitelist ads on FlightAware or please consider our premium accounts.
Dismiss