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

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]

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'?

So tired of governmental waste. Both sides do it!

remember the C-5 toilet price! Nothing has changed in the aq. process!

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

This is how US taxpayers keep Boeing solvent and out of Chapter 11.

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.

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?

"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. :-)

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.

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.

Why did the air force buy them? Why didn’t they shop around?

There's got to be a logical explanation. Doesn't there? Doesn't there? arrrrgh!

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.

...does this actually surprise anyone?..it's literally been going on for ever...

I would say Boeing's behavior should be considered as CRIMINAL

That money did not buy soap dispensers. It bought other things they didn't want records of.

Its been going on for years. KC135 toilet seats and fire axes came up as an issue decades ago.

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.

I guess it was the KC 135 and not the C-5..

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.

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.

and they say don't have money what a bunch of bull

Stop quibbling about money. The C-17 is a Government project.

Sometimes other "things" are wrapped up in payments to defense contractors.

I work my tail off and grind through burnout for my family. These fecks take advantage and get rewarded. Bring back the guillotine.

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.

Like all things Gubermint, the product can not be purchased until the paperwork outweighs the product by at least 5x.

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.

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?

Maybe Elon can find some of this kind of waste and stop it.

By Jimmy Quinn
November 21, 2022 12:15 PM
nalysis by the Center for European Policy Analysis finds that congressionally approved funds to support Ukraine this year amount to about 5.6 percent of U.S. defense spending, while resulting in a significant degrading of Russia’s military:

Altogether, the Biden administration received Congressional approval for $40bn in aid for Ukraine for 2022 and has requested an additional $37.7bn for 2022. More than half of this aid has been earmarked for defense.

These sums pale into insignificance when set against a total US defense budget of $715bn for 2022. The assistance represents 5.6% of total US defense spending. But Russia is a primary adversary of the US, a top tier rival not too far behind China, its number one strategic challenger. In cold, geopolitical terms, this war provides a prime opportunity for the US to erode and degrade Russia’s conventional defense capability, with no boots on the ground and little risk to US lives.

The Ukrainian armed forces have already killed or wounded upwards of 100,000 Russian troops, half its original fighting force; there have been almost 8,000 confirmed losses of armored vehicles including thousands of tanks, thousands of APCs, artillery pieces, hundreds of fixed and rotary wing aircraft, and numerous naval vessels. US spending of 5.6% of its defense budget to destroy nearly half of Russia’s conventional military capability seems like an absolutely incredible investment. If we divide out the US defense budget to the threats it faces, Russia would perhaps be of the order of $100bn-150bn in spend-to-threat. So spending just $40bn a year, erodes a threat value of $100-150bn, a two-to-three time return.  Actually the return is likely to be multiples of this given that defense spending, and threat are annual recurring events.

This simple point is important to keep in mind when considering the raucous debates that are expected to emerge surrounding this issue in the next Congress. There’s been a lot of conversation about how congressional Republicans might slash U.S. aid, given the votes by 57 House Republicans against the most recent Ukraine appropriations package, as well as Speaker-elect Kevin McCarthy’s insistence that aid to Ukraine “can’t be a blank check.”

And this is why we need term limits and someone to drain the swamp in DC.

This is a great place for Elon to start!

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.