I wonder if these egregious examples of expenses are due to lack of controls or intentional corruption.
graft = obtain illegally by bribery
grift = obtain illegally by trickerySure you can; "grift" can be used as an abstract noun, much like "crime", e.g., "Crime is occurring here" vs. "A crime is occurring here".
[1] https://www.reddit.com/gallery/1al24h7 (images #9 and #10)
It's possible the soap dispenser is to the left of the sink and just hidden by the angle.
> "We are reviewing the report, which appears to be based on an inapt comparison of the prices paid for parts that meet aircraft and contract specifications and designs versus basic commercial items that would not be qualified or approved for use on the C-17," the Boeing spokesperson sought to explain in a statement.
I was thinking that it would make sense in future contracts to try to define a class of parts that are allowed to be 'unapproved' by the manufacturer and still be used, but then I tried to think of what all those parts would be and it doesn't seem like it would be that large of a list of items. I wonder if the juice isn't worth the squeeze to try to prevent this. What a strange world.
Only a few months ago we saw an example of a intelligence agency implanting and blowing up bombs in equipment
$72 soap dispensers
$140000 knowing where to put them
This is the problem--the government heavily regulates (which the big contractors encourage) all the parts and suppliers until Boeing becomes the sole-source supplier and can charge arbitrary prices. There is a reason for it at times, i.e. to answer does someone die if this part fails or can we just stock a few spares? But obviously many many things being vastly over-specced most of the time.
And sometimes they are appropriately specced.... for 1951, and no-one bothered to update the spec. They just ask for more of part 46-18432, please, and since the spec becomes more and more outdated, it becomes harder and more expensive to provide a part to that spec.
If you ask Boeing for soap dispenser parts for these, what should they cost? Boeing charged $149,072 for the dispensers. That's $671 per plane. Is that too much?
If you had to make these dispensers, make sure they conform to rules for aircraft parts and Air Force parts, provide formal responses to bids, etc., how much could you make them for?
It seems high to me. The article says 8000%, which is less than $10 per plane. So while it seems high, it's definitely not 8000% high.
Why not just use existing solutions like a soap dispenser that is found on common commercial passenger planes that Boeing already has and makes?
There is no world where a simple soap dispenser is $150k.
They seemingly design them like this so they can bilk the US government aka tax payers with these absurd prices for simple objects.
Which one? Whichever you pick you need to stock that exact same one for the next 50 to 100 years. By the time you finish exactly defining it, you are back where you started.
(Also it's not 150k each - that's the price for the entire fleet.)
This one from CB2 is $40 and it doesn't conform to FAA rules and it's not MIL-SPEC. [1]
I suspect if I wanted a limited run of soap dispensers, I was only willing to buy 300 made-to-order, tested and conformant to niche military specifications and aviation specifications, I'd probably end up paying a decent chunk more than CB2.
How much does the entertainment system in your car cost vs an iPad? Is that a rip-off, or is it a niche, custom part that has to be made from automotive grade components?
How much does the soap dispenser cost in a 777 bathroom? That's the real point of comparison, not CB2.
[1] https://www.cb2.com/ramsey-calacatta-gold-marble-soap-pump/s...
[edit] Here you go, just under $845. I present you the Labrazel Discus Brown Pump Dispenser available at Nieman's. Only $77 per month thanks to the magic of Affirm. Good news is thanks to Black Friday you get a $125 gift card. Still not MIL-SPEC though.
https://www.neimanmarcus.com/p/labrazel-discus-brown-pump-di...
Maybe the Pentagon should check these guys out.
Now, like you said... the root cause here is probably some absurd spec that prevents them from using some existing commercial soap dispenser whose costs have already been amortized.
Then again, maybe the spec isn't absurd. The C-17 may need to fly in contested airspace. Maybe damage control is a concern. Maybe they can't use commercial soap dispensers because they're plastic and they don't want the plane to fill up with toxic fumes from burning plastic. That is a random guess. I have no idea.
I couldn't find pictures of the soap dispenser, but here's apparently a urinal from some version of the Globemaster. I get the feeling these parts are kinda custom... https://www.flickr.com/photos/morganone/122375474/in/photost...
But for some reason Boeing continually gets away with being Boeing for some reason.
The first year you learn how hard it is, you spend 80% of your time on compliance documentation and 80% of your budget on tooling. You still don't have a satisfactory product or a mastery of filling out the forms. It drags on into the second year, you're living on ramen but eventually deliver it (if there's one thing the government procurement process is tolerant of, it's delays) and get paid.
The third year you take on a additional contract, for 200 toilet flushes or whatever. New manufacturing challenges, but at least you're getting the paperwork down.
After a few more jobs, you've cracked it. You start bidding for all the military's bathroom-related contracts. At five or six contracts a year, you have a million or two rolling in (and low manufacturing costs - remember, the spec is such that you can produce it for 80x lower) and you've hired five employees.
By year five, the only thing you care about improving is sales. You still have 5 machine shop staff, paid well but not enough to make them wealthy. You focus on hiring ex-military brass and making them sales reps and lobbyists. You're into tens of millions of revenue, that is, profit.
Year 8, you sell the thing to Northrop or to a private equity firm and go retire on an island.
Though you might want to also take on some non-government contracts, both to keep everyone busy in between government contract demands on their roles, and to reduce the risk of having "only one customer".
We can chose to alter how we procure, but there are good reasons why the system is as it is, so a careful effort to understand why it is like it is before we reform must be undertaken.
Chesterton's Fence applies here for sure.
Those procedures do not happen because generals retire into cushy barely-show jobs at defense contractors
Congress does not dare force the US military to do any of the above because the US military is a giant pork barrel welfare program for red states, especially the midwestern ones, feeding them endless useless manufacturing work and keeping all their unskilled-labor high school graduates out of unemployment - sending them into the military where they learn some semblance of how to be an adult and some skills
You also wrong about where the money goes. It mostly goes to coastal states (and DC). The Midwest gets less money from those contracts than most states: https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/articles/...
Anyone knows is just fallout from other investigations, like „hey let’s double check everything from Boeing just in case”.
Is that not what's happening here?
Because they bought it.
> They’re so unable to control costs
I assume you talk about the government here?
Fair enough, but I was referencing people taking a Boeing exec’s claim that somehow regulations cause military soap dispensers to cost that much at face value.
> I assume you talk about the government here?
No. Read the whole sentence. I’m referencing Boeing and the tens of billions Boeing has lost on fixed price contracts.
MILSPEC is a thing - but unless the soap dispenser involves electronics, I don't think that applies here.
(If someone had bought an IoT enabled soap dispenser for a military plane, that would have been their own stupidity.)
"Whoops I made $600 from something that cost me $10"
I've written about this here some time ago - you don't pay for the soap dispenser or trash bin itself, you pay for the paperwork showing that it is safe to install this trash bin, soap dispenser or whatnot into this specific model of aircraft or spacecraft, and you pay for the paperwork that details the entire life of every tiny little piece used to manufacture that component. For flight-critical parts, IIRC that goes as far as to documenting the specific lot of the iron ore that was used to make the metal sheets, so in the event of something cropping up where something got fucked up in the mine or the smelter, you can recall every single part that could be affected. And there's lots of testing (and associated waste) at each part of the step.
Anything that goes into an airplane or spacecraft has ridiculous rules attached to it... rules that were literally written in blood. Aerospace is amongst the safest ways of transportation because of decades of crashes and learning from each and every single one.
Your average Home Depot soap dispenser has none of that, if it breaks it breaks.
Surely there's a cost-effective happy medium somewhere between "just buy the Home Depot 2-for-1 special" and "we ran a background check on the guy who mined the metal"
One can make ridiculous arguments about both values and costs if one goes to extremes. It is instructive to study actual modern warfare. Sophisticated weapons only matter if there is a sufficient number. Meat attacks only work if weapons are of sufficient quality. Neither is one of the extremes.