The US has 222 C-17 Aircraft. A single C-17 costs over $300 million.

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.

From https://www.cbsnews.com/news/air-force-overpaid-8000-percent...

> "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.

"The Inspector General also noted it could not determine if the Air Force paid a fair price on $22 million of spare parts because the service did not keep a database of historical prices, obtain supplier quotes or identify commercially similar parts."

There's no excuse for this. There should be a watchdog group in the federal government, staffed with people who make .01% commission on every dollar of waste they find and eliminate on shit like this.

It is strange how much apologia there is for Boeing in this thread. Why does it have to be somehow the government’s fault or somehow reflective of the actual cost to make the dispensers? Why should Boeing get the benefit of the doubt, especially given their complete failures on their fixed price contracts (Starliner, Air Force One, KC-46 tanker)? They’re so unable to control costs they’re talking about never taking fixed price contracts ever again. Given those failures, it seems safe to assume they’re screwing taxpayers on their cost plus contracts.

The issue is the outmoded and excessively specific system of procurement used by the US Military - one more or less mandated by congress.

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.