Pentagon Paid Nearly 8,000 Percent Markup on Boeing's Bathroom Soap Dispenser
The Air Force paid nearly $150,000 above market value for airplane bathroom fixtures, a Department of Defense watchdog found.

The bathroom on the C-17 Globemaster III cargo plane is nothing special. The soap dispensers are exactly the same kind of pump that customers might find on a civilian airliner or in a restaurant bathroom. But the U.S. government paid 7,943 percent more for the soap machines than what it should have, costing taxpayers $149,072, a new report by the Office of the Inspector General at the Department of Defense found.
The report was the result of a two-year audit of U.S. Air Force purchases from the Boeing Company. Out of a selected sample of 46 spare parts for the C-17, the Pentagon's internal watchdog found that the Air Force overpaid for 12 of them, costing taxpayers an additional $992,856 on top of the parts' $4.3 million value.
The C-17 is the workhorse of U.S. military airlifts. Capable of carrying heavier loads over longer distances than any other aircraft in the American arsenal, the transport jet has become a symbol of U.S. resupply efforts for Israel and Ukraine. The U.S. Air Force maintains a fleet of 223 of them.
Overcharging is a massive problem for the U.S. military budget. In 2015, the Pentagon found that it was severely overpaying for Patriot missiles, and negotiated a new contract that saved $550 million. In 2019, the inspector general found that the military was paying $4,300 for a half-inch metal drive pin that should have cost $46.
The similarly extreme markup on soap dispensers is what led to the audit of C-17 parts in the first place. The Office of the Inspector General says that it opened its investigation in June 2022 after a whistleblower told its anonymous tip line that Boeing was severely overcharging for airplane bathroom fixtures.
The inspector general found that the Air Force did not "validate the accuracy of the data used for contract negotiation, conduct contract surveillance to identify price increases during contract execution, or review invoices to determine fair and reasonable prices before payment."
Boeing cooperated with the investigation on the condition that specific price data would not be released to Congress or the public, arguing that this data is a trade secret. Therefore, the inspector general report only includes the total extra cost of the soap dispensers, not the number that the Air Force purchased or how much Boeing charged for each one.
A commercial soap dispenser costs around $30 online. (The inspector general report emphasizes that the C-17's bathroom soap dispensers are "identical" in function to soap dispensers in "a residential kitchen or bathroom, commercial restaurant bathrooms, or in an aircraft lavatory.") An 8,000 percent markup means that the Air Force potentially paid thousands of dollars for each one.
Even worse than the bathroom incident, the Air Force overpaid $293,632.74 on retaining bands, the report found. Other parts that were marked up included bearings, screws, gaskets, lights, and even tape, which the inspector general says Boeing overcharged $2,664.84 for. The inspector general found that the Pentagon had trouble catching overcharging because officials "would not question the costs if they matched what Boeing paid" its suppliers.
"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," Boeing spokeswoman Nicola Hammond tells Reason. "We will continue to work with the [Office of the Inspector General] and the U.S. Air Force to provide a detailed written response to the report in the coming days."
In an interview with 60 Minutes last year, former Raytheon Contract Negotiator and Pentagon Director of Defense Pricing Shay Assad blamed a lack of competition for the rampant price increases.
"In the '80s, there was intense competition amongst a number of companies. And so the government had choices. They had leverage," he said. "We have limited leverage now."
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Given that it was soap, the contractor almost made a clean getaway.
It’s a pricing bubble.
They've since washed their hands of the whole debacle.
Definitely cleaned up on that deal.
Let's dispense with the puns.
The soap was needed for money laundering.
as long as it doesn't explode at any point over it's lifetime of use it will be money well spent @Boeing
But the U.S. government paid 7,943 percent more for the soap machine than what it should have, costing taxpayers $149,072
…
A commercial soap dispenser costs around $30 online.
In a related report, the Office of the Inspector General at the Department of Defense was found to be paying its employees 2,853,941 percent more than what their math skills were actually worth. However, the distortion in pay was found to be greater for the women than the men.
The wording there seems suspect to me. MIL-C-44072C is a military specification for (making and packaging) oatmeal cookies and chocolate covered brownies. One can buy those at a convenience store or a wholesaler quite cheap, and the commercial foods perform the same function, but do they meet the same specifications?
Most Mil specs for food packaging probably require a 5 year shelf life without refrigeration. Peperidge Farms doesn't do that.
One significant different with "MIL-SPEC" versions of mundane products is that the "boilerplate" that's carried over in many of the specs requires certification testing to a lot of requirements which aren't specifically applied to most commercial goods. Those test programs can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to conduct, and their costs generally end up being defrayed over a small production run, which leads to unit costs which in certain cases don't make any sense. It's for that exact reason why the RFP (request for proposals) to add a coffee maker to the C-17 initially got no bids from any commercial airline galley equipment manufacturer. When the airplane was in development, the first wave of investigative reports about the Pentagon buying "$800 hammers" and "$1200 toilet seats" were still fresh in everyone's memory, and no company wanted to be the ones to put in a bid to sell the USAF a coffee maker for $30-50k.
The reason there are over-priced lavs on the C17 is probably because making the crew replace the function of that item with a thermos is much less normal seeming than for a coffee maker. Or maybe the lav supplier was a registered "disadvantaged" (women/minority owned, sometimes companies will either hire a "figurehead" or list a spouse as the "owner" on the paperwork to get certification) business working on a set-aside portion of the total contract and reducing the money spent there would have required changing other suppliers to restore the same dollar amount of sub-contracting to someone else who was eligible for that portion of the budget.
In the time between when C-17 was made and now, there has been some expansion of permissible use of "COTS" components/equipment in government contracting (the USSF and NASA purchase of launch services from SpaceX might be under that policy, otherwise the compliance and certification hassles/costs involved in government work would have led to Musk refusing the deals).
Surprise, surprise, surprise.
What gets missed by a lot of these stories about outrageous markups is how hard the government is to do business with. If you consider the army of workers you have to hire to ensure all the proper forms are filled out, all the proper standards are complied with, and all the proper procedures have been followed, those markups tend to be a lot more understandable.
Maybe the government should buy off-the-shelf products when and where they can. Why do they need to go through a special purchase process for soap dispensers that involves negotiating with the company over price? Contact costco or walmart or whomever carries what you need, tell them you need 1,000 at their list price.
The government has instituted some degree of that flexibility since the time when the C-17 was designed and produced.
The last C-17 rolled out of production almost 9 years ago, and Boeing sold the building where the production was done. Probably at least a third the people who ever worked on making C-17 are now retired, and another third no longer work in the aerospace/defense industry.
Identical in FUNCTION.
True. Both squirt soap at ground level.
But did you take the $30 one up to 28,000 feet and see how much soap it squirted out on its own when the pressure changed?
Besides, the extra $149,072 goes to black projects, less 10% for the big guy.
Fake news! Air Force guys don’t wash their hands.
Semper Fi
That's because we don't piss on our hands.
The report failed to address the massive operational and maintenance costs of using C17s for supporting nations not named the United States of America. This is a chaff & redirect from a huge problem to a minor one.
How else could we juice the GDP numbers if not for this?
This is a chaff & redirect from a huge problem to a minor one.
There can be more than one huge problem. [Intended to be read in the same aloof "I haven't been by recently." manner of the old lady in response to the question "Are you the crazy lady that's been walking by here screaming at people?"]
We've been complaining about $10,000 hammers and $20,000 toilet seats for more than 2 decades, probably even before my time. Maybe stop the government from always choosing the highest bidder?
By law, they have to pick the bid with the best insane rule follower.
I remember a congressional hearing on it. I'm thinking it was back in the 80s. Someone defended the $5,000 wrench by saying something to the effect of, well not only can you use it put the bolt on, you can use it to take the bolt off too.
Incredible! What's next? A mask that you wear to protect me and a mask that I wear to protect you?!?! Just imagine the limitless possibilities of this technology! There's practically no tool whose use cannot be reversed or redundantly iterated or subdivided!
I remember a Mallard Filmore comic to the effect that you get a wood screw but the government gets a manually operated, cross coupler, fiber intrusive, helicoil fastener.
Some of it is probably bookkeeping tricks to cover for the money that DARPA spends on "unacknowledged" projects which can't be a line item since they officially aren't happening.
>> more than 2 decades
4 ... Pepperidge Farm remembers a hullaballoo in summer of '85 or '86 about $500 hammers etc.
Where is Sen. William Proxmire, now that we need him?
Who will be the next Sen. Proxmire?
Those expensive black box projects don't pay for themselves.
^THIS....
*waives hand* Stealth coating.
I'm currently working on a bid for Tampon dispensers for military aircraft. It's taken a lot of pencil sharpening but I think I'll come in under 75k each. Holding off until Tim Walz is swept into office. Then I'll be riding the gravy train.
Now that I have inside information, I’ll be bidding 74k each, and steal the contract!
I was warned about shooting my mouth off on social media but I just didn't listen.
Let the games begin!
Which of you can hire the most oppressed workers?
(extra points for multiple box checks with a single hire)
Does it count if I’m the oppressor?
Help! Help! I'm being repressed....I'm being repressed.! Come and see the violence inherent in the system!
Walz may pad the numbers.
Yeah, he’s so smart, probably a member of menses.
I hear he meets with them 13 times a year.
finally! this joke is relevant!
You should have used a period instead of exclamation points.
The Menses Caucus?
Criminals and the Government both have the same problem.
IF they don’t have to *EARN* it; they just don’t care.
…and if you like that, then you’ll love these.
From the Festivus Report:
Dr. Fauci’s Monkey Business: $33.2 Million to Run NIH’s “Monkey Island."
United States Agency for International USAID) approved spending $6 million to do just that: boost tourism in Egypt, which it promotes as a “value investment in sustainable integrated tourism."
The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) allocated “cutting-edge” research funding to support a summer study that walked 16 dogs—of two different colors — and measured their rectal temperatures. The Agricultural Research Service at the USDA, which funded the study at Southern Illinois University, gets $1.7 billion a year from Congress.
Russian Cats-On-A-Treadmill Studies …Funded by Part of a $2.7 Million NIH Grant. These cat-walks were part of a $2.7 million
National Institutes of Health (NIH) grant given to a researcher at the Georgia Institute of Technology in the U.S.
U.S. officials testified that another $38 million in COVID payments — an average of $83,000 each — went to people Uncle Sam knew were dead.
The U.S. Army officials “improperly stored 80 gas turbine engines” valued at $89.16 million. Each of the $1.1 million engines were improperly stored for three years!
The NIH approved a portion of approximately $12 million in NIH grants to test the sleep habits of monkeys given meth in the morning.
NIH’s Monkey Casino: NIH uses tax dollars to find out if monkeys would gamble for drinking water. The study—funded under an NIH National Institute of Mental Health $1.9 million grant and an NIH National Institute of Drug Abuse $1.8 million grant.
Simply nothing left to cut from the budget.
OK, I've gotta admit, with respect to libertarian ideals, voluntary taxation and whatnot, I'd chip in a few bucks to know the results of the Monkey meth and gambling studies.
And, again while I don't exactly agree with the grants, I could kinda see how they might need government protection from animal rights/eco-terrorist types.
...need government to ensure Liberty and Justice.
Musk is going to have a target rich environment for his new department.
Why should the military care how much they spend? It’s not their money.
The DoD also doesn't have control over most of the rules that have turned their procurement process into such a cluster-fuck. Congress has spent decades adding to and tinkering with a needlessly complicated shitheap of redundant (and in some cases self-contradictory) laws which often have the net result of the government, including the military, spending $50-100 in order to prevent $5 of potential "waste" in some areas, and virtually ensuring waste and fraud in other areas.
Not to mention that the techniques that are used in government bookkeeping would get the offices of any publicly traded company raided by the SEC if they were to do the same things by the same rules and methods.
We're in the money
We're in the money, honey
Forget $10,00o hammers and the massive cost overruns and the constant tinkering with the great F-35, why that's nothing compared to the C-17.
After all, this is done in the name of protecting our freedumb and demockracy. The taxpayers just need to shut up and pay their taxes.
Besides this article has been declared disinformation by the current regime. The author, and entire Reason staff have been ordered to surrender themselves over to the FBI for questioning and prosecution.
Anyone caught reading this article is also guilty of spreading disinformation and will face prosecution under Section 101.
Have a good day.
Ironically the entire DoD is only 13% of taxes.
And the only real reason for having a Union of States government.
The rest is financed by the Fed.
"The C-17 is the workhorse of U.S. military airlifts. Capable of carrying heavier loads over longer distances than any other aircraft in the American arsenal" Have we retired all the C-5s?
Some of those C-5 and C-130 are probably being sold off. Calfires recently acquired a C-130 and converted it into a fire retardant bomber. Others such as Coulson have bought C-130 and even a 747 for fighting wild fires. Another outfit bought MD-10/11s for such use.
Makes ya wonder what ever happened to the Golden Fleece Award. Talk about the high hog at the trough. We just throw billions at the military but don't you ask for an extension on your health insurance. What a joke.
Wisconsin Senator William Proxmire!
Here's a man who can build C-17s for much less:
Ramy R/C C-17 Globemaster
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=50mhDqnklwM
To me it seems obvious that ridiculous charges like this are a secret form of black budgeting, perhaps a way to get over congressional oversight. Let's say the Pentagon wants to spend money on a particular project that they don't want congress to know about, not even the small committee that looks at stuff like black budget items. They can funnel money to a defense contractor with these seemingly ridiculous overcharges. Every one in a while someone will pick up on one, but that's going to be a drop in the ocean. And the secret project gets its funds.
Operational principles of remote sensing satellites have revolutionized how we perceive and monitor Earth. These technologies capture critical data that aid in everything from environmental monitoring to disaster response, cara kerja penginderaan jauh. By understanding the mechanics behind these satellites, we can better appreciate their role in advancing our knowledge and capabilities in various fields.