Qtec
06-29-2011, 01:24 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Mega-defense contractor Boeing has been vastly overcharging the Army for basic spare parts, forcing taxpayers to pay more than twice the “fair and reasonable” price, according to an audit conducted by the Department of Defense’s Office of Inspector General and leaked to the Project on Government Oversight. The IG looked at spare parts sales to the Corpus Christi, Texas Army Depot for two helicopters systems and found some egregious price gouging, such as charging $71 for a metal pin that should cost just 4 cents:
$644.75 for a small gear smaller than a dime that sells for $12.51: more than a 5,100 percent increase in price. $1,678.61 for another tiny part, also smaller than a dime, that could have been bought within DoD for $7.71: a 21,000 percent increase. $71.01 for a straight, thin metal pin that DoD had on hand, unused by the tens of thousands, for 4 cents: an increase of over 177,000 percent.
While this case is cause for concern in its own right, it speaks to a bigger question of the Pentagon’s reliance on private contractors. <span style='font-size: 14pt'>Even without Boeing’s price gouging, the IG’s office expected Boehing to charge a “34 percent surcharge fee for overhead, general and administrative costs, and profit, according to the audit report.</span>” And many of the parts studied in the report were available from the Pentagon’s internal procurement agencies at lower costs: </div></div>
link (http://thinkprogress.org/security/2011/06/28/256216/boeing-price-gouging-army/)
Anyone think its only Boehing doing it?
Q
$644.75 for a small gear smaller than a dime that sells for $12.51: more than a 5,100 percent increase in price. $1,678.61 for another tiny part, also smaller than a dime, that could have been bought within DoD for $7.71: a 21,000 percent increase. $71.01 for a straight, thin metal pin that DoD had on hand, unused by the tens of thousands, for 4 cents: an increase of over 177,000 percent.
While this case is cause for concern in its own right, it speaks to a bigger question of the Pentagon’s reliance on private contractors. <span style='font-size: 14pt'>Even without Boeing’s price gouging, the IG’s office expected Boehing to charge a “34 percent surcharge fee for overhead, general and administrative costs, and profit, according to the audit report.</span>” And many of the parts studied in the report were available from the Pentagon’s internal procurement agencies at lower costs: </div></div>
link (http://thinkprogress.org/security/2011/06/28/256216/boeing-price-gouging-army/)
Anyone think its only Boehing doing it?
Q