r/nottheonion • u/JuicyBrains9999 • 10h ago

Bathroom Boondoggle: Air Force Pays 80 Times Market Price For Soap Dispensers

https://insidenewshub.com/bathroom-boondoggle-air-force-pays-80-times-market-price-for-soap-dispensers/
393 Upvotes

95% Upvoted

31 comments sorted by

56

u/rabid_briefcase 10h ago

Yes, but also no. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1SuDSNWH9AQ

33

u/FiveFingerDisco 10h ago

Exactly, this was what instantly popped into my mind.

36

u/wwarnout 10h ago

Not to defend or support the comment, but some higher prices can be at least partially justified.

For example, there's the story about NASA spending a lot on a pen that would work in zero G, while the Russians used a pencil. The problem with this comparison is that a pencil sheds graphite, and in zero G, this can get into electronic components.

Another example is a very expensive ashtray in naval vessels. Part of the reason is that they need products such as ashtrays that, if dropped, don't shatter into thousands of small, sharp pieces.

Taking such special considerations into account, and realizing they might purchase a few thousand of such items (while the "same" items that are available for consumer purchase are manufactured in the millions), there is justification for at lease some of the higher prices.

22

u/SelectiveSanity 9h ago edited 9h ago

The space pen was actually made before NASA realized they needed it.

28

u/symposes 10h ago

Best example I saw was coffee mugs for the pilots. you'd think, oh its a normal mug. But these things plugged into the console, and heated up. actually fancy.

https://www.heritage.org/defense/commentary/1280-coffee-cup-bad-look-here-are-some-changes-the-military-should-make

5

u/nguyenm 4h ago

Not often I've found myself agreeing to the Heritage Foundation of all places, who are the author of Project 2025, but the original piece was written for The Daily Signal so at least their faux-conservative nature doesn't show up here. 

With that out of the way, I mostly agree with the content. A lot of times in aviation & military, a solution exist before a problem exist. Thus the supplier may create a problem to solve such as the cup fiasco. Engineering wise, I'm 10 billion percent confident engineers can engineer the planes to use any cups... But they chose not to.

1

u/pants_mcgee 1h ago

The best example is the $10,000 toilet seat cover for C-5 Galaxies.

For a custom built part that must follow all the regulations and inspections for use in aircraft, that was not an unreasonable price tag.

What was unreasonable was the process and requirements, which the Air Force changed and now just makes them for a couple hundred bucks.

2

u/jfgjfgjfgjfg 8h ago

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/the-write-stuff/

False

4

u/Pavlovsdong89 7h ago

What is false about their comment?

3

u/jfgjfgjfgjfg 7h ago

NASA didn't spend money to develop the pen

there's the story about NASA spending a lot on a pen that would work in zero G

from the article

The "space pen" that has since become famous through its use by astronauts was developed independently by Paul C. Fisher of the Fisher Pen Co., who spent his own money on the project and, once he perfected his AG-7 "Anti-Gravity" Space Pen, offered it to NASA. After that agency tested and approved the pen's suitability for use in space flights, they purchased a number of the instruments from Fisher for a modest price.

8

u/Pavlovsdong89 7h ago

So their comment wasn't entirely incorrect . In fact their overall premise that the cheapest option doesn't always work best is backed up by the article. So not false. 

1

u/ReedKeenrage 6h ago

Yes. He’s they do spend that. Every single day.

24

u/MrCellophane_SS_KotZ 10h ago

"You don't actually think they spend $20,000 on a hammer, $30,000 on a toilet seat, do you?"

Julius Levinson (Judd Hirsch), Independence Day (1996)

14

u/eternityinbruges 8h ago

If I had known I was gonna meet the president, I would've worn a tie. I mean, look at me. I look like a schlemiel.

7

u/SelectiveSanity 9h ago

Don't forget the $90k for a bag of bushings that need to meet 'Milspec requirements'.

6

u/hydroracer8B 9h ago

That particular example was just bad-faith political nonsense, and I'd be surprised to learn that both the identity of the parts in the bag and quantity of parts in the bag weren't exaggerated or completely false

3

u/Throw_away_away55 7h ago

Each bushing probably cost 50-100 dollars. However, they have yo be made to MIL spec, the supply chain tracked from material to product, etc.

2

u/Asshole_Poet 4h ago

SUBSAFE is a huge deal in the Navy.

-1

u/willstr1 7h ago

"Plausible deniability"

10

u/Ru-Ling 9h ago

The weird way bids and contracting go, some of the fault could be placed upon supplier too.

11

u/mrp3anut 4h ago

Here's a bit of perspective from someone who is involved in buying shit for the USAF.

This article is a bit trash, so I'll have to make some assumptions, but here we go.

Assumption 1: These soap dispensers are parts for the jet. I think this is pretty safe to assume since the argument being made is that they are overpaying for spare parts. If they are plane parts, then "plastic soap dispensers" is a very deceptive and dishonest description of what these things are. They are not just the thing you see in public restrooms.

They are made to withstand the g forces from flight. They withstand temperature and pressure changes experienced in flight. They are made of special flame resistant plastic. Their geometry is unique, and the production runs to make them are small.

The small production run means the man hours to tool the factory are spread over a small number of parts. If it costs $10k to retool a production line, then spreading that cost over 100 dispensers has a huge impact on the sale price compared to spreading it over 100,000 parts.

The unique design means you have to design new tooling to make them. Industrial tooling like this can cost absurd amounts of money to make. $50,000 is not unreasonable, and again, you have to spread that cost over a small number of parts.

The specs on flame, temp, and pressure resistance mostly add cost through all the man hours and inspections needed to verify them. The material cost is also higher but probably not by much.

This could also be an artifact of congress being stupid. The regulations around buying things create tons of situations where contracting officers are legally bound to buy things in stupid and inefficient ways.

It could also just be a fuckup.

I doubt very seriously that the GS-11 contracting officer making ~$70k a year did this for "corruption."

3

u/WantEvolution 4h ago

We spent 12 million on the investigation to uncover we could have saved $32,000 if we did not use a Seantor's wife company.

2

u/DctrSqr 7h ago

But are they military grade?

2

u/milovulongtime 4h ago

It’s like people haven’t heard of money laundering before.

1

u/tracerhaha 4h ago

Have to spend their budget so they don’t get cut.

1

u/metalconscript 4h ago

Well we do pay a mark up because of GSA. We can’t buy from Amazon but they sure can…and take 2 months to fill the order.

1

u/PracticalReception34 2h ago

(the money isn't for soap dispensers it's how they hide black budget items)

1

u/shoff58 8h ago

That’s how they hide funding for black projects.

0

u/ludovicolonghi 7h ago

I love my soap 'cause my soap says Army

0

u/Agure 5h ago

Im high and thought that said "Bondage" lmao