Defense Contractor Shkrelis The US Government By Jacking Up Prices On Sole-Source Components
from the forget-the-$400-hammers dept
Monopolies are everywhere, even in the Defending America™ business. Huffington Post's Zach Carter writes about a defense company that's being termed the "Martin Shkreli" of government contracting. In case you need reminding, Martin Shkreli is the hedge fund bro turned pharma kingpin who purchased a drug used by cancer and AIDS patients and raised its price from $14/pill to $750/pill. After an immense amount of backlash, Shkreli promised to lower the price, reneged on that promise, acquired the Wu Tang Clan's one-copy-only $1 million album, and otherwise engaged in personal and professional roguery, including smirking his way through a Congressional hearing on drug prices.
The Shkreli process is being used by a defense contractor to inflate prices on what appear to be common manufacturing components, but ones with very few suppliers. When this company steps in, the number of suppliers decreases to one and the component prices skyrocket. This company was spotted by a member of Congress, who made it public with a letter to his colleagues.
On Tuesday, Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) sent a letter to Secretary of Defense James Mattis and the Pentagon’s acting inspector general accusing defense contractor TransDigm Group of illegally overcharging the Department of Defense by acting as a “hidden monopolist.”
[...]
Khanna’s letter cited five specific aerospace parts the company had jacked the price on, including a “cable assembly” that went from $1,737.03 to $7,863.00 after being acquired by TransDigm. The price of a TransDigm “motor rotor” soared from $654.46 to $5,474.00.
According to the company's SEC filings, it's particularly good at monopolizing component parts. It estimates 80% of its sales come from parts where it's the sole supplier. But raising prices may be one of the only things it's good at. Carter's story quotes from a Washington Post story where TransDigm parts were the cause of a "record number" of Air Force drone crashes. Not only did taxpayers overpay for the components, but they're on the hook for the resulting damage.
Ten Reapers were badly damaged or destroyed in 2015, at least twice as many as in any previous year, according to Air Force safety data.
The Reaper’s mishap rate — the number of major crashes per 100,000 hours flown — more than doubled compared with 2014. The aircraft, when fully equipped, cost about $14 million each to replace.
The Air Force’s other primary drone model, the Predator, also suffered heavy casualties.
An older and less capable version of the Reaper, the Predator was involved in 10 major accidents last year. That’s the most since 2011, when the U.S. military was simultaneously surging troops into Afghanistan and withdrawing ground forces from Iraq.
Behind the expensive crashes is a TransDigm part: a starter-generator that's failing with alarming frequency. Once that dies, the battery goes with it, causing the drone to "go stupid," according to the head of Air Force's drone operations. However, the Air Force seems less than concerned about the problematic part and the ensuing expensive crashes. Loooooooots of military funding makes this a non-issue, apparently. After all, we (the taxpayers) can always buy more drones!
Although the drone pilot shortage has compelled the Air Force to reduce the number of combat missions, Otto said the aircraft mishaps have not forced additional cuts. The Air Force has enough replacement drones on hand, he said, and already had orders in place to buy dozens more Reapers over the next few years.
“Any impact to operations has been negligible to barely noticeable,” he said.
We're supposed to be insulated from this sort of pricing by Pentagon rules and policies. Sole suppliers are supposed to disclose costs to the government in order to prevent excessive markups. TransDigm's not interested in playing by these rules. Matthew Stoller of the New America Foundation calls its evasive maneuvers and exploitative pricing "monopoly power performance art." TransDigm has apparently built a network of shell corporations to hide the components' origination, allowing it to bypass the Pentagon's form of consumer protection.
Khanna’s letter argued that TransDigm evaded these rules by setting up “a network of captive distributors” ― middlemen who sold to the government, creating the illusion of an actual competitive market. [...] No less than 12 TransDigm subsidiaries failed to disclose to the Defense Department in their procurement filings that they were owned by TransDigm, according to Khanna.
This is nothing new to companies who feel held back by government regulation. As we've seen before, sellers of weaponized code (malware, spyware, exploits) have routed around sales bans by using middlemen and shell corps to put their tools in the hands of governments with long histories of human rights abuses. In this case, it's the good ol' US of A doing the purchasing, but paying far more than it should, and being unable to do much about it, thanks to the obscuring of part sources.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: defense contracting, monopolies, ro khanna
Companies: transdigm group
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The trick is to get them to prosecute, their jobs and lives are on the line if they misstep, you would likely be just as afraid as they are. Citizens do not get politicians elected, corporations with deep pockets for funding them do!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The problem is that the US government is REALLY reluctant to actually apply that to people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Nah, shit flows downhill. Someone under him/her will take the fall. The main job of the CEO is to suck-up to the board. How much he/she is paid depends on how how well they do that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
---overcharging the Department of Defense by acting as a “hidden monopolist.”---
Looks like they were hiding in plain sight to me. The openness of the corruption in the American government is effortless to see for those willing to look. The old game of "The Emperors New Clothes" is alive and well. Move along citizen, nothing to see here, go over there instead and check out those guys on the "other side" are trying to do something wrong. You should protest that, you can't let them get away with that!
I see it clearly, the question is "why do most of you not see it?"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: hiding in plain sight
The root problem is caused by stupidity and mismanagement at the Pentagon, that has been standard practice for 75 years.
Anyone thinking this TransDigm item is a big deal or even newsworthy-- has no clue how Pentagon contracting, budgeting and accounting actually work.
Each year Congress requires DoD to pass a full financial audit -- DoD has never passed one yet -- never even come close to passing a fair audit of its books. Every year, the Defense Inspector General dispatched dozens of auditors to the military's financial and accounting centers. Every year, they report back that the job couldn't be done. Defense Department records were in such disarray and were so lacking in documentation that any attempt would be futile. In one yearly inspection, the Inspector General told Congress that his auditors stopped counting after finding $2.3 Trillion in unsupported entries (phony pencil-whipped accounting records) made to dishonestly force financial data to agree on paper.
Pentagon contracting has always been a mess -- plenty of opportunity for savvy businessmen to legally make big profits.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: hiding in plain sight
You like so many other willful idiots seem to think that incompetence is the name of the game. It is not, they are very competent at what they do, they are just experts and suckering you into thinking that this is incompetence.
It is straight up corruption, they know it and swim around in it like they are at a pool party.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: hiding in plain sight
What is worthy of notice? The simple fact that there is another open bit of data you can use when arguing against corrupt government and corporate behaviors.
In some particular communities, like here at TD, most everyone "sees it". Huge swaths of the populace assume it regardless. We aren't that stupid and you have no special insight. You seem to think this is a sudden surprise to everyone but yourself. Lol. And of course, if this particular bit of news was never posted or discussed, we'd all be equally ignorant for that too.
Maybe you should spread your enlightenment in places where people deny this shit happens. Your argumentative position would be appropriate then.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Read the EULA!
I guess, like too many of us, they didn't read the contract before clicking "Buy now"... "PROVIDED “AS IS” WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. THE ENTIRE RISK AS TO THE QUALITY AND PERFORMANCE IS WITH YOU. SHOULD THE PRODUCT PROVE DEFECTIVE, YOU ASSUME THE COST OF ALL NECESSARY SERVICING, REPAIR OR CORRECTION."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Read the EULA!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Read the EULA!
Certainly shouldn't anyway.
"Says here that if something breaks due to poor quality and/or manufacturing it's entirely on us, and you won't be responsible."
"Standard contract terms."
"Hmm... no. How about, if something breaks it is your fault, or we find someone else to hand this multi-million dollar contract to?"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Read the EULA!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Disclosure of costs:
Materials to make the part: $1.75
Invoicing and crafting costs: $5.38
For everything else: Priceless rounded down to $5736.43
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
- Paying the specialists who can navigate the government tendering system and produce a proper bid for this one tender alone: $20,000
- Paying an engineer to certify that our part will meet the G-load, temperature and vibration requirements specified in the contract: $20,000.
- But since we only win the contract one in three times, multiply the above figures by 3x.
- And since production run start-up costs are normally amortized over hundreds of thousands of an item produced, but you're only ordering *25*, we'll bill the production run start-up costs up front: $20,000.
- Plus the usual amount to pay the regular staff, the cleaners, the rent on the office, the phone bills...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I prefer "We need to spend wisely" or "Spend efficiently". At what point would it be cheaper to buy parts from Mexico, or make them in house?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Shkreli's good work
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
T-Shirt Suggestion
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
From Tractors to Defense to Pharma to...
Any rational person would see there's a problem with capitalism as enacted within the borders of the U.S..
It's not free market (no such thing really), it's captured markets played by a few very deep pocketed industries.
Short term gain by investors shouldn't even be on the table in a rational world when it comes to Health care and then nations security (health care should be treated as part of security, i.e. can't have enabled bodies if those bodies can't pass boot camp).
How do we as a nation come together and purge the captured politicians that can't enact legislation or put in place regulations if they (and we) know that those deep pocketed industries will put money into opposing their elections?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
uMMM lets go back to the OLD DAYS
NO PROTECTIONISM ON ANY GOVERNMENTAL PRODUCT/PROJECT.
OPEN BIDDING, CONTINUOUS BIDDING for IMPROVED products..
NO government ELECTED EMPLOYEE can be Part or parcel of a company or service to Supply the gov.
ANY part created for a Government made product is OPEN SOURCED, INSTANTLY. and NO copyright will be Given, Used, and all previous will be REMOVED.
And all information will be OPEN for viewing/evaluation/...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: uMMM lets go back to the OLD DAYS
This is defense we're talking about. This would make maintaining secrecy on the next generation of nukes, stealth fighters, drones and defensive structures rather difficult.
And it doesn't get rid of corruption when there's a favored vendor. Like in the Space Shuttle Main Engine (SSME) competition. From a post many years ago on Usenet:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: uMMM lets go back to the OLD DAYS
All airplane developers sent in Info and on what they could do, with SPECS the gov. gave them..
ANYONE could BID the contract...and there WERE FEW OVER RUNS..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So what's the problem?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]