Contact  |  Baseops Wiki  |  Military Pay  |  Military Discounts  |  Air  Force UPT  |  Aviation  Jobs   |  Aviation  Medicine   |  Pilot Supplies  |  Donate

Jump to content


Advertisement
- - - - -

Tax Dollars Hard at Work: Earmark Puts $17,000 Pans on Army Craft

Congress Helicopters

21 replies to this topic

#1 kchsload

    Crew Dawg

  • Registered User
  • PipPip
  • 76 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Taipei

Posted 18 May 2012 - 10:37 PM

Posted Image

Phoenix Products, a drip pan maker, whose owners are donors to Representative Harold Rogers.


By ERIC LICHTBLAU

WASHINGTON — In the 1980s, the military had its infamous $800 toilet seat. Today, it has a $17,000 drip pan.

Posted Image


Thanks to a powerful Kentucky congressman who has steered tens of millions of federal dollars to his district, the Army has bought about $6.5 million worth of the “leakproof” drip pans in the last three years to catch transmission fluid on Black Hawk helicopters. And it might want more from the Kentucky company that makes the pans, even though a similar pan from another company costs a small fraction of the price: about $2,500.

The purchase shows the enduring power of earmarks, even though several scandals have prompted efforts in Congress to rein them in. And at a time when the Pentagon is facing billions of dollars in cutbacks — which include shrinking the Army, trimming back purchases of fighter jets and retiring warships — the eye-catching price tag for a small part has provoked sharp criticism.

The Kentucky company, Phoenix Products, got the job to produce the pans after Representative Harold Rogers, a Republican who is now the chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, added an earmark to a 2009 spending bill. While the earmark came before restrictions were placed on such provisions for for-profit companies, its outlays have continued for the last three years.

The company’s owners are political contributors to the congressman, who has been called the “Prince of Pork” by The Lexington Herald-Leader for his history of delivering federal contracts to donors and others back home.

Military officials have said the pans work well, and Mr. Rogers defended them.

“It’s important that Congress do what it can to provide our military with the best resources to ensure their safety and advance our missions abroad, while also saving taxpayer dollars wherever possible,” Mr. Rogers said in a statement. “These dripping pans help accomplish both of these goals.”

But Bob Skillen, the chief engineer at a small manufacturer called VX Aerospace, which has a plant in North Carolina, said he was shocked to see what the Army was spending for the Black Hawk drip pans. He designs drip pans that his company sells to the military for a different helicopter, the UH-46, for about $2,500 per pan, or about one-eighth the price that his Kentucky competitor charges. The pans attach beneath the roof of the helicopter to catch leaking transmission fluid before it can seep into the cabin.

“It’s not a supercomplex part,” said Mr. Skillen, an aerospace engineer who used to work for the Navy. “As a taxpayer, I’m just like, this isn’t right.”

He took his concerns to members of Congress, to military contracting officials and, finally, to a government watchdog group, the nonpartisan Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. The group requested documents from the government under the Freedom of Information Act last year to learn more about the contract.

The Army turned over some information but said it did not have any specifications or designs for the drip pans that might explain the price. That was considered proprietary information held by Phoenix Products.

Melanie Sloan, who leads the Washington group, said she was troubled by the secrecy surrounding what seemed to be a routine parts order. “How is it possible that the government can’t say why it ended up with a drip pan that was this much money?” she asked in an interview.

A Congressional aide said that Mr. Rogers inserted the earmark after Army officials went to him with concerns about fluids that were leaking into the cabins of Black Hawks, splattering not only crew members but also wounded soldiers being airlifted to hospitals. “The Army came to the boss and said this is an issue,” said the aide, who spoke on the condition of anonymity in discussing internal communications.

The Army, however, said it was simply following a budget directive from Congress. Mr. Rogers’s earmark came before House members informally agreed to ban such provisions to for-profit companies.

“Congress mandated a leakproof transmission drip pan,” said Dov Schwartz, an Army spokesman. The contract was awarded without competitive bids because Phoenix was the only company deemed “approved and certified” for the work, he said. “The number of people that make leakproof transmission dripping pans is few and far between,” Mr. Schwartz said, adding that the steel required for such pans is more costly than the plastic used in other versions.

In the last three years, the Army has purchased about $6.5 million worth of the “leakproof” drip pans.

As of October, the Army had bought 374 drip pans from Phoenix Products at an average cost of $17,000 — discounted from the company’s usual price of $19,000, Mr. Schwartz said. He said the Army might get more pans if financing is approved.

Tom Wilson, who owns Phoenix Products, defended his company’s pans as better constructed and more durable than others on the market. Asked what made them so costly, he declined to discuss specifics, saying that disclosure of the company’s custom design could help competitors or even aid America’s enemies.

Mr. Wilson and his wife, Peggy, who is the president of the company, have been frequent contributors to Mr. Rogers’s political committee, as well as to Republican groups. The company has paid at least $600,000 since 2005 to a Washington lobbying firm, Martin Fisher Thompson & Associates, to represent its interests on federal contracting issues, records show.

Mr. Rogers, in turn, has been a strong supporter of the manufacturer. He has directed more than $17 million in work orders for Phoenix Products since 2000.

Mr. Wilson said he did not think that his company’s relationship with Mr. Rogers or its Washington connections were a major factor in the Army’s decision to buy his pan. His company got the work, he said, because its drip pan was “just simply a better product.”

But with the military facing $55 billion in budget cuts on Jan. 1 and Defense Department leaders warning of dire consequences, others are not so certain.

“You have to wonder,” said Ryan Alexander, the president of Taxpayers for Common Sense, a nonpartisan group. “Is the Pentagon really getting the message?”

Edited by kchsload, 18 May 2012 - 10:41 PM.







#2 gearpig

    Gray Beard

  • Supreme User
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,293 posts

Posted 19 May 2012 - 05:54 AM

It's easy for the public to concieve of an overpriced part when the price difference falls within dollar amounts they may have seen in thier accounts, the price of a car, household project, etc. You can work people into a frenzy over a percieved waste of $15,000.

But most do not know the practical difference between a 10 million dollar road construction project and a 20 million dollar project... a hundred million dollar aircraft or a two hundred million dollar aircraft. They have no idea what those numbers mean.

It's indicative of the problems with our system, but relatively speaking... it's barely worth mentioning.
"The smaller the mind, the greater the conceit." - Aesop

“Everything we hear is an opinion, not a fact. Everything we see is a perspective, not the truth.” - Marcus Aurelius

#3 Cap-10

    Gray Beard

  • Supreme User
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 991 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Here

Posted 19 May 2012 - 08:54 AM

View Postgearpig, on 19 May 2012 - 05:54 AM, said:

It's easy for the public to concieve of an overpriced part when the price difference falls within dollar amounts they may have seen in thier accounts, the price of a car, household project, etc. You can work people into a frenzy over a percieved waste of $15,000.

But most do not know the practical difference between a 10 million dollar road construction project and a 20 million dollar project... a hundred million dollar aircraft or a two hundred million dollar aircraft. They have no idea what those numbers mean.

It's indicative of the problems with our system, but relatively speaking... it's barely worth mentioning.


Not worth mentioning?

Assuming that boths parts are fairly equal at doing their job of catching fluid leaks: 17K - 2500 equals a difference of $14,500 per pan.

Army has bought 374...times the possible $14.5K savings = $5.4 Million...and that's just one ear-mark! Multiply that by 690 other DoD earmarks and it totals $3.8 Billion.

FY11 requested earmarks (both Democrat and Republican in total budget, not just DoD): a RCH below $130 BILLION!!

In a time of fiscal constraint, every dollar counts!

Cheers,

Cap-10
http://www.river-rats.org/

Hard work often pays of over time, but procrastination always pays off now!

Life as a drill status guardsman pilot is not all fine whiskey, leather recliners, ESPN, Cuban cigars and super hot 22 year old virgin hookers who have pussies that taste like strawberries (at least not 100% of the time and depending on the unit). - Rainman

#4 pawnman

    Gray Beard

  • Supreme User
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,523 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Rapid City, SD
  • Interests:Flying, computers, politics, and beer.

Posted 19 May 2012 - 01:46 PM

View PostCap-10, on 19 May 2012 - 08:54 AM, said:


Not worth mentioning?

Assuming that boths parts are fairly equal at doing their job of catching fluid leaks: 17K - 2500 equals a difference of $14,500 per pan.

Army has bought 374...times the possible $14.5K savings = $5.4 Million...and that's just one ear-mark! Multiply that by 690 other DoD earmarks and it totals $3.8 Billion.

FY11 requested earmarks (both Democrat and Republican in total budget, not just DoD): a RCH below $130 BILLION!!

In a time of fiscal constraint, every dollar counts!

Cheers,

Cap-10


Agreed. You always hear "well, this one thing doesn't matter in the big scheme of things."

I think of it like this: If my brother got himself in over his head on a mortgage, and owed $250,000, then he borrowed money from me...I'd be pretty pissed if I saw him at Red Lobster, even though that $50 is a drop in the bucket compared to the $250K he owes on the house.
Stupidity is like nuclear power. It can be used for good or evil...and you don't want to get it on you.

#5 BQZip01

    Gray Beard

  • Supreme User
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,339 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 19 May 2012 - 01:55 PM

Forget the "in the big scheme of things" argument, some aviation components much meet some pretty severe restrictions and, though I understand this cost IS inflated, I wonder how much a part like this SHOULD cost. It's not like it's the same oil pan in your car. Hypothetically, it could be something that needs to be checked every 100 flight hours and the $2500 component is a design that isn't as easily removable for inspection and faces higher corrosion problems. I don't know these to be true (helicopter bubbas, please chime in and help us fixed wing guys to understand), but I can see valid reasons to spend the $17K versus $2.5.
Toro: "BQZip beat me to it"
Rainman: "...it could easily be argued the BUFF is THE best combat aircraft of all time."

#6 HeloDude

    Gray Beard

  • Supreme User
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,505 posts

Posted 19 May 2012 - 02:16 PM

View Postpawnman, on 19 May 2012 - 01:46 PM, said:

...I'd be pretty pissed if I saw him at Red Lobster...


Your brother eats at Red Lobster?...pretty ghetto seafood IMO.

Agreed on what you said though. Same thing with those on welfare buying steaks, having cable, etc.

#7 czecksikhs

    Crew Dawg

  • Registered User
  • PipPip
  • 151 posts

Posted 19 May 2012 - 03:36 PM

View PostCap-10, on 19 May 2012 - 08:54 AM, said:


Not worth mentioning?

Army has bought 374...times the possible $14.5K savings = $5.4 Million...and that's just one ear-mark! Multiply that by 690 other DoD earmarks and it totals $3.8 Billion.

FY11 requested earmarks (both Democrat and Republican in total budget, not just DoD): a RCH below $130 BILLION!!

In a time of fiscal constraint, every dollar counts!



$5.4 million is less than 2 minutes of our deficit spending alone, not to mention what is actually covered by tax revenue. $3.8 billion goes in less than 19 hours. The budget can't and won't ever be fixed, so WGAS?

#8 gearpig

    Gray Beard

  • Supreme User
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,293 posts

Posted 19 May 2012 - 04:27 PM

View PostCap-10, on 19 May 2012 - 08:54 AM, said:


Not worth mentioning?

In a time of fiscal constraint, every dollar counts!

Cheers,

Cap-10


You're right, it was poor choice of words to convey my point. It does matter, but it seems for every story like this that generates a little outrage, thousands of others go unnoticed or unreported. The problem is so much larger and widespread that it seems hopelessly futile to devote any attention to one specific detail. Sorta like trying to fix the terrorism problem by putting one terrorist on trial at a time. I'm with czecksikhs, resigned to the fact that we are incapable of solving the problem and it will correct itself. The hard way.

Edited by gearpig, 19 May 2012 - 04:32 PM.

"The smaller the mind, the greater the conceit." - Aesop

“Everything we hear is an opinion, not a fact. Everything we see is a perspective, not the truth.” - Marcus Aurelius

#9 Majestik Møøse

    Flight Lead

  • Super User
  • PipPipPip
  • 273 posts

Posted 19 May 2012 - 04:48 PM

Standard Hal Rogers.

#10 pawnman

    Gray Beard

  • Supreme User
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,523 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Rapid City, SD
  • Interests:Flying, computers, politics, and beer.

Posted 19 May 2012 - 05:40 PM

View Postczecksikhs, on 19 May 2012 - 03:36 PM, said:



$5.4 million is less than 2 minutes of our deficit spending alone, not to mention what is actually covered by tax revenue. $3.8 billion goes in less than 19 hours. The budget can't and won't ever be fixed, so WGAS?


Point is, if we found and stopped even half of these, we'd be cutting the budget in meaningful but non-controversial ways, allowing a little more room for flexing on big ticket items.

If you're saving for a house, eating at McDonald's every day may seem like a drop in the bucket. But if you stop, by the end of the year you've saved over $3000. Do that for a whole series of little things, pretty soon you are talking real money.
Stupidity is like nuclear power. It can be used for good or evil...and you don't want to get it on you.

#11 czecksikhs

    Crew Dawg

  • Registered User
  • PipPip
  • 151 posts

Posted 19 May 2012 - 07:34 PM

View Postpawnman, on 19 May 2012 - 05:40 PM, said:


Point is, if we found and stopped even half of these, we'd be cutting the budget in meaningful but non-controversial ways, allowing a little more room for flexing on big ticket items.

If you're saving for a house, eating at McDonald's every day may seem like a drop in the bucket. But if you stop, by the end of the year you've saved over $3000. Do that for a whole series of little things, pretty soon you are talking real money.


Let's say 100% of the DOD earmarks Cap-10 mentioned, $130 Billion. (I didn't check if it is right, but it doesn't matter.) You cut $130 Billion and you have cut 26 days out of the year of what we spend above what tax revenues cover. Defense spending in the USA is a RCH less than 20% of the federal budget, so maybe getting rid of all earmarks will cut less than five months of what we spend out of pocket each year. Please don't misunderstand, it is dumb and will end. It just won't end because we get smart and align our spending with our revenue. It will end because we are forced to and it will be ugly.

#12 PapaJu

    Gray Beard

  • Supreme User
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,297 posts

Posted 19 May 2012 - 10:53 PM

So the article mentioned the no-bid contract thing to this company because it was the only "approved" one....that would fall on the Army and not the congressman in this case, no? Not that I think highly of the guy for having a hand in this.

#13 JarheadBoom

    Gray Beard

  • Supreme User
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,558 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Quagmire Weekend Flyer's Club
  • Interests:Airplanes, guns, booze, and other expensive endeavours
  • Qual:KC-10 Boom Operator

Posted 19 May 2012 - 11:01 PM

View PostBQZip01, on 19 May 2012 - 01:55 PM, said:

Forget the "in the big scheme of things" argument, some aviation components much meet some pretty severe restrictions and, though I understand this cost IS inflated, I wonder how much a part like this SHOULD cost. It's not like it's the same oil pan in your car. Hypothetically, it could be something that needs to be checked every 100 flight hours and the $2500 component is a design that isn't as easily removable for inspection and faces higher corrosion problems. I don't know these to be true (helicopter bubbas, please chime in and help us fixed wing guys to understand), but I can see valid reasons to spend the $17K versus $2.5.

It's not an oil pan like on a car, where it's a vital engine part that literally keeps the oil in the engine. It's a drip pan, whose sole reason for existence is to catch and route overboard any drips of gearbox oil/hydraulic fluid that leaks from the main gearbox and main rotor servos, so they don't fall into the cabin on crewmembers/pax/patients. I'm not a -60 guy, but I'm pretty sure the drip pan isn't a structural item, so there's no need for it to be CNC-machined from unobtainium to save a few ounces over a molded Kevlar, carbon fiber, or (gasp) fiberglass pan. The few .civ helicopters that I know of that have no-shit gearbox drip pans in the cabin, all use composites because they're non-structural.

Speaking as a former .mil helicopter mechanic, and current .civ helicopter mechanic... this does not pass the sniff check.


edit: spelling and grammar

Edited by JarheadBoom, 19 May 2012 - 11:03 PM.

I understand that long days, TDYs, deployments are part of the game. I get it, and I (and my family, frankly) don't mind executing that for valid reasons.

"These CBTs must be done for the third time this year so we all look really current for the next exercise" is not a valid reason.

-pawnman


#14 pawnman

    Gray Beard

  • Supreme User
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,523 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Rapid City, SD
  • Interests:Flying, computers, politics, and beer.

Posted 20 May 2012 - 05:37 AM

View Postczecksikhs, on 19 May 2012 - 07:34 PM, said:


Let's say 100% of the DOD earmarks Cap-10 mentioned, $130 Billion. (I didn't check if it is right, but it doesn't matter.) You cut $130 Billion and you have cut 26 days out of the year of what we spend above what tax revenues cover. Defense spending in the USA is a RCH less than 20% of the federal budget, so maybe getting rid of all earmarks will cut less than five months of what we spend out of pocket each year. Please don't misunderstand, it is dumb and will end. It just won't end because we get smart and align our spending with our revenue. It will end because we are forced to and it will be ugly.


Still, how much easier is it to solve the budget problem once you've essentially cut it in half?

Again, just like in your personal budget...each individual item may not seem like much, but start adding them together and you can start saving real money.
Stupidity is like nuclear power. It can be used for good or evil...and you don't want to get it on you.

#15 Victory103

    Crew Dawg

  • Registered User
  • PipPip
  • 57 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:TX, USA

Posted 20 May 2012 - 11:19 AM

JHBoom is correct, no structure support function. The access ports are better designed than the original and the pan is anodized with a nicely engraved Phoenix Products plate, but not 17k nice.
DUSTOFF

#16 Cell Dweller

    Crew Dawg

  • Registered User
  • PipPip
  • 135 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 20 May 2012 - 11:36 AM

View PostPapaJu, on 19 May 2012 - 10:53 PM, said:

So the article mentioned the no-bid contract thing to this company because it was the only "approved" one....that would fall on the Army and not the congressman in this case, no? Not that I think highly of the guy for having a hand in this.


It sounds like Rep. Rogers was able to sell the issue to the Army as an Urgent and Compelling Needs, even if it's been a problem for years. This allowed the Army to say 'we have a vendor that can meet this need, but we can't waste time researching the market.' It's acquisition in reverse. Happens quite a bit, particularly in small ticket items that have plenty of possible sources, but the service does not do its due diligence.
Sixty percent of the time it works ... every time.

#17 BADFNZ

    Gray Beard

  • Supreme User
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 526 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Mexico

Posted 20 May 2012 - 03:38 PM

I would kill for a Red Lobster in Del Rio.

#18 DFRESH

    Gray Beard

  • Supreme User
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 616 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 20 May 2012 - 05:04 PM

View PostBADFNZ, on 20 May 2012 - 03:38 PM, said:

I would kill for a Red Lobster in Del Rio.

But you would probably die from eating there. Eye for an eye I guess.
“Government is not reason. It is not eloquence. Government is force; like fire it is a dangerous servant -- and a fearful master.”
—George Washington, 1797

#19 The_Ginger

    Flight Lead

  • Super User
  • PipPipPip
  • 262 posts

Posted 20 May 2012 - 09:35 PM

View Postpawnman, on 19 May 2012 - 01:46 PM, said:


Agreed. You always hear "well, this one thing doesn't matter in the big scheme of things."

I think of it like this: If my brother got himself in over his head on a mortgage, and owed $250,000, then he borrowed money from me...I'd be pretty pissed if I saw him at Red Lobster, even though that $50 is a drop in the bucket compared to the $250K he owes on the house.


I like it...especially when I think about how some of that $17K used to be mine.

#20 Prozac

    Flight Lead

  • Supreme User
  • PipPipPip
  • 446 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:CONUS

Posted 21 May 2012 - 10:48 AM

The budget/earmark issue will not get fixed until congressional term limits are enacted and districts are re-drawn. Even then, there will be plenty of pork 'cause that's the nature of the system. What really pisses me off about stories like these though is how the politicians and contractors try to hide behind the flag. Oh dear, transmission fluid may drip onto our wounded warriors so lets throw a shit ton of cash to a bunch of greedy fvcks. Or, my personal favorite: Revealing the super secret production methodology that results in a $17000 drip pan would have the unfortunate side effect of aiding our terrorist enemies. In fact, we predict that within a year of accesing this sensitive technology, the Taliban would be in a position to mount a full scale invasion of the North American continent. Come on. It's a DRIP PAN. Even the $2500 version seems a bit excessive.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users