Boeing pocketed millions by overcharging Army, IG report finds

Boeing Co. overcharged the U.S. Army by about $13 million for Apache and Chinook helicopter parts, according to a Pentagon inspector general report obtained by the Project on Government Oversight. Full Story »

Posted by Jon Mitchell
Tags Help
Stats Help
# Tweets: 9 (as of 2011-06-30)
Editorial Help
Posted by: Posted by Jon Mitchell - Jun 30, 2011 - 12:14 PM PDT
Content Type: Article
Edit Lock: This story can be edited
Edited by: Jon Mitchell - Jun 30, 2011 - 12:19 PM PDT
Jon Mitchell
3.9
by Jon Mitchell - Jul. 1, 2011

Enterprising summary of a revealing report. This is important information for taxpayers.

See Full Review » (10 answers)
Jack Dinkmeyer
3.3
by Jack Dinkmeyer - Jun. 30, 2011

Another story about over-the-top fraud by another over-the-top fraudulent government supplier. This is going end up being the SOP BS PR manoeuver: first, the usual dustup; followed by a government official assuaging our concerns; and ending with Boeing hiring government official at big money. Want to bet Boeing would scream “Buy American!” if government started buying AirBus?

Boeing charged $1,626.49 for a roller part available from inventory for $7.71? Before getting to P.O.’d, just remember. Inventory doesn’t have those high priced lobbyists on its payroll as does Boeing.

See Full Review » (19 answers)
Dwight Rousu
3.8
by Dwight Rousu - Jul. 1, 2011

After 40 years working for The Boeing Company, this story does not necessarily surprise me, but this short report is a bit lacking in details. I suspect the Army people doing oversight are underfunded for doing a good job for taxpayers, which helps channel funds to the corporate political donors.

All the employees are required to take frequent ethics refresher courses; how could this happen? ;-)

See Full Review » (12 answers)
Randy Morrow
3.4
by Randy Morrow - Jul. 1, 2011

The report also found that the Army could fulfill more than $200 million worth of current and future Boeing orders with its own inventory, but that there are no Pentagon ... More »

See Full Review » (11 answers)

Comments on this story Help (BETA)

NT Rating | My Rating

Ratings

3.6

Good
from 5 reviews (52% confidence)
Quality
3.6
Facts
4.0
Fairness
3.2
Information
3.0
Insight
3.0
Sourcing
3.5
Style
3.2
Accuracy
5.0
Balance
3.0
Context
3.5
Depth
3.0
Enterprise
4.0
Expertise
3.0
Originality
3.0
Relevance
4.2
Transparency
3.0
Responsibility
3.0
Popularity
3.5
Recommendation
3.8
Credibility
3.0
# Reviews
2.5
# Views
5.0
# Likes
1.0
# Emails
1.0
More
How our ratings work »
(See these related stories.)

Links Help

No links yet. Please review this story to add some!