10 Contractors argue that a host of items are commercial in the hopes that the government will agree to buy those items without any information from the contractors about the real cost or prices of the goods or services. 9 In many cases this definition has been allowed to apply to sole-source contracts, where there is no price competition. The current definition of commercial items includes items that are вЂњoffered for sale, lease, or licenseвЂќ to the general public-even if a non-governmental customer has never actually purchased it-and items that are вЂњof a typeвЂќ that is commercially available.

ThatвЂ™s not always true in practice, however. 6 Congress has created additional вЂњexceptionsвЂќ as well, 7 including one for a so-called вЂњcommercial item.вЂќ 8 Items designated as commercial are exempt from certain taxpayer protection requirements because, at least in theory, the item is sold to the public, and market forces ensure fair and reasonable prices. Congress continues to raise that threshold, reducing the number of goods and services for which the Defense Department and other agencies can obtain cost and pricing data. 5 Yet contractors only have to submit that data if the acquisition contract is above a certain price threshold. The Truthful Cost or Pricing Data statute (formerly known as the Truth in Negotiations Act) is meant to require contractors to submit certified current, accurate, and complete cost and pricing data to the government. The public may assume the prices contractors offer to the government are fair and reasonable. Pressure from the defense industry, Congress, and some Pentagon insiders on the Defense Department to speed up acquisition through risky buying methods, including one known as Other Transaction Authority, makes excessive prices more likely.

While the inspector general report focuses on excessive overcharges by TransDigm, the companyвЂ™s behavior demonstrates the many ways CongressвЂ™s recent changes to acquisition laws have legalized price gouging and increased the risks of waste and abuse. 3 In another case Boeing overcharged the government $13 million for 18 parts. 2 Examples of overcharges by other companies include the Army being forced to pay Anham LLC $71 for a pin that should have cost less than a nickel, and $80 for a drain pipe segment that should have cost $1.41. 1 The Project On Government Oversight has repeatedly documented that excessive overcharges are the sign of a widespread problem in the acquisition process that hamstrings the ability of the government to negotiate fair and reasonable prices. and European aircraft part manufacturers, might be using its position as a sole-source supplier for a number of military contracts to act as a вЂњhidden monopolistвЂќ and charge excessive prices. The inspector general conducted the investigation after being asked by Members of Congress, who had become concerned that the TransDigm Group, having purchased numerous U.S. A recent report by the Department of Defense Inspector General shows that contracting laws are insufficient to make sure the military pays fair prices for the goods and services it purchases.

Gaia project using transdims