DefenseTech Military.com
  • Categories
  • Full Archives
  • Monthly Archives
  • About Defense Tech
Subscribe to RSS

About Defense Tech

Defense Tech exam­ines the inter­sec­tion of tech­nol­ogy and defense from every angle and pro­vides analy­sis on what’s ahead.

Tip Us Off

Tip for Defense Tech?

SEND IT!

It’s Confidential!

Categories

  • 'Canes
  • Afghan Update
  • Ammo and Munitions
  • Armor
  • Around the Globe
  • Av Week Extra
  • Axe in Iraq (and Elsewhere)
  • Bizarro
  • Blimps
  • Blog Bidness
  • Body Armor Blues
  • Bomb Squad
  • Brownshoes in Action
  • Bubbleheads, etc.
  • Cammo Green
  • Catch the "Buzz"
  • Chem-Bio
  • Civilian Apps
  • Cloak and Dagger
  • Commandos
  • Comms
  • Contingency Ops
  • Cops and Robbers
  • Cyber-warfare
  • Data Diving
  • Defense Tech Poll
  • Defense Tech Radio
  • Dissent Tech
  • Door Kickers
  • Drones
  • DT Administrivia
  • Eat DT's Dust
  • Extra! Extra!
  • Eye on China
  • Fast Movers
  • FCS Watch
  • Fire for Effect
  • FOS Files
  • Friday Funnies
  • Gadgets and Gear
  • Going Green
  • Grand Ole Osprey
  • Ground Vehicles
  • Guns
  • Homeland Security
  • In the Weeds with Eric
  • Info War
  • Iraq Diary
  • Jarhead Jazz
  • JSF Watch
  • Just War Theories
  • Lasers and Ray Guns
  • Less-lethal
  • Logistics
  • Los Alamos and Labs
  • M4 Monopoly
  • Medic!
  • Mercs
  • Missiles
  • Money Money Money
  • Most Wanted
  • MRAP Edge
  • Net-Centric
  • Nukes
  • Old Skool
  • Our Shrinking Planet
  • Planes, Copters, Blimps
  • Podcast
  • Politricks
  • Polmar's Perspective
  • Popular Mechanics
  • Rapid Fire
  • Raptor Watch
  • Red Team
  • Retro-Futuro
  • Robots
  • Roll Your Own
  • Sabra Tech
  • Ships and Subs
  • Snipertech
  • Soldier Systems
  • Space
  • Special Ops
  • Star Wars
  • Strategery
  • Stray Trons
  • Tactical Development
  • Terror Tech
  • The Deadlies
  • The Defense Biz
  • The Peoples' Site
  • The Sunday Paper
  • The Tanker Tango
  • The View from Av Week
  • Those Nutty Norks
  • Training and Sims
  • Trimble on the Case
  • Uncategorized
  • Video Lounge
  • War Update
  • Ward'z Wonderz
  • You can run…

Archives

  • November 2009
  • October 2009
  • September 2009
  • August 2009
  • July 2009
  • June 2009
  • May 2009
  • April 2009
  • March 2009
  • February 2009
  • January 2009
  • December 2008
  • November 2008
  • October 2008
  • September 2008
  • August 2008
  • July 2008
  • June 2008
  • May 2008
  • April 2008
  • March 2008
  • February 2008
  • January 2008
  • December 2007
  • November 2007
  • October 2007
  • September 2007
  • August 2007
  • July 2007
  • June 2007
  • May 2007
  • April 2007
  • March 2007
  • February 2007
  • January 2007
  • December 2006
  • November 2006
  • October 2006
  • September 2006
  • August 2006
  • July 2006
  • June 2006
  • May 2006
  • April 2006
  • March 2006
  • February 2006
  • January 2006
  • December 2005
  • November 2005
  • October 2005
  • September 2005
  • August 2005
  • July 2005
  • June 2005
  • May 2005
  • April 2005
  • March 2005
  • February 2005
  • January 2005
  • December 2004
  • November 2004
  • October 2004
  • September 2004
  • August 2004
  • July 2004
  • June 2004
  • May 2004
  • April 2004
  • March 2004
  • February 2004
  • January 2004
  • December 2003
  • November 2003
  • October 2003
  • September 2003
  • August 2003
  • July 2003
  • June 2003
  • May 2003
  • April 2003
  • March 2003
  • February 2003
  • January 2003

Home » Planes, Copters, Blimps » The $265 Million Misunderstanding

The $265 Million Misunderstanding

JSF-money.jpg

DT friend Bob Cox of the Fort Worth Star-Telegram’s new Sky Talk blog sent this lit­tle item in to us today.

All we can say is “ugh”…

Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Co. says it dis­cov­ered that it has over­charged the U.S. gov­ern­ment by $265 mil­lion for work on the F-​​35 Joint Strike Fighter pro­gram and will promptly refund the money with interest.

In a state­ment released this morn­ing the Fort Worth-​​based com­pany said it had recently dis­cov­ered “an inad­ver­tent billing error.” Actually, it appears to be the same error over and over. The com­pany had erro­neously billed the gov­ern­ment in each of the 11 billing peri­ods since the F-​​35 pro­gram launched in late 2001.

Lockheed said the error came in the way it processed invoices from the two major sub­con­trac­tors, Northrop Grumman and BAE Systems, but that the error was not the fault of those two companies.

Lockheed said it is in dis­cus­sions with the U.S. gov­ern­ment to deter­mine the appro­pri­ate amount of inter­est that should be paid and will repay the entire amount within a few days. The com­pany said the mat­ter should not have a mate­r­ial impact on Lockheed Martin Corp. finan­cial con­di­tion or its performance. 

– Christian

Share |

August 9th, 2007 | Planes, Copters, Blimps | 366826 Comments »http://defensetech.org/2007/08/09/the-265-million-misunderstanding/The+%24265+Million+Misunderstanding2007-08-09+16%3A51%3A34Ward You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

« « Pop Mech: Explosive Metal | DARPA Tech in the News » »

This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.

  1. Foreign.Boy says:
    August 9, 2007 at 12:41 pm

    Lockheed’s Stock before (UP and UP)
    After (UP)

    Reply
  2. EGA says:
    August 9, 2007 at 2:26 pm

    If true, this is remark­ably hon­est behav­ior for a cor­po­ra­tion. Perhaps the Defense Industry is get­ting the idea that end­less over­charges are ulti­mately destruc­tive to their own com­pany as well as their coun­try. Or.….maybe not.

    Reply
  3. Wayne Kingdom says:
    August 9, 2007 at 4:30 pm

    Why do we con­tinue to have these kind of “goof up’s
    in the USA government/contrack’s. I guess they are to busy try­ing to locate the weapon’s in Irack.

    Reply
  4. SSG Yankee Medic says:
    August 9, 2007 at 5:11 pm

    Maybe this will start a new trend in both the way the DoD mon­i­tors its pro­cure­ment con­tracts AND maybe more manufacturer’s will own up to cor­po­rate billing errors and over­charges. Breath not held.
    STILL, its refresh­ing to see some HONESTY left in the Military
    Industrial Complex as Eisenhower called it.

    Reply
  5. SSG Yankee Medic says:
    August 9, 2007 at 5:11 pm

    Maybe this will start a new trend in both the way the DoD mon­i­tors its pro­cure­ment con­tracts AND maybe more manufacturer’s will own up to cor­po­rate billing errors and over­charges. Breath not held.
    STILL, its refresh­ing to see some HONESTY left in the Military
    Industrial Complex as Eisenhower called it.

    Reply
  6. ohwilleke says:
    August 9, 2007 at 8:16 pm

    Clearly, there is a down­side to the mil­i­tary dis­taste for lis­ten­ing to accoun­tants. Aren’t there sup­posed to be gov­ern­ment employ­ees in charge of con­tract over­sight? Must we really rely of defense con­trac­tors them­selves to fess up to mas­sive over­pay­ments just when the feel like it and it won’t hurt their bot­tom line (although the last claim sounds sus­pi­ciously like that of a com­pany that is just paid hun­dreds of mil­lions of dol­lars to set­tle a law­suit but loudly pro­claims that it is not admit­ted to any wrongdoing).

    Reply
  7. SMSgt Mac says:
    August 9, 2007 at 9:48 pm

    I just HAD to come here after hear­ing this news at work today to see how this news was cov­ered and com­ment upon. I am encour­aged by the sen­si­ble, and quizzi­cal, com­ments from early posters and unsur­prised by the indignant

    Reply
  8. demophilus says:
    August 9, 2007 at 10:17 pm

    Well put, Sarge. Assuming that something’s bro­ken here, what is it, and how would you fix it?

    Reply
  9. SMSgt Mac says:
    August 9, 2007 at 11:35 pm

    Fortuately, I am not a bean counter on the pro­gram. I say that today with dou­ble sin­cer­ity for twice as many rea­sons.
    I will wait and see what comes out of this,

    Reply
  10. Lou says:
    August 10, 2007 at 8:13 am

    Just the tip of the ice­berg. If the audi­tors for the gov­ern­ment were to really look deep they may find that there are alot more pieces to the on-​​going problem.…Its pol­i­tics at its best. 265 mil­lion mis­take is pocket change to the wider scope.

    Reply
  11. TOny says:
    August 10, 2007 at 9:48 am

    It’s a project, regard­less of “billing” cer­tain payments/​profits are still pro­jected. The gov’t mak­ing pay­ments didn’t alarm any­one until some other invoices that were late came in. An aver­age low level A/​R wouldn’t pick this up, but the project leader respon­si­ble for the P/​L would.
    Them will­ing to pay with inter­est tells me they “reserved” their prof­its, instead of spend­ing it like a drunken sailor. Hey, it could be worse, they could have played the “wait and see” game. This puts hope in the indu­sti­ral mil­i­tary com­plex, IMHO.

    Reply
  12. Land Waster says:
    August 10, 2007 at 9:59 am

    I’m glad Hillary Clinton did not sub­mit her billing records to DOD for payment…

    Reply
  13. Jeff says:
    August 10, 2007 at 8:17 pm

    If the com­pany was Boeing instead of Lockheed there would be a con­gres­sional inves­ti­ga­tion and they’d be call­ing for the CEO’s res­ig­na­tion and prob­a­bly jail time for those directly at fault. I haven’t heard of any of this in the news. It sounds like some­one from Lockheed is in bed with some­one from Congress or the Senate.

    Reply
  14. Paul Grove says:
    August 11, 2007 at 2:23 am

    This reminds me of the early years of South-​​African democ­racy, where for­mer ANC cadre’s were hired as ‘con­sul­tants’ by gov­ern­ment offi­cials and then acci­den­tally added a extra zero on their con­sul­tancy fee when billing time came. I’m not kid­ding, one of them once used that excuse dur­ing a health dept. mis­man­age­ment scandal.

    Reply
  15. Sean says:
    August 11, 2007 at 6:19 am

    I hope this was under AFOSI inves­ti­ga­tion and that they were fined and warned. A mis­take? It is a shame that fraud is so ram­pant, espe­cially in larger contracts.

    Reply
  16. Sean says:
    August 11, 2007 at 6:24 am

    Government con­tracts con­tinue to be unsat­is­fac­to­rily mon­i­tored and scru­ti­nized. Fraud inves­ti­ga­tions, alle­ga­tions and cor­rup­tion have been ram­pant since the begin­ning of time. It is time to clean this up, and pros­e­cute and sev­erly fine cor­po­ra­tions for their “mis­takes”. I am tired of hear­ing “oops” we made a mis­take. If it hadn’t been noticed by some­one else or they thought it might be inves­ti­gated, I doubt we would have ever heard of it.

    Reply
  17. Sean says:
    August 11, 2007 at 6:26 am

    and also…no won­der they offered to pay it back with interest…if found guilty in court, they could be fined up to 3x the dis­crep­ancy. I know the inter­est is less than that, hence why they make it look like that are doing the right thing.

    Reply
  18. dave says:
    August 11, 2007 at 1:20 pm

    For years Boeing has done its best to be eth­i­cal and has quickly dis­closed when mis­takes were made. However, while they were open and honnest about such mis­takes, they were get­ting skew­ered by the pub­lic and media while other com­pa­nies con­tin­ued to act uneth­i­cally and hide it. It is good to see that Lockheed is try­ing to turn the cor­ner. Instead of focus­ing on these com­pa­nies that have proven they are polic­ing them­selves, more att­ten­tion needs to be paid to other com­pa­nies such as foriegn owned com­pa­nies that are buy­ing up greater and greater per­cent­ages of our mil­i­tary indus­trial capa­bil­ity and com­pa­nies that cur­rently hold mil­i­tary contracts.

    Reply
  19. david says:
    August 12, 2007 at 11:57 pm

    this is one in a hun­dred that we don’t know about
    where con­trac­tors are F**King the tax pay­ers
    and poor over site because it don’t come out of there pock­ets! we need change in gov­er­ment period
    point blank!

    Reply
  20. William Bond says:
    August 13, 2007 at 7:39 am

    Been there, seen this. Problem is in the offi­cers that are the TRCOs (Technical Representative of the Contracting Officer). The need to be held account­able and informed that if they over­see a con­tract they can NEVER work for that com­pany. I saw the smae kind of thing when I was work­ing onthe GPS sys­tem. We got a soft­ware release that cre­ated 50% more defects than it cleared and the TRCO told me “The way the con­tract is writ­ten, we have to take what­ever they (IBM)sends us”. Two weeks later he seper­ated (on a Friday) and went to work(on Monday)…Where? Take a Big Guess!

    Reply
  21. Judas Isgood says:
    August 14, 2007 at 6:24 pm

    Y’all always talk­ing about tax pay­ers money. Why don’t tax pay­ers advice gov­ern­ment to use funds for human devel­op­ment instead of human destruc­tion? Why must they invest huge sums of money on weapons instead of mak­ing peace ini­tia­tives. What all Americans think about is WAR WAR, whereas, peo­ple else­where are dying of star­va­tion. USE YOUR WISDOM NOW COS EVEN THE GREATEST COUNTRY IN THE WORLD WILL FALL ONE DAY. God is watch­ing how you guys are uti­liz­ing the pros­per­ity He has given you.

    Reply
  22. B628537 says:
    August 17, 2007 at 8:37 am

    This plane was essen­tially designed to keep mil­i­tary cor­po­rate con­glom­er­ates like Lockheed in busi­ness, but not a plane the mil­i­tary really has a need for. It is on par in per­for­mance with the F-​​18, not as stealthy as the F-​​22, and is more dam­ag­ing on run­ways than any other plane. It eats fuel like a hog and can­not man­age to meet the mil­i­tary specs on com­bat range with­out refu­el­ing imme­di­ately after take off. The “B” ver­sion has a for­ward fan that is too intri­cate and com­plex, mak­ing it prone to mechan­i­cal fail­ure at the crit­i­cal moments on take­offs and land­ings. It is an air­craft is being sold on the con­text of ver­sa­til­ity, yet doesn’t do any­thing any bet­ter than the planes it is meant to replace. On top of that, the costs of pro­duc­tion has now climbed on the F-​​35 to where it as every bit as expen­sive as the far supe­rior F-​​22 to make. The mil­i­tary ought to wise up and dump this piece of junk, and stop let­ting the cor­po­rate world dic­tat­ing to the Pentagon what the mil­i­tary needs.

    Reply
  23. FidelGonzales says:
    August 29, 2007 at 10:38 am

    The ulti­mate guar­an­tee to any peace ini­tia­tive is a pow­er­ful mil­i­tary that stands at the ready to engage any threat of peace and vehe­mently destroy it.
    ”…whereas peo­ple else­where are dying of star­va­tions…“
    This is because those peo­ple lack to for­ti­tude to revolt against their oppres­sors and the US has yet to save their ass.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Click here to cancel reply.

Spam Protection by WP-SpamFree

    Most Popular Posts
    • What Does this Handle Do?
    • Marines Quiet About Brutal New Weapon
    • Starship Troopers Meets G.I. Joe
    • Dowd's Bogus Grief Deficit
    • Semi-auto Grenade Thrower
    • Adapting Women to Subs
    • Fort Hood Rampage
    • Keep it Simple
    • Mystery Drone Revealed
    • REPLACEMENT ARM, GOOD AS NEW
    Recent Comments
    • Fort Hood Rampage
      "I'd say go read some history on fascist ideology and then compare...
      Sam
    • Semi-auto Grenade Thrower
      No. I am not saying a grenade launcher on a rifle is a hoax. I...
      Zandor
    • Semi-auto Grenade Thrower
      For someone who trashes all the readers of the blog you sure do...
      a1189
    • Market for Acoustic Defense Systems Heats Up
      These devices vibrate tissue and bone not just...
      WJS
    • Semi-auto Grenade Thrower
      So are you saying the grenade launcher is a hoax or the M-16?...
      WJS
    • Fort Hood Rampage
      Dear Cannon Fodder; Only politically correct patriots should be accepted...
      Zandor
    • Dowd’s Bogus Grief Deficit
      LOL Still all this pissing an moaning about the editorial...
      Philo
    • Fort Hood Rampage
      I'd say go read some history on fascist ideology and then compare that...
      Philo
    • Fort Hood Rampage
      Islame isn't a race, genius……
      Philo
    • Semi-auto Grenade Thrower
      I sure as hell don't need to have someone take pictures of me...
      Zandor
    Recent Articles
    • Semi-​​auto Grenade Thrower
    • Market for Acoustic Defense Systems Heats Up
    • Fort Hood Rampage
    • Keep it Simple
    • Airbag Defense
    • Dowd’s Bogus Grief Deficit
    • Did Someone Move the Furniture Around?
    • Lockheed Says Sbirs Still on Track For 2010
    • What Does this Handle Do?
    • Adapting Women to Subs
  • Channels: Military.com | Military Benefits | Military News | Off Duty | Join the Military | Military Education | Veteran Jobs | Military Money | Military Deals | Military Family | Military Community
  • Military.com Network: Military.com | MilBlogging | Defense Tech | DoD Buzz | SpouseBuzz | Fred's Place | GI Bill Express
  • Services: Army | Navy | Air Force | Marine Corps | Coast Guard | National Guard | Military Spouse
  • About Military.com About Us | Advertise With Us | Press | Affiliate Program | Monster Network | Help | Feedback | Privacy Policy | User Agreement | © 2009 Military Advantage