Foreign Assistance

U.S. Funds Used for Terminating Israel's Lavi Aircraft Program Gao ID: NSIAD-90-3 October 26, 1989

Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO determined: (1) the amount of Foreign Military Sales (FMS) funds that Israel spent on its Lavi fighter aircraft program after it decided to terminate the program; (2) how Israel used the funds; and (3) whether Israel planned to export any items or technology developed with U.S. funds and, if so, whether U.S. export controls would apply.

GAO found that: (1) at the time it terminated the Lavi program, Israel had to terminate or complete 136 open contracts and 1,500 active purchase orders with U.S. companies; (2) Israel paid $218.4 million to U.S. companies and $212.1 million to Israeli companies to terminate the contracts and fund continuing programs; (3) $69.8 million of the $152.2 million that Israel paid to one U.S. contractor terminated a contract, while $82.4 million went to continuing programs; (4) Israel paid $147.4 million in contract termination costs to one Israeli contractor and $0.3 million to another contractor, of which the larger contractor paid $3.6 million to subcontractors; (5) the terminated contractors used their own funds to make severance payments to former employees; (6) continuing programs included development of selected Lavi avionics systems, completion of the technology demonstrator, and upgrading of 30 Israeli F-15 aircraft engines, and accounted for $167.8 million of the $430.5 million in FMS funds Israel used after it terminated the program; (7) many companies involved in the program tried to increase their exports to compensate for reduced purchases, but had not made agreements with foreign purchasers; and (8) retransfer of any Lavi article was subject to prior U.S. approval or export license retransfer conditions, since virtually all the components had some U.S. content.



The Justia Government Accountability Office site republishes public reports retrieved from the U.S. GAO These reports should not be considered official, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Justia.