This claim appears to contradict what the story says, as far as I can tell? He's the original:
> The military bought the hammer, Kelman explained, bundled into one bulk purchase of many different spare parts. But when the contractors allocated their engineering expenses among the individual spare parts on the list-a bookkeeping exercise that had no effect on the price the Pentagon paid overall-they simply treated every item the same. So the hammer, originally $15, picked up the same amount of research and development overhead-$420-as each of the highly technical components, recalled retired procurement official LeRoy Haugh. (Later news stories inflated the $435 figure to $600.)
> "The hammer got as much overhead as an engine," Kelman continued, despite the fact that the hammer cost much less than $420 to develop, and the engine cost much more-"but nobody ever said, 'What a great deal the government got on the engine!'"
So the bought an order containing a hammer, an engine, and some other stuff. There weren't itemized prices. So they divided the price evenly between everything in the box. Which is a silly way to do accounting. It's as if I bought a "woodworking kit" containing a hammer, a screwdriver and table saw for $900, and then I decided decided that meant the hammer cost $300.