Source: https://www.dau.mil/aap/Pages/qlist.aspx?cgiSubjectAreaID=8&cgiStart=0&RefreshField=20
Timestamp: 2018-02-20 05:35:11
Document Index: 53902311

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 47', 'art 12', 'art 12', 'art 46', 'art 46', 'art 9', 'art 46', 'art 46', 'art 12']

Home > Production, Quality, and Manufacturing (294 Q&A)
DASD SE PQM Roles Posted:12/19/2017
DASD SE PQM Roles
Posted: 12/19/2017 2:50:00 PM
Scenario: https://www.acq.osd.mil/se/wr/wr1.html DASD(SE) establishes, oversees, and maintains the competencies, certification standards, position category descriptions, and workforce planning for the ENG and PQM career fields. DASD(SE) also establishes and maintains key leadership position (KLP) functional specific requirements. The FL is responsible for verifying that Defense Acquisition University (DAU) courses are current, technically accurate, and consistent with DoD acquisition policies. To support this requirement, DASD(SE) appointed an Executive Secretary for the ENG and PQM career fields, established Functional Integrated Product Teams (FIPT), and designated a Chair to manage FIPT activities. In addition, DASD(SE) may develop training requirements for the specialty areas within the ENG and PQM career fields.
Question: Who is the executive secretary for the PQM career field? Who are the members of the FIPT?
See the PQM FIPT charter at https://www.dau.mil/aap/Answer%20References/Production,%20Quality,%20and%20Manufacturing/128824%20PQM%20FIPT%20Charter_20171117%20-%20signed.pdf
MILSTRIP DIFM Return Time Posted:12/8/2017
MILSTRIP DIFM Return Time
Posted: 12/8/2017 5:36:00 PM
Scenario: DIFM Return Times
Question: I'm looking for a requirement within the MILSTRIP Process which defines the timeframe an unserviceable asset is to be returned to the government depot once a replacement unit is ordered and received at a Defense Contractors site for use on a PDM contract.
Based on my research there isn’t a contractor specific DIFM requirement, however there are set policies, guidance and instructions that govern our processes and methodologies (attached at ). The turnaround time for the contractor is typically a metric stipulated in the contract and is based upon reliability, maintainability, and sparing levels. The attached contains policy and guidance for supply chain related transactions and more. AFI 23-101, AFM23-122 and the DODI 4140.01, includes guidance that will help shape the metrics for the vendor's contractual requirement as it relates to a DIFM requirement.
Is a DD Form 1694 required to submit RFV to the Government? Posted:11/17/2017
Is a DD Form 1694 required to submit RFV to the Government?
Posted: 11/17/2017 10:52:00 AM
Scenario: Contractor wants to submit an RFV for a nonconforming part to the Customer for approval.
Question: Is the Contractor required to use and fill out DD Form 1694 when submitting RFVs for disposition?
According to DCMA-INST 1207, entitled Effective Control of Nonconforming Material, dated July 2, 2015 the contract should specify what format the contractor is required to use for submitting a Request For Variance. In the glossary, MRB RFV Submittal is defined as follows: "The document used by the contractor to record the noncompliance when presenting it to the Government. The contract may specify the format of the document, either the use of DD Form 1694 or contractor format by specifying a Data Item Description. In this Instruction, the use of MRB RFV submittal refers to either the DD Form 1694 or contractor format."
shipping and handling fees Posted:10/23/2017
Posted: 10/23/2017 11:09:00 AM
Scenario: How can I tell what is a reasonable amount to charge for shipping and handling fees on a FFP parts contract to the government?
Question: How can I tell what is a reasonable amount to charge for shipping and handling fees on a FFP parts contract to the government?
Given the limited background information in your question, it is assumed that the Government would have visibility into the contractor’s transportation costs in the proposal. FAR Part 47 covers transportation in its entirety. Generally for a DoD procurement, the buying office should obtain assistance from the cognizant transportation office in the solicitation and evaluation of offers to ensure that transportation costs are advantageous to the Government (FAR 47.105(b)). If your organization doesn’t have a transportation office, you could contact the contract administration office (ACO) to see if the transportation element located there could assist. The ACO may also be able to provide historical data to tell you if the parts have been purchased from that vendor in the past.
Typically, the contractor should be aware that costs included in the proposal for shipping & handling should be in line with market prices on the commercial market. FAR 47.207-6(i-ii), states that the contracting officer shall include in the solicitation a statement that the charges in the contract shall not exceed the contractor's charges for the same service that is available to the general public; or otherwise tendered to the Government. There are many commercial carriers that are in the transportation business (FedEx, UPS, USPS) so if you have the weight/cube and origin/destination information, you should be able to conduct market research to determine what the costs should be. If your transportation office determines that the proposed costs are not in line with normal charges, the contractor should be put on notice.
CLARITY OR TERMINOLOGY USED Posted:9/5/2017
Posted: 9/5/2017 2:56:00 PM
Scenario: MIL-DTL-24528 CALLS FOR A CERTIFICATE OF QUALITY CONFORMANCE, WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THAT AND A C OF C (IE; 81356)
I suggest you reference the contract requirement, contract data requirements list (CDRL) and data item description (DID) to determine exactly what is required.
I’m going reference a previous AAP question below. As stated below, the source of CoC is the FAR. I have also referenced the Data Item Description for the 81356 spec specifically stating compliance to contract requirements.
Title - Certificate of Conformance or Certificate of Acceptance
Has there been a change to the FAR/DFAR that changes the term "Certificate of Conformance" to "Certificate of Acceptance"?
Scenario - Difference in terminology. There has been some discussion/difference of opinion within DCMA as to whether the term "Certificate of Conformance" has been replaced with the term "Certificate of Acceptance". Trying to verify if this is true.
Posted - 12/19/2007 12:00:00 AM
Subject Area - Production, Quality, and Manufacturing
To answer your question directly, no there hasn't been a change to substitute certificate of acceptance for certificate of conformance. The Certificate of conformance, or CoC, is still language used in FAR 46.315, FAR 52.246-15 and DFARS 246.504 to name a few.
The confusion likely comes into play on FAR Part 12 (Acquisition of Commercial Items) acceptance terms. Specifically FAR Part 12.402(a) states in part The acceptance paragraph in FAR 52.212-4 is based upon the assumption that the Government will rely on the contractor's assurances that the commercial item tendered for acceptance conforms to the contract requirements.
It also may be they are referencing FAR 46.501 (Acceptance - General) which states in part Acceptance shall ordinarily be evidenced by execution of an acceptance certificate on an inspection or receiving report from or commercial shipping document/packing list.
It may be this is where you folks are coming up with Certificate of Acceptance phrase but the term is not used in place of the CoC in the FAR or DFARS.
Title: Certificate of Compliance Number DI-MJSC-81356A
AMSC Number: N9036 DTIC Applicable: No
Office of Primary Responsibility: NAVICP Code 8741 Applicable Forms:NIA
Approval Date: 20071218 Limitation: N/A
GIDEP Applicable: No
Use/Relationship: The Certificate of Compliance provides certification from the contractor that the materiel supplied is in full compliance with all contract requirements. This DID contains the format, content, and intended use information for the data deliverable required by the contract.
This DID supersedes DI-MISC-81356. Requirements:
1. Format. The Certificate of Compliance shall be presented in a format similar to that of Figure 1.
2. Content. The Certificate of Compliance shall contain:
a. Contractor' s name.
b. Contractor' s address.
c. Contractor's phone number.
e. Contracting Agency's name.
f. Contract Number.
g. National Stock Number (NSN).
h. Item nomenclature.
i. A statement certifying that all items furnished on the contract are in full compliance with all specification and contract requirements.
j. Authorized personnel's signature.
k. Authorized personnel' s printed name and title.
Dl-MISC-81356A
(Contractor 'saddress)
Phone Number: -------
(Contractor 'sphone number)
(Contracting Agency)
Contract Number: -------
National Stock Number: -------
Item Nomenclature: ---------
"All items furnished on this contract are in full compliance with all specification and contract requirements. "
(Signature of Authorized Personnel
(Printed Name and Title of Authorized Personnel)
Note: The recording of false, fictitious, or fraudulent statements or entries on this document may be punished as a felony under Federal Statutes.
3. End of DI-MISC-81356A
Figure 1 -Sample format for a Certificate of Compliance
Seeking clarity as to the Governments rights for claiming latent defect as it pertains to warranty and the 52-246-2 clause Posted:8/30/2017
Posted: 8/30/2017 2:06:00 PM
Scenario: Many contractors are declining the request to investigate product quality deficiency reports (PQDRs) or even replace defective product because they state that the warranty has expired. The contract might have included for example a warranty of one, two or even five years for the product and the 52-246-2 clause. In many instance the product is going to DLA warehouse and shelved for years. Latent defects are realized once the product is requisition from the warehouse by an end user.
You will find your answer at FAR 46.705(b) Warranty clauses shall not limit the Government’s rights under an inspection clause (see Subpart 46.3) in relation to latent defects, fraud, or gross mistakes that amount to fraud.
Low Rate Initial Production - LRIP Posted:8/30/2017
Posted: 8/30/2017 1:49:00 PM
Scenario: I am in the process of drafting an award document for a Phase III Small Business Innovation Research contract. The contract requires the contractor to provide LRIP items. There is a CLIN for repair/refurbishment; the SOW states that "in the event the unit is damaged beyond economical repair, the contractor shall obtain disposal instructions from the COR". The Contracting Officer said the statement should be removed because disposal should be IAW FAR 52.245-1. However, I don't think 52.245-1 is applicable to LRIP items based on 52.245-1 "Loss of Government property". Is 52.245-1 an applicable clause for the disposition of LRIP items?
FAR 52.245-1 does not apply to LRIP items once they are accepted by the Government unless the items are subsequently provided as Government-furnished property (GFP). This is true for all deliverable items that have been accepted by the Government. GFP is defined at FAR 45.101. It states “Government-furnished property” means property in the possession of, or directly acquired by, the Government and subsequently furnished to the contractor for performance of a contract. Government-furnished property includes, but is not limited to, spares and property furnished for repair, maintenance, overhaul, or modification. Government-furnished property also includes contractor-acquired property if the contractor-acquired property is a deliverable under a cost contract when accepted by the Government for continued use under the contract. “Contractor-acquired property” (CAP) means property acquired, fabricated, or otherwise provided by the contractor for performing a contract and to which the Government has title.
If the items are returned for repair or refurbishment outside of any warranties identified in the contract or covered elsewhere in the contract, they should be provided as GFP, in which case FAR 52.245-1 should be inserted into the contract (if not already present) in accordance with FAR 45.107. Other clauses that are required are required when FAR 52.245-1 is in the contract are FAR 52.245-9, DFARS 252.245-7001, 252.245-7002, 252.245-7003, 252.245-7004, and 252.211-7007. DoD requires that GFP be provided using the attachment described the DFARS Procedures, Guidance, and Information (PGI) PGI 245.103-72.
When GFP or contractor-acquired property are provided under the terms and conditions of a contract and are no longer needed for contract performance (referred to as “contractor inventory”), disposal should be performed by the contractor in accordance with FAR 52.245-1. FAR 52.245-1(j) begins with “Except as otherwise provided for in this contract, the Contractor shall not dispose of Contractor inventory until authorized to do so by the Plant Clearance Officer or authorizing official.” The concern about the statement within the SOW is the portion that states “…the contractor shall obtain disposal instructions from the COR.” If there is an assigned Plant Clearance Officer (PLCO), disposal instructions should be issued by that individual unless there are specific disposal instructions included in the contract, e.g., dispose using Defense Logistics Agency Disposition Services. If there is not an assigned PLCO, and the SOW language described is used the COR needs to follow the laws and regulations applicable to the disposition of Government property, which includes FAR 45.6 and DFARS 245.6.
MIL-I-45208 and MIL-Q-9858A have been cancelled Posted:8/28/2017
Posted: 8/28/2017 5:00:00 PM
Scenario: According to DoDM 4120.24, September 24, 2014. Page 21- 9. CANCELLED SPECIFICATIONS AND STANDARDS. Program offices and procuring activities must not cite cancelled specifications or standards in solicitations or contracts without a waiver in accordance with the Military Department or Defense Agency's procedures. If a cancelled document is needed for recurring use, it should be considered for reinstatement in accordance with paragraph 11i of Enclosure 7 of this manual. DLA makes the statement in their contracts that MIL-I-45208 and MIL-Q-9858A have been cancelled.
The following provides guidance pertinent to your question. Without reference to specific programs it is not discernable as to why they may be employing these standards on their programs or what waivers have been obtained.
Is 5 percent scrap rate on a manufacturing item acceptable Posted:8/24/2017
Is 5 percent scrap rate on a manufacturing item acceptable
Posted: 8/24/2017 11:02:00 AM
Scenario: I am preparing a pricing report for a firm fixed price contract where the Contractor has a 5% scrap rate and they have stated that it is their standard scrap rate. They have a Hyperion database system but could not provide historical actuals. From my memory a 5 percent scrap rate is about average in manufacturing. This is a start-up of a production line that was last done in 2011. It seems reasonable to me. However, my boss is concerned that the Contractor has not provided details. My reasoning is that the Contractor assumes the risk because it is a FFP.
Question: Is a 5% scrap rate acceptable?
While it is perhaps reasonable to generalize that a scrap rate is typically a small percentage, it would be inappropriate to generalize that any specific percentage is an acceptable rate. The scrap rate will vary from contract to contract, and contractor to contractor, due to: the base used for the rate; what the contractor defines as scrap; what amount of scrap is treated as a direct cost versus an indirect cost; the stage of production (i.e. one would expect a higher rate earlier in production, and subsequent reductions in scrap); the nature of the materials and manufacturing processes; the extent of engineering changes (due to excess materials because of the changes); and a variety of other reasons.
You should determine whether the rate is based on historical actual costs or whether the contractor simply budgets 5% for scrap. Does the contractor take into account improvements in the manufacturing processes, ordering quantities, etc.?
Your statement about risk works both ways. If the contractor is overstating the cost of scrap then the scrap rate, intended to recover direct costs, actually becomes what we might call a profit center.
DD250 delay entry into WAWF Posted:8/22/2017
Posted: 8/22/2017 2:48:00 PM
Scenario: Contractor provides printed DD250 to be signed for inclusion in the shipment at time of CQA. The actual DD250 is entered into WAWF 3 to 6 months later. The parts are immediately shipped.
FAR 46.601 makes it mandatory for agencies to prescribe procedures and instructions for the use, preparation, and distribution of material inspection and receiving reports to show evidence of Government inspection (see FAR 46.401) and acceptance (see FAR 46.405). Based on this, FAR 46.401(f) requires that government inspection be documented on an inspection or receiving report form or commercial shipping document under agency procedures (see FAR 46.601). Because agencies are required to prescribe procedures, one must go DFARS 246.601 which sends you to Appendix F of the DFARS which meets the mandatory requirement of FAR 46.601, however neither FAR 46.601 nor Appendix F tells you when the DD 250 is to be prepared. Therefore, you must use FAR 46.401(f) which states "Government inspection shall be documented on an inspection or receiving report form or commercial shipping document/packing list, under agency procedures (see FAR subpart 46.6)". Based on this mandatory statement, the conclusion can be reached that the DD 250 must be prepared at the time when Government inspection is taking place since it is required that inspection be documented on that form which has been designated by the agency (DoD) under DFARS 246.601.
Should an Altered Item drawing of an assemby include the item being atered in the parts list? Posted:8/15/2017
Should an Altered Item drawing of an assemby include the item being atered in the parts list?
Posted: 8/15/2017 2:11:00 PM
Scenario: I am checking an assembly that is being altered with a new connector mounting bracket, fastening hardware, and cable retaining straps. We use "MAKE FROM: CAGE CODE AND PART NUMBER" in a note on parts being modified. This is an assembly being modified by an altered item drawing and it requires a parts list. The first item (FN 1) in the PL is the unaltered part and there is also a MAKE FROM: XXXXX XXXXXXXX note. I can't find in the industry or DOD standards where this duplication of item identification is correct.
Question: Should an Altered Item drawing of an assemby include the item being altered as a line item in the parts list?
According to our Provisioning Subject Matter Experts, the short answer is "yes". The non-altered item would be P-Coded and indentured under the end item(s) it supports. The altered item would be M-coded and indentured under the true next higher assembly. The provisioning nomenclature would state on this record to make it from CAGE/PN XXXX or NSN XXXX as mentioned below. That CAGE/PN or NSN would be the CAGE/PN or NSN from the non-altered item.
ARCO Curves or Weight Advantage Curves Posted:8/7/2017
Posted: 8/7/2017 3:58:00 PM
Scenario: Trying to adjust hours per Lb. from smaller airplane to larger airplane
ARCO stands for the Aircraft Resource Control Office and back in the 1960's the Air Forde was playing with parametric cost estimating models based on weight. There was a paper published by the RAND Corp. in 1976 called "Parametric Equations for Estimating Aircraft Airframe Costs," written by Joseph Large, Harry Campbell and David Cates. The Rand Corporation produced another paper in 2001 called "Military Airframe Costs, the Effects of Advanced Materials and Manufacturing Processes." The ARCO is a cist estimating model based on weight not learning. You should be able to find these documents using your favorite search engine.
Not sure what you are looking for under "weighted advantage curves." I can find nothing on it. Thought there are many, many documents on weighted averages. If you can be more specific, perhaps I can find something.
Production line relocation Posted:7/28/2017
Posted: 7/28/2017 10:40:00 AM
Scenario: L-3 Communications Electron Devices Division (L3Com EDD) is the sole supplier of klystrons to the E-3 AWACS communities. L-3 Com has decided to close its AWACS KPA (NSN 5960-01-343-5912AW) manufacturing factory, Electron Devices, located in San Carlos, CA and move the operation to L-3 Electron Devices in Williamsport, PA.
Question: I was told in the past that when a supplier relocates its manufacturing/production line, re-qualification of the new plant is required due to changes in process, expertise, etc. Is there a requirement (FAR) to reevaluate the qualification of manufacturing process due to change in location? If site survey is sufficient, what should we focus on to ensure the new plant produces good product?
First, read the contract. For instance, if the contract requires first article testing (See FAR Subpart 9.3), a concern might be invalidating the first article test if the contractor moved the production line (e.g. that could lead to having to re-calibrate, re-tool machinery, etc.) after first article testing was complete leading to the contractor needing to repeat first article testing. Also, if the contract has qualification requirements in accordance with FAR 9.202 and DFARS 209.202, the "source" selected for the contract may have to be re-approved in accordance with DFARS 209.270-3.,and the agency which established qualification requirements could reexamine a "qualified product or manufacturer when the manufacturer has modified its product, or changed the material or the processing sufficiently so that the validity of previous qualification is questionable" per FAR 9.204(i). In addition to reading the contract, discuss options for interpreting and enforcing these or similar terms (if they are included in the contract) with the Contracting Officer and/or the Administrative Contracting Officer as well as your attorney.
MRB Authority Withheld Posted:7/25/2017
MRB Authority Withheld
Posted: 7/25/2017 12:46:00 PM
Scenario: Our FFP contract does not specifically mention FAR 46.407 or MRB authority. It does include FAR 52.246-2, 52.246-11 and AS 9100 C. Our contractor claims that this gives them the right to disposition minor non-conformances without government concurrence.
Question: If FAR 46.407 is not mentioned in the contract, does this mean that MRB authority has been explicitly withheld and DCMA has no right to participate as a member of the MRB to accept or reject NCM?
First, you should never see FAR 46.407 in a contract. The only clauses you will see in a contract start with 52. FAR Part 46 is written to us, quality not to the contractor. FAR 46.407 tells us, the government, "(d) If the nonconformance is minor, the cognizant contract administration office may make the determination to accept or reject, except where this authority is withheld by the contracting office of the contracting activity." (FAR46.407(d)). In other words, we have MRB authority in all contracts unless it is specifically withheld. Authority does not have to be granted for us to do MRB. When you perform your Contract Technical Review you would look to see if this authority was withheld, if not, then you have the authority as described in FAR 46.407.
Remember only clauses that start with 52, for example 52.246-2 are contract clauses and those are not written to us, they are written to the contractor. Our job is to ensure the contractor meets the requirements called out in the contract. FAR Part 46 tells us how to do that.
ISO Compliance IAW ISO 9001-2008 Posted:7/6/2017
ISO Compliance IAW ISO 9001-2008
Posted: 7/6/2017 11:38:00 AM
Scenario: Currently the PWS states that the Contractor will be compliant from 180 days after Notice To Proceed.
Question: Can the PWS be changed (if so how) to state Contractor will be compliant from 180 days after Fully Operation Capable?
If the PWS is on contract, then the only way the change it is with a Bilateral modification to the contract. Bilateral modifications required agreement for both parties so if the change lessens the requirement on the contractor then don't forget to ask for consideration. However, if the change increases the requirement for the contractor, then be ready to pay.
52.212-4 and 52.246-2 Posted:7/5/2017
52.212-4 and 52.246-2
Posted: 7/5/2017 3:56:00 PM
Scenario: Numerous contracts include both the 52.212-4 and the 52.246.2 clause. There are numerous quality issues and the procuring activities are continually requesting DCMA to perform PQDR investigations where the 52.212-2 and the 52.246-2 clauses are invoked. .
Question: Can 52.212-4 and 52.246-2 be incorporated in a contract? If so, does DCMA have a right to perform in process investigations or surveillance. FAR12-102c states, "When a policy in another part of the FAR is inconsistent with a policy in this part, this part 12 shall take precedence for the acquisition of commercial items". Does that invalidate the 52.246-2 clause?
Your question touches on a whole of range of issues concerning commercial contracting partitives. Recently industry has complained that DOD has issued numerous rules and regulations concerning commercial contracts that would seem to violate as you identified the intent of FAR 12.102, FAR 12.000 and FAR 12.101. We are to rely on the contractor's quality control system, FAR 12.208 -- Contract Quality Assurance. And testing is done by the Government at acceptance FAR 12.402 Acceptance. (There are two FAR 52.212-4 clauses, the basic and the alternative; my answer is focused on the basic and not the alternative.) The government depends on the commercial practice of warranties of merchantability and warranty for fitness of a particular purpose FAR 12.404 Warranty. (Merchantability is that the product appears and functions like a reasonable buy would expect it to, the truck has an engine and will turn on, and warranty of fitness is that the seller delivers us a truck that can meet the requirement laid out in the contracts, we need to move a 40 foot container probably a four cylinder pickup truck wouldn't be able to do this.) Further if you look at the FAR Matrix, 52.246-2 is a non-commercial clause.
Why not then a simple no, the contract shouldn't have FAR 52.212-4 and FAR 52.246-2? Another principle of the FAR is commercial practices. Simply commercial practices of buying a toaster and 50 foot boat can differ considerably. More than likely it is not commercial practices to go to the toaster oven factory and inspect them. But it might be commercial practice in the boating world for the buyer to visit the yard where the boat is laid down. Maybe the end user buys the outboards that will go on the boat separately and provides them to the boat yard along with electronics and other gear. Unfortunately this requires the buying command to know what those commercial practices are and to incorporate specific language into the contract for acceptance FAR 12.402(b).
In conclusion, FAR 52.212-4 and 52.246-2 should not both be in the same contract. Language similar the quality clause could be included but that should be guided by commercial practices and the complexity of the end item. Mixing commercial and non- commercial contract clauses could create enforcement problems for the Government later if the courts had to decide if the clause was enforceable or not.
Looking for examples of MRA Final Report in line with requirement of MRA Deskbook. Posted:6/12/2017
Looking for examples of MRA Final Report in line with requirement of MRA Deskbook.
Posted: 6/12/2017 12:20:00 PM
Scenario: We (GPS MGUE Program) are conducting a Manufacturing Readiness Assessment in line with the process detailed in the MRA Deskbook and I would like to obtain some examples of MRA Final Reports that were created by other programs that have done MRA's. The MRA process is still new and so none of the other programs I work with have conducted an MRA and have a Final Report I can use as a guide in producing our Final Report. Do you have copies of other final reports? Or, perhaps you know of other programs that have conducted MRA's and have created Final Reports and you can give me contact information for those programs. Thank you for your help. V/R, Richard Flippo Lead, Specialty Engineering MGUE Program USAF Space & Missile Systems Center El Segundo, Ca 818 645 3429 Please respond as soon as possible as we would like to get started on our final report ASAP.
Question: We are conducting a Manufacturing Readiness Assessment in line with the process detailed in the MRA Deskbook and I would like to obtain some examples of MRA Final Reports that were created by other programs that have done MRA's. The MRA process is still new and so none of the other programs I work with have conducted an MRA and have a Final Report I can use as a guide in producing our Final Report. Do you have copies of other final reports? Or, perhaps you know of other programs that have conducted MRA's and have created Final Reports and you can give me contact information for those programs. Thank you for your help. V/R, Richard Flippo Lead, Specialty Engineering MGUE Program USAF Space & Missile Systems Center El Segundo, Ca 818 645 3429 Please respond as soon as possible as we would like to get started on our final report ASAP.
Although the Manufacturing Readiness Assessment (MRA) Deskbook has been around for some time, the MRA Final Report requirement is fairly new. And consequently, very few programs have completed the report. The good news is that our manufacturing guru has seen several final reports and in each case there was some variation in approach and format. The key point was that the overall assessment and risks were highlighted. Now for the "bad" news--none of the offices were willing to share their final report for fear of releasing sensitive information on manufacturing capability of contractors and by implication the status for their KPPs and KSAs. So many guard this information as sensitive.
Is production scrap with a demil code required to be processed through PCARSS Posted:5/18/2017
Is production scrap with a demil code required to be processed through PCARSS
Posted: 5/18/2017 9:37:00 AM
Scenario: A piece of Government furnished material is removed from a repair and deemed SS condition. The asset has a demil code of B. The contractor has an approved scrap procedure. The asset is on a non-DCMA administered contract(We are a subcontractor to a prime contractor).
Question: Does an asset that meets the definition of production scrap need to be processed through PCARSS if it has a demil code B or can it be processed according to the contractor's approved scrap procedure as stated in FAR 52.245-1 (j)(ii)?
You need to seek an answer to your question by asking/answering the questions immediately below:
· Who “approved” your scrap procedure?
· Does your subcontract document provide any direction relative to scrap?
· Shouldn’t your scrap procedure address/answer your question?
· Shouldn’t your Property Management System (PMS) disposition process procedure address demilitarization of Government property?
· Have you consulted your prime contractor (the primary steward of Government property) for advice/direction on this issue?
· What advice/direction has your cognizant Plant Clearance Officer (PLCO) offered?
The Government Property Administrator (PA) no longer “approves” scrap procedures. Why is this critical? You indicated that you have an “approved” scrap procedure that doesn’t address/answer your own question. Can it be a good one (even if “approved”) if it fails to provide satisfactory direction?
Since you are a subcontractor to a prime contractor, a PA may not be assigned to your company unless you also have Government property under your own prime contract with the Government. If you have an assigned PA, you should seek their consultation on your scrap procedure.
That said, FAR 45.606(a) offers good advice relative to a contractor scrap procedures as follows:
FAR 45.606(a) Contractor scrap procedure
The property administrator, should in coordination with the plant clearance officer, ensure that contractor scrap disposal processes, methods and practices allow for effective, efficient and proper disposition, and are properly documented in the contractor’s property management procedures.
You first need to seek input from your prime contractor as this is a subcontract issue. You may most certainly seek input from a PA if one is appointed as well as the cognizant Plant Clearance Officer (PLCO) on scrap procedure - especially one where demilitarization is involved.
Your scrap procedure, as part of your PMS is subject to review by your prime contractor as part of their requirement to perform subcontractor PMS surveillance. It should address compliance with the Defense DEMIL Manual, DoDM 4160.28.
· Physical DEMIL - DoDM 4160.28-M-V3, June 7, 2011, ENCLOSURE 3, PHYSICAL DEMIL
· “Demilitarization” means rendering a product unusable for, and not restorable to, the purpose for which it was designed or is customarily used (FAR 52.245-1(a))
· “Demilitarization” means the act of eliminating the functional capabilities and inherent military design features from DoD personal property. Methods and degree range from removal and destruction of critical features to total destruction by cutting, tearing, crushing, mangling, shredding, melting, burning, etc. (DFARS 252.245-7004(a)(1))
· “Material” means property that may be consumed or expended during the performance of a contract, component parts of a higher assembly, or items that lose their individual identity through incorporation into an end item. Material does not include equipment, special tooling, special test equipment or real property.(FAR 52.245-1(a))
· “Production scrap” means unusable material resulting from production, engineering, operations and maintenance, repair, and research and development contract activities. Production scrap may have value when re-melted or reprocessed, e.g., textile and metal clippings, borings, and faulty castings and forgings. (FAR 52.245-1(a))
· Demil Code “B” - USML Items - Mutilation (MUT) to the point of scrap required worldwide. (Defense Demilitarization Manual, (DoDM) 4160.28, Volume 2, Table 1)
COTS Shipping, Packaging and Handling Posted:5/12/2017
COTS Shipping, Packaging and Handling
Posted: 5/12/2017 2:53:00 PM
Scenario: USG contracted a vendor to provide an aircraft sensor by COTS. After delivery of the aircraft sensor to the USG, an avionics AFETS questioned that the COTS shipping container was not in-compliance with Mil-Spec Standards in regards to durability/suitability.
Question: Does COTS have to be in-compliance with Mil-Spec Standards and other gov't regulatory rules like FARs, etc.? If so, this seems to contradict the COTS concept to save money, time, etc. If the COTS is in-compliance with the contract or OEM standards, then is this adequate? Is there a general COTS regulatory statement for all shipping, packaging and handling requirements? Who would be the USG POC for specific shipping, packaging and handling questions?
Let me preface by stating that I am referencing publication that incorporates multiple policies: Army Regulation 700–15/NAVSUPINST 4030.28E/AFJMAN 24–206/MCO 4030.33E/DLAR 4145.7---Logistics Packaging of Materials.
2–1. Requirements and specifications
a. Materiel will be packaged to prevent damage and deterioration and to provide for efficient and economical handling.
b. Use of commercial packaging should be considered before a contract is awarded. Commercial packaging will be used when such packaging is cost effective, and it can be determined that the materiel will not enter the military distribution system. Packaging personnel at the buying activity will make these decisions.
c. Requirements for packaging will be developed for all DOD items to meet conditions described in this joint regulation.
The requirements of MIL–STD–2073–1 will be used by all DOD components in the development, documentation, dissemination, and acquisition of packaging data
Does COTS have to be in-compliance with Mil-Spec Standards and other gov't regulatory rules like FARs, etc.?
ANSWER----Use of commercial packaging should be considered before a contract is awarded. Commercial packaging will be used when such packaging is cost effective, and it can be determined that the materiel will not enter the military distribution system. Packaging personnel at the buying activity will make these decisions. So the COTS packaging has to be in compliance with MIL-SPEC if the buying activity determined it to be so AND stipulated that in the contract (section D).
If the COTS is in-compliance with the contract or OEM standards, then is this adequate?
ANSWER---- Being in compliance with the contract only equates to the contractor meeting their contractual obligations, so they are in compliance. However, according to the above references, the government has the obligation to determine if COTS packaging is sufficient (either meets the USG criteria or items not entering the military distribution system). If it is not, they must stipulate in the contract that alternate packaging requirements be met, at which time the government owns the problem.
Is there a general COTS regulatory statement for all shipping, packaging and handling requirements?
ANSWER----I am only aware of the above references, which tend to say that we must determine if the COTS packaging meets the requirements of the military distribution system. If not, we add additional requirements to the contract to make the COTS items compliant with the MIL STD requirements. The determining factor is if the item will enter the military distribution system. If so, it is likely additional standards will be required (UID, ruggedized containers, etc).
Who would be the USG POC for specific shipping, packaging and handling questions?
ANSWER----I am not aware of a USG POC. Though I will note that DLA handles a fair amount of COTS items and would most likely maintain a fair amount of expertise in this area.
Does the Contractor get a copy of the QASP Posted:5/10/2017
Does the Contractor get a copy of the QASP
Posted: 5/10/2017 6:21:00 PM
Scenario: The question has been going around for sometime at various bases. Does the contractor get a copy of the QASP? I was always told no. According to DoD COR Handbook, the answer is no. But there is nothing in regulations stating yes or no.
Question: Does the contractor get a copy of the QASP? Where in the regulations is this stated?
There is no regulation that states whether or not the QASP is to be included in the contract.
The Government has the right to inspect and surveil contractor work to ensure the work meets the requirements. It is also the contractor's responsibility to maintain quality assurance (QA) of their own work. We don't tell them how they have to conduct their own QA, but we do tell them how we will inspect. The Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) is the government's plan. The contractor has the Performance Work Statement (PWS), Statement of Work (SOW), or Specifications to work from and doesn't necessarily need the QASP. Again, it's their responsibility to have their own quality assurance plan.
Whether or not the QASP is incorporated into the contract, the contract would have to clearly describe the requirements and the inspection methods so the contractor is not harmed by government inspections. The courts and boards have ruled on cases concerning QASPs, some had included the QASP and some had not. The issues the courts have had don't have to do with inclusion, rather, they're focused on whether the requirements were clearly written into the contract.
It is up to the Contracting Officer to decide if the QASP will be included or not. But either way, the Government has an obligation to express their intentions to surveil a contract so the contractor can price the impact into their proposal.
I would refer to the guidance in FAR 46 for direction and recognize the DOD COR Handbook is not regulatory, but it is issued by DPAP and should be viewed as guidance and clarification. Ultimately, it's up to the Contracting Officer. That's why you've seen it argued both ways in different situations.
Show 20 30 40 most recent questions. Page 1 of 15 NEXT 20>>