MIL-STD-1916, “DOD Preferred Method for Acceptance of Product,” Paragraph 4.4, “critical characteristics,” which states:
“Unless otherwise specified in the contract or product specifica- tions, the contractor is required for each critical characteristic to implement an automated screening or a failsafe manufacturing operation and apply sampling plan VL-VII to verify the perfor- mance of the screening operation. Te occurrence of one or more critical nonconformances requires corrective action as specified in paragraph 4.5.”
MIL-A-70265 “prescribes requirements for design, testing and design approval of all automated acceptance inspection equip- ment systems,” and “is applicable to both government- and contractor-owned equipment, which is used to assure that supplies offered for government acceptance conform to the gov- ernment design requirements.”
A CDRL, in conjunction with the appropriate DID, specifies and schedules the ordering and delivery of data that the govern- ment requires. Te MSE clause has time frame requirements for two separate but interdependent deliverables; hence the need for two CDRLs. Te first provides the recommended time frame for delivery of the AIE package.
Te second corresponds to the measurement system analysis (MSA) paragraph of the MSE clause, which requires delivery of MSA assessment plans, associated data and analysis in accordance with ASTM E2782-11, in a certain timeline for specific character- istics identified in the clause.
To put that in more concrete terms, Munoz said, if a specification requires that, for example, a ball bearing should have a particular outside diameter within narrow tolerances (a major characteris- tic), then the contractor will have to provide the specific type of equipment (the AIE) it uses to determine those tolerances, and the accuracy of that equipment. Te government can require the contractor to conduct a repeatability and reproducibility (R&R) test of the equipment. (R&R is a kind of MSA.) So the MSA CDRL is triggered for specific characteristics defined in the con- tract that require analysis, after the MSE CDRL has been satisfied for general acceptance inspection equipment requirements.
As its name implies, the data item description specifically
defines the data content, format and intended use for the con- tractor to prepare required data for the government’s use. Tis unique MSE DID consolidates the existing AIE DIDs, refer- ences special inspection equipment and methods, and outlines the recommended content and format for AIE submissions
that contractors are to provide to the government for review and approval.
CONCLUSION
“Te benefit to the contractor and the benefit to the program manager is mutual—reducing cost and schedule impact while increasing the quality and reliability of the end product,” said Ricardo Martinez, SQI Team member representing the Sys- tems Engineering and Technology Integration Division of PEO Ammunition’s Project Manager (PM) Maneuver Ammunition Systems. “Te MSE clause will help the contractors bid and schedule AIE work appropriately and consistently,” he said. Tat, in turn, “will lead to cost avoidance and reduce schedule impact. Essentially, the clause will help the contractor and government operate more efficiently while reducing or eliminating misinter- pretation of the current AIE requirements” on either side.
“Essentially,” Martinez continued, piloting the clause “will serve as validation to the ammunition and weapons commu- nity, especially the program managers and contractors, that the intended benefit of implementing the MSE clause has been achieved. A pilot program gives us objective evidence to prove our claims. So taking the time to do a pilot program will improve adoption across the enterprise, which includes all military services, small and large businesses, and a very diverse portfolio, and ensure that any lingering questions or unknowns are addressed.”
To those who might fear that the MSE clause is adding require- ments, Martinez said it is not, nor is it exposing hidden requirements that are currently being overlooked or misinter- preted. “Te SQI team has worked hard at wording the clause and supporting documents in a way to meet the goal and also add flexibility for the PM to adjust some requirements as needed,” he said.
For further information, contact Rick Boyle at
richard.p.boyle4.
civ@mail.mil or Jorge Munoz at
jorge.a.munoz8.civ@
mail.mil.
MR. STEVE STARK provides contracting support to the U.S. Army Acquisition Support Center for SAIC. He holds an M.A. in creative writing from Hollins University and a B.A. in English from George Mason University. He has worked in a variety of positions support- ing communications for the Army and Navy, and has written about defense-related topics for more than a decade. He was the founding editor of the Program Executive Office Soldier Portfolio and edited the Army’s Weapon Systems handbook for six years.
ASC.ARMY.MIL 135
CONTRACTING
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139 |
Page 140 |
Page 141 |
Page 142 |
Page 143 |
Page 144 |
Page 145 |
Page 146 |
Page 147 |
Page 148 |
Page 149 |
Page 150 |
Page 151 |
Page 152 |
Page 153 |
Page 154 |
Page 155 |
Page 156 |
Page 157 |
Page 158 |
Page 159 |
Page 160 |
Page 161 |
Page 162 |
Page 163 |
Page 164 |
Page 165 |
Page 166 |
Page 167 |
Page 168 |
Page 169 |
Page 170 |
Page 171 |
Page 172 |
Page 173 |
Page 174 |
Page 175 |
Page 176 |
Page 177 |
Page 178 |
Page 179 |
Page 180 |
Page 181 |
Page 182 |
Page 183 |
Page 184 |
Page 185 |
Page 186 |
Page 187 |
Page 188 |
Page 189 |
Page 190 |
Page 191 |
Page 192 |
Page 193 |
Page 194 |
Page 195 |
Page 196 |
Page 197 |
Page 198 |
Page 199 |
Page 200
