This is a question I am going to ask from my friends who are aware of
the Mil Specs and standards. I have a career knowledge of over 35
years and now working for a newer employer on Long Island. The major
problem I am having is convincing my management and engineering staff
that part selection should be of equal to or better than as that of
the replacement part. I know that Mil-HBK 454 covers this in great
detail. Here is my problem- Mil Std 454 is not called out in the
contract nor SCD. My company is making this item and using reverse
engineering to develope a new build using non proven(COTS)commercial
parts. It is very hard to say if any of these builds can meet the
reliability standards and temperatures that these units will be used .
Simply stated, management has an attitude of, if they work at room
that is all we care about. As a Quality Analyst, I see a problem but
do remember I have a parts list and the parts do meet the part which
is listed on the parts list. The original contract is outdated over
20-30 years old and the company is no longer in business. QUESTION-
Does Mil Std 454 imply to all government contracts as a general rule
even though it is not called out in the contract?
I know the Quality answer to this question concerning the PROVEN
substitutibilty, that most Quality would ask engineering for backup of
performance, reliability, endurance, manufacturer history, part
history etc.
Westinghouse was a primary contractor for Radar equipment in the 70s
and 80s. I picked up a copy of a Spec of theirs "PDS" which stated in
that components should be of a certain hi-rel level Example, M38510
for ICs and if not available 883 screened parts are the next available
substitute. Diodes 19500 or JTX, Transformers Mil-t 27 etc. Does
anybody know for shure if this was a company wide quality statement
policy for purchasing or was this do***ent referrred to by a PQA
clause in their purchase order and hence referred to whenever they had
a contract which required hi-rel parts?
|
