Please correct me if I am wrong, but I thought that MIL-Q-9858A, MIL-I-45208A and MIL-45662 were obsolete and have been replaced. Can anyone give me info on this?

Each of the specs that you noted were made obsolete by the DLA in 1996, as a part of the "Perry Initiatives". They were not "replaced" per se. At that time it was left up to the contractors to define the standards that they would operate under (e.g. ISO9001, etc.). In some cases, such as ESD control, the contractor could even define a company-specific standard/policy.

Hope I have answered your question.:)

I know of a Company that still uses those "obsolete" specifications on their website. My understanding is that if the Customer, in this case the U.S. Navy, allows you to stay with these specs., it's perfectly acceptable. Also, in this case, the Navy is their only Customer. So, if you can convince your customer, they are acceptable. To me, why change? The "modern" standards are no improvement. They just muddy the water and have nothing to do with the quality of your product. JMHO;) :smokin:

Aah, I wish I had ready access to the "canned" response that was in my computer when I was working with an acquisition agency ... now I have to rely on faulty memory ... :rolleyes:

The Department of Defense regularly reviews military specifications and standards for continued applicability and effectiveness. In 1996, then-Secretary Perry directed that whenever possible, existing international, national or industry specifications and standards should be used by preference, and he greatly speeded up the the rate of review. The eventual result will be that a MIL-STD or MIL-SPEC will exist only if it fills a military need that another document does not exist for. As an example, I know of companies that have failed to get government contracts because they did not have an ISO9000- registered quality management system.

Many old documents have been cancelled; some have replacements and others do not. You can always get the current status of any DOD specification or standard at the Acquisition Streamlining and Standardization Information System (http://assist.daps.dla.mil/online/start/) (ASSIST) web site. (Free registration is needed to access some features.)

Some key points that I remember are:
In a NEW acquisition, the governemnt cannot require the contractor to use a canceled standard or specification.
A follow-on contract can require use of the specifications and standards that were in the original contract, even if they are now canceled.
The Contractor can always suggest using any specification or standard, even obsolete ones.

Your contracting officer should be able to provide you with the most current rules.

As to the specific standards mentioned:
MIL-Q9858A and MIL-I-45208 were canceled without replacement in October 1996.
MIL-STD-45662A was canceled in February 1995 with ANSI/NCSL Z540-1-1994 as the suggested replacement.

Graeme said:

A follow-on contract can require use of the specifications and standards that were in the original contract, even if they are now canceled.
The Contractor can always suggest using any specification or standard, even obsolete ones.



Thank you, Graeme. I believe the second reason shown is the one the Contractor has utilized. They make a one of a kind, very, very important product and are privately owned. They chose not to go ISO and the Customer (Navy) hasn't insisted otherwise. And, as I said, they are their only Customer. Nice position to be in.
:ko: :smokin:

Nice explanation, Guys.:bigwave:

I think MIL-I-45208A is still a good basic QMS standard and that there are companies out there who may not wish to go thru the gyrations of ISO 9001-1994 or -2000 that could use 45208A as a good blueprint for a nice, user-friendly, basic QMS.

Sometimes an old, otherwise "obsolete" 1963 Chevy truck can do the job just fine, even though the newer models make it "obsolete". Use what works for you and your customer even if others might think it is obsolete, salt it with a nice dose of common sense, mix in desire and hard work, and you just might kick the butts of some of the ultra-modern companies out there!

I once had an application requiring an oscilloscope that was particularly sensitive on one of its functions. None of the new 'scopes, from any mfr., could match the spec's. of an old, tube-type 'scope weighing about 70 pounds.

Actually Mil-I-45208A has never been known as a QMS. It is in-fact an "inspection system", and that only. It's requirements are virtually limited to requiring an inspection of the product prior to shipment, and segregating/dispositioning any nonconforming products.

That said, I have worked with Mil-I-45208A, Mil-Q-9858A, NHB 5300.4(1B & 1C), AQAP 1 (NATO Spec) and many other Mil/Gov/Fed and commercial specs/standards and have determined that it really doesn't matter which standard a company chooses to (or is obligated to) work under if they choose to do the right things for their business and for their customer any of these baseline templates will work. Because it's not the standard that makes a company succesful, it's their (upper management on down) concern for doing the right things in the right way for them and their customer.

I have worked with a sheet metal shop that provided formed sheet metal panels to be used by a supplier of spaceborne products to NOAA. The shop maintained no inspection activities (either at incoming, in process or final/prior to shipment), they did not have "calibrated" guages, nor did they have any documented procedures; but they had skilled sheet metal workers (average of 23 years of experience) that through contract provided these formed panels with virtually no rejects/returns from the customer (the customer had made arrangements to act as the incoming inspection and final inspection points.)

It was apparent to those of us that were receiving these panels that this sheet metal company had an excellent QMS (one though undocumented, existed in the form of company culture) which provided us with more consistent product than many of our "certified" suppliers.

It's not the Standard that matters, it's the culture behind it.

ddhartma said:

It's not the Standard that matters, it's the culture behind it.
That one sentence might be the most true thing said on the Cove today.

Yes we are in the process of If you will, "SIFTING" through the old and the new Military Standards. I can not access the site earlier mentioned in the thread. I'm looking for MIL-STD-105 &414. Could anyone help :bigwave: :thedeal:

Yes we are in the process of If you will, "SIFTING" through the old and the new Military Standards. I can not access the site earlier mentioned in the thread. I'm looking for MIL-STD-105 &414. Could anyone help :bigwave: :thedeal:

Although I don't have 414 I can provide you with 105E (attached). :bigwave:

OK, so I can't upload the PDF file since it's 2.5Mb (.5Mb too big). So I will try to email it to you. :frust:

I have worked with a sheet metal shop that provided formed sheet metal panels to be used by a supplier of spaceborne products to NOAA. The shop maintained no inspection activities (either at incoming, in process or final/prior to shipment), they did not have "calibrated" guages, nor did they have any documented procedures; but they had skilled sheet metal workers (average of 23 years of experience) that through contract provided these formed panels with virtually no rejects/returns from the customer (the customer had made arrangements to act as the incoming inspection and final inspection points.)

It was apparent to those of us that were receiving these panels that this sheet metal company had an excellent QMS (one though undocumented, existed in the form of company culture) which provided us with more consistent product than many of our "certified" suppliers.

It's not the Standard that matters, it's the culture behind it.
__________________
David D. Hartman

Hard to believe that without calibrated guages and inspection activities that the culture produced this virtual no rejects/returns yield! Amazing!

Since you put caliberated in quotes, what were you saying? They did not have a 4.11 (9001:1994), ISO-10012, or Guide 25 documented system.

Not to have either element, or process, in place whether documented or not does seem to fly in the face of any quality management principles. Doesn't?
Can there be such a culture without there being a system?

Amazed,
Doug

Hard to believe that without calibrated guages and inspection activities that the culture produced this virtual no rejects/returns yield! Amazing!

Since you put caliberated in quotes, what were you saying? They did not have .

Not to have either element, or process, in place whether documented or not does seem to fly in the face of any quality management principles. Doesn't?
Can there be such a culture without there being a system?

Amazed,
Doug

You know, as hard as it may be to believe for as far back as the Medieval times mankind has been able to manufacture quality products without the aid of "a 4.11 (9001:1994), ISO-10012, or Guide 25 documented system".

I know that perhaps it goes against the grain, but when it comes to coarse measurements the common steel scale/ruler is a very capable instrument. And much to the chagrin of the ISO authorities they really are not an item that can be calibrated (they are verifiable, but are NOT capable of calibration).

The company in my example formed fairly large pieces of sheet metal, and relied on uncalibrated (but high quality, brand name) scales, rulers, and protractors. And proved very capable of meeting our stated design requirements.

Keep in mind that our supplier control process for this supplier amounted to us having to measure (with calibrated/verified instruments) each and every piece recieved from them - since we chose to be their final inspection station (although after a period of time we did move to a Mil-Std-105 based sampling and switching system), and they consistently maintained a 99%+ acceptance rate.

Which leads me to question: In this specific scenario, what value would we have gained by requiring this company to expend time, money, and effort into implementing "a 4.11 (9001:1994), ISO-10012, or Guide 25 documented system"?

Yes we are in the process of If you will, "SIFTING" through the old and the new Military Standards. I can not access the site earlier mentioned in the thread. I'm looking for MIL-STD-105 &414. Could anyone help :bigwave: :thedeal:
MIL-STD-105 was replaced in 1981 by ANSI/ASQ Z1.4 Sampling Procedures and Tables for Inspection by Attributes.

MIL-STD-414 was replaced in 1980 by ANSI/ASQ Z1.9 Sampling Procedures and Tables for Inspection by Variables for Percent Nonconforming.

Copies of the standards can be purchased from ASQ (http://www.asq.org/).