Browse Topic: Supplier assessment

Items (108)
Find
Requirements for a COTS Assembly Management PlanEIA933D (Current)4/20/2026
This document applies to the development of Plans for integrating and managing COTS assemblies in electronic equipment and Systems for the commercial, military, and space markets, as well as other ADHP markets that wish to use this document. For purposes of this document, COTS assemblies are viewed as electronic assemblies such as printed wiring assemblies, disk drives, servers, printers, laptop computers, etc. There are many ways to categorize COTS assemblies1, including the following spectrum: At one end of the spectrum are COTS assemblies whose design, internal parts2, materials, configuration control, traceability, reliability, and qualification methods are at least partially controlled, or influenced, by ADHP customers (either individually or collectively) or by industry standards. An example at this end of the spectrum is a VME circuit card assembly. At the other end of the spectrum are COTS assemblies whose design, internal parts, materials, configuration control, and qualification methods are not controlled, or controllable, in any way by ADHP customers (either individually or collectively) or by industry standards. An example is a disk drive targeted for an industry other than ADHP use. It is critical for the Plan owner to: (1) review and understand the design, internal parts, materials, configuration control, reliability, and qualification methods of all “as-received” COTS assemblies and their capabilities with respect to their application in the intended System and environment; (2) identify risks; and where necessary (3) take additional action to mitigate the risks associated with the performance and reliability of the COTS assembly in the ADHP system.
APMC Avionics Process Management
Counterfeit Electrical, Electronic, and Electromechanical (EEE) Parts; Avoidance, Detection, Mitigation, and DispositionAS5553E (Current)11/13/2025
This standard is for use by organizations that procure and integrate EEE Parts. These organizations may provide EEE Parts that are not integrated into assemblies (e.g., spares and/or repair EEE Parts). Examples of such organizations include, but are not limited to, the following: Original Equipment Manufacturers; contract assembly manufacturers; maintenance, repair, and overhaul (MRO) organizations; and suppliers that provide EEE Parts or assemblies as part of a service. These requirements are intended to be applied (or flowed down as applicable) through the supply chain to all organizations that procure and integrate EEE Parts and/or systems, subsystems, or assemblies. The mitigation of Counterfeit EEE Parts in this standard is risk based. These mitigation steps will vary depending on the criticality of the application and desired performance and reliability of the equipment/hardware. The requirements of this document are used in conjunction with the organization’s higher-level quality standard(s) (e.g., AS 9100, ISO 9001, ASQ/ANSI E4, ASME NQA-1, AS9120, or equivalent) and other quality management system documents (e.g., AS9110 used by MRO organizations). They are not intended to stand alone, supersede, or cancel requirements found in other quality management system documents, requirements imposed by contracting authorities, or applicable laws and regulations unless an authorized exemption/variance has been obtained. This document is not intended to make a legal determination of fraud, for which appropriate legal counsel should be consulted for further action. For the purposes of this document, the term “risk” is synonymous with Counterfeit Risk.
G-19 Counterfeit Electronic Parts Committee
AESQ Quality Management System Requirements for Aero Engine Design and Production OrganizationsAS13100A (Current)4/14/2025
This SAE Aerospace Standard (AS) establishes supplemental requirements for 9100 and 9145 and applies to any organization receiving it as part of a purchase order or other contractual document from a customer. AS13100 also provides details of the reference materials (RM13xxx) developed by the SAE G-22 AESQ committee and listed in Section 2 that can also be used by organizations in conjunction with this standard.
G-22 Aerospace Engine Supplier Quality (AESQ) Committee
Guideline for Counterfeit Electrical, Electronic, and Electromechanical (EEE) Parts; Avoidance, Detection, Mitigation, and Disposition SystemsARP6328A (Current)9/7/2023
The content of ARP6328 contains guidance for implementing processes used for risk identification, mitigation, detection, avoidance, disposition, and reporting of counterfeit electrical, electronic, and electromechanical (EEE) parts and assemblies in accordance with AS5553 Revision D. This document may also be used in conjunction with other revisions of AS5553. This document retains guidance contained in the base document of AS5553, updated as appropriate to reflect current practices. This is not intended to stand alone, supersede, or cancel requirements found in other quality management system documents, requirements imposed by contracting authorities, or applicable laws and regulations unless an authorized exemption/variance has been obtained.
G-19 Counterfeit Electronic Parts Committee
Translating the Digital Engineering Vision to Reality: A Process for Defining a Suitable Digital Engineering Scope for DoD Acquisition Programs2024-01-40408/10/2023
ABSTRACT Digital Engineering (DE) has been a prevalent topic across the Department of Defense (DoD) since the Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Systems Engineering – now the Office of the Undersecretary of Defense for Research and Engineering [OUSD(R&E)] - re-leased the DoD Digital Engineering strategy1 in 2018. Since then, there has been a major push to incorporate DE into the DoD acquisition process and for programs to use DE, including Mod-el-Based Systems Engineering (MBSE), in system development. This paper focuses on where the DoD stands today with adoption of digital acquisition, the challenges of implementing DE on major programs, and the approach used by the Army’s Optionally Manned Fighting Vehicle (OMFV) program to define a realistic pathway to effectively implement a DE strategy from Re-quest for Proposal (RFP) to prototype acquisition. Citation: S. Scheithauer, D. Chudy, G. Byrd, B. Juelson, D. Clark, C. Arndt, “Translating the Digital Engineering Vision to Reality: A Process for Defining a Suitable Digital Engineering Scope for DoD Acquisition Programs,” In Proceedings of the Ground Vehicle Systems Engineering and Technology Symposium (GVSETS), NDIA, Novi, MI, Aug. 15-17, 2023.
Scheithauer, Sarah, Chudy, David, Byrd, Gerald, Juelson, Brady, Clark, Dalton, Arndt, Craig
Can Embedded Electronics Components Meet the Demands of Hypersonic Missiles?23AERP02_022/1/2023
Today, defense organizations in several countries are attempting to expand military capabilities by investing in hypersonic missile development. Since these missiles travel at Mach 5, or nearly 4,000 mph, there are naturally a variety of challenges for developing both the actual weapons systems and the corresponding detection systems. While challenges span nearly every aspect of developing these missiles, in this article we will focus specifically on the key challenges associated with the embedded electronics and communication systems. We will also look at how aerospace and defense engineers working on hypersonic missiles can ensure they are selecting supplier partners that are well positioned to meet these unique challenges by looking into their space heritage and history developing high-reliability radiofrequency (RF) components.
Requirements for Conducting Audits of Aviation, Space, and Defense Quality Management SystemsAS9101G (Current)11/29/2022
This standard defines requirements for the preparation and execution of the audit process. In addition, it defines the content and composition for the audit reporting of conformity and process effectiveness to the 9100-series standards, the organization's QMS documentation, and customer and statutory/regulatory requirements. The requirements in this standard are additions or represent changes to the requirements and guidelines in the standards for conformity assessment, auditing, and certification as published by ISO/IEC (i.e., ISO/IEC 17000, ISO/IEC 17021-1). When there is conflict with these standards, the requirements of the 9101 standard shall take precedence.
G-14 Americas Aerospace Quality Standards Committee (AAQSC)
682 Guidance for Air Transport Service BulletinsARINC682 (Current)9/21/2022
This document provides industry guidance to supplement ATA standards and airframe requirements, addressing gaps and vague areas to move suppliers/vendors and airframers toward a common standard for format and wording in Vendor Service Bulletins (VSB) for Air Transport components. This document supplements the VSB guidance of iSpec 2200, providing clarity of requirements and resulting in a common standard wording and format of VSBs from all suppliers on all aircraft types. The guidance in this document is intended to be applied to VSBs created and released subsequent to the release of the guidance document and will not require the retroactive update of VSBs released prior to the creation and release of the guidance.
Avionics Maintenance Committee
842-3 Guidance for Usage of Digital CertificatesARINC842-3 (Current)7/1/2022
The purpose of this document is to provide operational guidance for key life-cycle management, which refers to the phases through which digital certificates and associated cryptographic keys progress, from creation through usage to retirement. Additionally, this document provides implementation guidance for online certificate provisioning of aircraft systems. The scope includes both the onboard part (aircraft system) as well as the ground part (PKI provider and Ground Infrastructure). Consideration of both onboard and ground provides the benefit of security considerations being included in the process flow and chain of custody. Specifically, the management to and from the aircraft is defined within a workflow. The guidance is based on open international standards that are adapted to the aviation environment, recognizing that a typical commercial airplane has a long lifespan, its operational environment is highly complex and regulated, and multiple stakeholders operate ground-based systems that communicate with airplanes. Using a standardized and consistent key management approach, as proposed in this document, helps to reduce cost of design, implementation, and operation even across a heterogeneous fleet.
Airlines Electronic Engineering Committee
Recommended Practice: Development Planning for Design of Additive Manufactured Components in an Aircraft SystemARP7042 (Current)3/2/2022
This SAE Aerospace Recommended Practice (ARP) outlines a development, design/repair, and industrial guidance for systems using additive manufacturing (AM) to respond to aircraft requirement specifications. These recommendations reflect procedures that have been effective for designing/repairing metallic alloy components.
G-37 Process Intensive Materials Certification Guidance
Provisioning Smart Sensors for the IoTTBMG-453403/1/2022
The internet of things (IoT) is no stranger to most of us at this point. IoT devices can be seen as belonging either to the consumer, medical, or industrial markets. Whether the device is a video doorbell, an insulin pump, or an industrial sensor, the user will face two significant challenges: 1) getting the device physically/logically connected to the network and 2) making sure that the device has the proper credentials to enable it to interoperate with other devices on the same network or with the server(s) that are expected to collect the device's data. These challenges can be largely grouped into a process known as provisioning.
C1501JP - Common Training for DPRV Personnel (Japanese)C1501JP1/17/2022
Establishing Proper Validation of Extruded Silicone TubingTBMG-405441/1/2022
Medical device manufacturers understand that contract manufacturers are experts in their manufacturing discipline. That said, as medical device OEMs respond to the current requirements described in the European Medical Device Regulation (EU MDR) or by the Food and Drug Adminstration (FDA), the topic of process validation is more and more common. Most OEMs simply don’t have a validation plan for a contract manufacturer to follow. While engineers are fully aware that it’s a requirement for releasing their product in the market, many simply want to “check the box” that this has been completed. This article presents a program that moves projects from the process development phase of manufacturing to a fully validated process.1, 2
Inspection and Test Quality Systems Requirements for Aviation, Space, and Defense OrganizationsAS9003B (Current)12/28/2021
This standard includes selected quality system requirements from ISO 9001:2008[1] and AS9100:2009 applicable to noncomplex products and associated manufacturing processes. ISO 9001 text incorporated into this standard appears in standard font; while aviation, space, and defense industry additional requirements, definitions, and notes are presented in bold, italic text. The requirements of this standard are intended to be applied in whole, without any exclusions. Compliance with all corresponding AS9100 requirements is considered to meet/exceed compliance with the requirements of this standard. The requirements specified in this standard are complementary (not alternative) to contractual and applicable statutory and regulatory requirements. Should there be a conflict between the requirements of this standard and applicable statutory or regulatory requirements, the latter shall take precedence. The process approach described in ISO 9001 and AS9100 applies to this standard.
G-14 Americas Aerospace Quality Standards Committee (AAQSC)
Aerospace – Customer Identified Major Quality Management System Nonconformity Other Party Collaborative Corrective Action ProcessAS9018 (Current)10/18/2021
This standard is applicable to AQMS COs listed in the Online Aerospace Supplier Information System (OASIS) database. This standard is intended for the management and resolution of AQMS CO’s major QMS nonconformities. This standard is not intended to address QMS nonconformities classified as minor or nonconformities related to the products or services provided by the CO.
G-14 Americas Aerospace Quality Standards Committee (AAQSC)
LIN Network for Vehicle ApplicationsJ2602-1_202110 (Current)10/1/2021
This document covers the requirements for SAE implementations based on ISO 17987:2016. Requirements stated in this document will provide a minimum standard level of performance to which all compatible ECUs and media shall be designed. This will assure full serial data communication among all connected devices regardless of supplier. The goal of SAE J2602-1 is to improve the interoperability and interchangeability of LIN devices within a network by adding additional requirements that are not present in ISO 17987:2016 (e.g., fault tolerant operation, network topology, etc.). The intended audience includes, but is not limited to, ECU suppliers, LIN controller suppliers, LIN transceiver suppliers, component release engineers, and vehicle system engineers. The term “master” has been replaced by “commander” and term “slave” with “responder” in the following sections.
Vehicle Architecture For Data Communications Standards
Data Formats and Practices for Life Cycle Cost InformationARP4294A (Current)9/10/2021
This SAE Aerospace Recommended Practice (ARP)4294 is directed at life cycle cost (LCC) analysis of aerospace propulsion systems and supplements AIR1939. Specific topics addressed by ARP4294 are listed below: a Propulsion system LCC element structure. b Information exchange and relationships with: (1) Aircraft manufacturer (2) Equipment suppliers (3) Customer c The relationship of the LCC element structure to work breakdown structures. d The relationship between LCC analysis and other related disciplines (e.g., technical (performance analysis, weight control, component lives), reliability, availability and maintainability (RAM), integrated logistic support (ILS), production and finance). e Classification of the accuracy and applicability of LCC assessments.
LCLS Life Cycle Logistics Supportability
Manufacturing Management ProgramAS6500A (Current)7/7/2021
This standard is applicable to all phases of the system acquisition life cycle. It is intended for use on all programs with manufacturing content. It requires proven manufacturing management practices with the goal of delivering affordable and capable systems to the extent that it is invoked contractually. The term “organization” as used in this document refers to the company or facility that is implementing this standard, such as when imposed contractually by the customer.
G-23 Manufacturing Management Committee
Maintaining Quality in Medical Imaging Applications: Considerations for Capacitor SelectionTBMG-394657/1/2021
Today, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) technology is widely used by healthcare professionals to examine soft tissues and organs in the body. MRI is an excellent diagnostic tool because it can be used to detect a variety of potentially life-threatening issues ranging from degenerative diseases to tumors in a noninvasive manner. To understand the design challenges involved in developing MRI equipment, specifically when it comes to the selection of radio-frequency (RF) and electrical components such as capacitors, it’s first important to understand the basic physics behind the way MRI machines operate.
Capacitive Fuel Gauging System AccuraciesAIR1184B (Current)4/23/2021
This report is intended to identify the various errors typically encountered in capacitance fuel quantity measurement systems. In addition to identification of error sources, it describes the basic factors which cause the errors. When coupled with appraisals of the relative costs of minimizing the errors, this knowledge will furnish a tool with which to optimize gauging system accuracy, and thus, to obtain the optimum overall system within the constraints imposed by both design and budgetary considerations. Since the subject of fuel measurement accuracy using capacitance based sensing is quite complex, no attempt is made herein to present a fully-comprehensive evaluation of all factors affecting gauging system accuracy. Rather, the major contributors to gauging system inaccuracy are discussed and emphasis is given to simplicity and clarity, somewhat at the expense of completeness. An overview of capacitive fuel gauging operation can be found in AIR5691. This document also discusses how to analyze fuel gauging system accuracy as a result of combining the effects of the error sources described here.
AE-5A Aerospace Fuel, Inerting and Lubrication Sys Committee
Systems Engineering Capability ModelEIA731_1A (Current)3/16/2021
The purpose of this Standard is to support the development and improvement of systems engineering capability.
G-47 Systems Engineering
AESQ Quality Management System Requirements for Aero Engine Design and Production OrganizationsAS13100 (Historical)3/1/2021
This standard establishes supplemental requirements for 9100 and 9145 and applies to any organization receiving it as part of a Purchase Order or other contractual document from a customer. AS13100 also provides details of the Reference Materials (RM13xxx) developed by the SAE G-22 AESQ committee and listed in Section 2 - Applicable Documents, that can also be used by organizations in conjunction with this standard.
G-22 Aerospace Engine Supplier Quality (AESQ) Committee
Processes for Engineering a SystemEIA632A (Current)2/23/2021
The purpose of this Standard is to provide an integrated set of fundamental processes to aid a developer in the engineering or reengineering of a system. Use of this Standard is intended to help developers a) establish and evolve a complete and consistent set of requirements that will enable delivery of feasible and cost-effective system solutions; b) satisfy requirements within cost, schedule, and risk constraints; c) provide a system, or any portion of a system, that satisfies stakeholders over the life of the products that make up the system. NOTE—The term product is used in this standard to mean: a physical item, such as a satellite (end product), or any of its component parts (end products); a software item such as a stand-alone application to run within an existing system (end product); or a document such as a plan, or a service such as test, training, or maintenance support, or equipment such as a simulator (enabling products). d) provide for the safe and/or cost-effective disposal or retirement of a system.
G-47 Systems Engineering
Configuration Management Requirements for Defense ContractsEIA649_1A (Current)8/10/2020
This document applies to hardware and software and provides CM requirements to be placed on contracts after being tailored by the Acquirer. The requirements have been organized by the following five CM functions: a Configuration Planning and Management b Configuration Identification c Configuration Change Management d Configuration Status Accounting e Configuration Verification and Audit
G-33 Configuration Management
High-Reliability Capacitors: Critical Components for Medical Device ImplantablesTBMG-373658/1/2020
As technology advances in the medical device space, electronics design engineers are constantly adapting to meet industry requirements for increased functionality, reduced component size, and absolute reliability. For medical implantables, technological innovations are driven by the ability for electronic components manufacturers to superminiaturize electronic circuits and create advancements in the materials and designs available.
AS5553C, Counterfeit Electrical, Electronic, and Electromechanical (EEE) Parts; Avoidance, Detection, Mitigation, and Disposition Verification CriteriaAS6462C (Historical)11/14/2019
This document is intended for use during audits to the requirements of AS5553C. It may be used by all contracting organizations that procure EEE parts, whether such parts are procured directly or integrated into electronic assemblies or equipment as guidance for evaluating compliance to AS5553C.
G-19 Counterfeit Electronic Parts Committee
USE OF ADVANCED MODELING AND SIMULATION TECHNIQUES TO IMPROVE PERFORMANCE AND ACCELERATE ACQUISITION OF ARMY VEHICLE SYSTEMS2024-01-37708/13/2019
ABSTRACT An increasing pace of technology advancements and recent heavy investment by potential adversaries has eroded the Army’s overmatch and spurred significant changes to the modernization enterprise. Commercial ground vehicle industry solutions are not directly applicable to Army acquisitions because of volume, usage and life cycle requirement differences. In order to meet increasingly aggressive schedule goals while ensuring high quality materiel, the Army acquisition and test and evaluation communities need to retain flexibility and continue to pursue novel analytic methods. Fully utilizing test and field data and incorporating advanced techniques, such as, big data analytics and machine learning can lead to smarter, more rapid acquisition and a better overall product for the Soldier. Logistics data collections during operationally relevant events that were originally intended for the development of condition based maintenance procedures in particular have been shown to provide substantial opportunities to apply advanced data analytics. Citation: R. Heine, B. Frounfelker, L. Salins, C. Wang, “Use of Advanced Modeling and Simulation Techniques to Improve Performance and Accelerate Acquisition of Army Vehicle Systems”, In Proceedings of the Ground Vehicle Systems Engineering and Technology Symposium (GVSETS), NDIA, Novi, MI, Aug. 13-15, 2019.
Heine, Richard, Frounfelker, Brad, Salins, Lane, Wang, Chongying
UTILIZING A STRUCTURED DECISION PROCESS FOR U.S. GOVERNMENT SOURCE SELECTIONS: CASE OF A COMBAT VEHICLE ENGINE2024-01-37698/13/2019
ABSTRACT U.S. Government procurement spending exceeds $500B annually. A request for proposal is one of the more common forms of solicitation, and source selection (SS) is the process for evaluating proposals submitted by contractors. The U.S. Department of Defense and the Army promulgate manuals and supplements that direct the SS process within those organizations. Those publications identify “trade-offs” as a preferred method for conducting a SS, and encourage the use of this process “when it may be in the best interest of the Government to consider award to other than the lowest-price offeror.” Under this process, cost and non-cost factors are evaluated and the contract is awarded to the offeror proposing the combination of factors that represents the best value based on the evaluation criteria. This case study will describe how a trade-off, or structured decision, process was used to support a U.S. Army SS by thoroughly evaluating multiple vendors and their proposals of a major subsystem for a major defense acquisition program. The purpose of this case study is not to focus solely on how to accomplish a trade-off, or execute a SS, but rather to share lessons-learned about how to address special situations encountered during a SS trade-off. Citation: Hartman, G., “Utilizing a Structured Decision Process for U.S. Government Source Selections: Case of a Combat Vehicle Engine”, In Proceedings of the Ground Vehicle Systems Engineering and Technology Symposium (GVSETS), NDIA, Novi, MI, Aug. 13-15, 2019.
Hartman, Gregory D.
Strategies for Low-Risk Sourcing of Components in a Constrained MarketTBMG-345626/1/2019
The medical device industry often looks to independent distributors to address chronic shortages in the availability of electronic components. Direct sourcing of electronic components for the medical device industry used to be pretty simple. An OEM would order direct from the manufacturer or through authorized distributors to obtain any required components. There was usually no need to look any further.
662-1 Obsolescence Management Strategies for Commercial AircraftARINC662-1 (Current)5/14/2019
The purpose of this document is to establish guidelines that should be observed during initial design, production, and maintenance of aircraft components, and to present short-term and long-term strategies to minimize the costs and impacts associated with decreasing availability of components.
Avionics Maintenance Committee
Tubing and Hose Buying: Top 20 TipsTBMG-339953/1/2019
It can be challenging to make sure you've covered all the bases during the tubing and hose selection process for medical instrumentation. For each application, there are many elements to consider, including chemicals, temperatures, pressures, and flexibility needs. The tips in this article are designed to help avoid situations in which the wrong tubing or hose is integrated. The article also presents critical details that can often be overlooked.
Configuration Management StandardEIA649C (Current)2/7/2019
This standard defines five CM functions and their underlying principles. The functions are detailed in Section 5. The principles, highlighted in text boxes, are designed to individually identify the essence of the related CM function and can be used to collectively create a checklist of “best practice” criteria to evaluate a CM program. The CM principles defined in this standard apply equally to internally focused enterprise information, processes, and supporting systems (i.e., Enterprise CM - policy driven, supporting the internal goals needed to achieve an efficient, effective and lean enterprise), as well as to the working relationships supported by the enterprise (i.e., Acquirer/Supplier CM - contracted relationship to support external trusted interaction with suppliers). In an Enterprise CM context there are several methodologies for principle use by the enterprise: The principles of this standard provide direction for developing enterprise or functional CM plans focused on identifying, defining, authorizing, and managing CM activities. These plans identify the participants involved in activities, their responsibilities, their authority, and how accountability is administered to serve enterprise/activity objectives. The Enterprise uses CM’s integrity-based traceability and management capabilities as a foundation to support the “best practice” initiatives of data/information management, quality assurance, program/project management, systems engineering and life cycle logistics, by providing principle-guided functions to achieve a more efficient, effective and lean enterprise. In the Acquirer/Supplier CM context there are several methodologies for conformance by a supplier: Acquirer requires a CM plan consistent with the principles of this standard from the supplier. Acquirer uses this standard to develop a checklist with which to evaluate supplier CM plans. Acquirer reviews and approves the supplier CM plan and makes it a requirement of the contract. This method requires both parties to the acquisition to understand both the concepts and the tailoring. Acquirer uses the principles of this standard as the basis for developing either or both an enterprise CM requirements document or a specific project CM requirements document to impose on suppliers. The requirements documents may state this standard’s principles as requirements and reference this standard’s paragraphs. Compliance with the contractual requirements constitutes conformance with this standard. In describing each CM function and its principles, this standard utilizes neutral Configuration Management terminology, while also providing equivalent terms, that have historically been used in various product environments (see Table 2). There is no intent to express a preference for any particular set of terminology. Similarly, this standard uses a neutral set of names for the phases of a product’s life cycle, which are generic enough to be easily mapped to the myriad of different life cycle models in use. Table 1 illustrates some of the aliases for each phase name and identifies characteristics that apply to each one. Regardless of the titles chosen for these phases, or what the product is (i.e., a facility, software, an airplane or a machine screw), at some point in its history a product will go through all or most of these phases. The phases can have considerable overlap, or the sequence of the phases might change or be repeated, e.g., for product improvements and enhancements. Approved configurations of a product can be in the build, distribution, operation, and disposal phases simultaneously, and changes to those configurations may occur during all life cycle phases. Appropriate application of CM functions enables a user of this standard to plan and implement a CM program for a product, project, or enterprise. All functions apply during every phase of the product’s life cycle but the degree to which each of the CM principles applies may vary. A scalable CM process should be defined, measured, continuously improved, and adhered to, that is commensurate with the product’s complexity, its intended use, and its value over the product life cycle. An organization that has the responsibility for performing Configuration Management for a product during any period of its life cycle could be a commercial enterprise, e.g., contractor, subcontractor, supplier, or government agency. References in this standard to the acquirer (i.e., customer) should be interpreted as the entity that specifies requirements (functional and performance attributes) for the product or that acquires and uses the product. An acquirer may be external to the developing and producing organization or may be internal such as marketing, management, or the using department. Configuration Management functions related to a product may be the responsibility of several organizations during its life cycle. For example, an organization with the responsibility to design and build a product will perform Configuration Management during the definition and build phases; other organizations or government activities with responsibility for upgrading the product and servicing units will perform Configuration Management during the operation phase. GEIA-HB-649 “Configuration Management Standard Implementation Guide,” provides additional “how to” guidance for planning, managing, and implementing CM functions and principles.
G-33 Configuration Management
Safety Assessment of Transport Airplanes in Commercial ServiceARP5150A (Current)1/2/2019
This document describes guidelines, methods, and tools used to perform the ongoing safety assessment process for transport airplanes in commercial service (hereafter, termed “airplane”). The process described herein is intended to support an overall safety management program. It is associated with showing compliance with the regulations, and also with assuring a company that it meets its own internal standards. The methods identify a systematic means, but not the only means, to assess ongoing safety. While economic decision-making is an integral part of the safety management process, this document addresses only the ongoing safety assessment process. To put it succinctly, this document addresses the “Is it safe?” part of safety management; it does not address the “How much does it cost?” part of the safety management. This document also does not address any specific organizational structures for accomplishing the safety assessment process. While the nature of the organizational structure is significant to the quality of a safety program, this document focuses on the functions to be accomplished and does not attempt to define what the structure should be. The intent is to leave the greatest amount of flexibility to the organizations that use this document.
S-18C Ongoing Safety Assessment Committee
Tackling Clinical Evaluation Head OnTBMG-335741/1/2019
When a medical device is placed on the market, it is critical for the manufacturer to demonstrate through appropriate Conformity Assessments (CAs) that the device complies with the Essential Requirements (ERs) as set out in the Medical Devices Directives (MDD). The manufacturer needs to demonstrate that the device achieves its intended purpose, that any known (or possibly foreseeable) risks are minimized and weighed against the benefits of the intended use, and that any claims about the device's performance are supported by evidence.
Key Considerations When Selecting a Connector SolutionTBMG-3309010/1/2018
Electronics industry trends develop and change, technologies emerge and improve, and new applications bring new requirements and challenges. While this obviously has an impact on the electronics, it also has a significant impact on connector technology needed to support it.
Key Considerations When Selecting a Connector Solution: Addressing Materials, Layout, and Assembly AspectsTBMG-329749/17/2018
As already outlined in Part 1 (featured in the October issue of Tech Briefs), the main function of a connector is to enable the transfer of electrical signals.
Key Considerations When Selecting a Connector Solution: Choosing a Suitable Connector SupplierTBMG-329759/17/2018
The first two sections of the whitepaper have covered many of the aspects required in selecting a suitable connector, by considering the connector itself:
Guidelines for Preparing Reliability Assessment Plans for Electronic Engine ControlsARP5890B (Current)5/7/2018
This document establishes guidelines for a Reliability Assessment Plan (herein also called the Plan), in which Electronic Engine Control manufacturers document their controlled, repeatable processes for assessing reliability of their products. Each Electronic Engine Control manufacturer (the Plan owner) prepares a Plan, which is unique to the Plan owner. This document describes processes that are intended for use in assessing the reliability of Electronic Engine Controls, or subassemblies thereof. The results of such assessments are intended for use as inputs to safety analyses, certification analyses, equipment design decisions, system architecture selection and business decisions such as warranties or maintenance cost guarantees. This Guide may be used to prepare plans for reliability assessment of electronic engine controls in which, typically, the impact of failure is high, the operating environment can be relatively severe and the opportunity to improve the equipment after the start of production is limited. In this and similar industries, accurate estimates of expected equipment reliability are necessary prior to the start of production. This guide was initially produced in response to the recognized need for alternative reliability assessment and prediction methods in the wake of the decline in the availability of mil-spec parts and the declining use of military specifications and handbooks. Since the original publication of this document, a more advanced approach to handbook prediction has been developed, re-introducing this assessment method as a more viable option. This re-issue describes recent handbook advances while also highlighting a number of emerging reliability risks resulting from advances in electronic component development. The approach to reliability assessment in this Guide: Encourages the equipment manufacturer (the Plan owner) to consider all relevant information regarding equipment reliability which may include the effects of design and manufacturing process as well as component selection issues. This is in contrast to more traditional methods that focus on component reliability as the most significant contributor to the equipment reliability. Encourages the equipment manufacturer to define and use the processes that are most effective for the manufacturer’s own equipment. This guide does not attempt to prescribe a set of acceptable data, algorithms, methods, or equations to be used in reliability assessment, but rather to provide a ‘toolbox’ of complementary assessment methodologies based upon a number of current practices. Describes a continuous process, in which a reliability assessment can be updated as more information becomes available during the equipment life cycle. This information may be used to improve both the reliability of the equipment and the effectiveness of the assessment process. Reliability assessment results should be viewed as objective evidence that it is expected the product reliability requirements and goals will be satisfied, by the proposed design. As such, they may be used, for example, to authorize advancement to the next step in product development, or to authorize progress payments, or to proceed with delivery and acceptance of products. Reliability assessment results should never be used to support a claim that the reliability requirements, goals, or expectations have been satisfied, in the face of clear evidence to the contrary from in-service experience. Traditional approaches to reliability assessment, including Handbook Predictions and Durability Analysis described herein, primarily address unreliability resulting from hardware defects within the equipment. It is not the intention of the ARP to provide methods and processes to specifically address software and system reliability issues, but it is recognized that system and software design errors contribute to product unreliability and that the use of Similarity Analysis, for instance, can encompass these sources of unreliability. This SAE Aerospace Recommended Practice (ARP) is intended as a guide towards standard practice and is subject to change to keep pace with experience and technical advances.
E-36 Electronic Engine Controls Committee
Test Methods Standard; General Requirements, Suspect/Counterfeit, Electrical, Electronic, and Electromechanical PartsAS6171A (Current)4/18/2018
This SAE Aerospace Standard (AS) standardizes inspection and test procedures, workmanship criteria, and minimum training and certification requirements to detect Suspect/Counterfeit (SC) Electrical, Electronic, and Electromechanical (EEE) parts. The requirements of this document apply once a decision is made to use parts with unknown chain of custody that do not have pedigree back to the original component manufacturer or have been acquired from a broker or independent distributor, or when there are other known risk elements that result in the User/Requester to have concerns about potential SC EEE parts. The tests specified by this standard may also detect occurrences of malicious tampering, although the current version of this standard is not designed specifically for this purpose. This standard ensures consistency across the supply chain for test techniques and requirements based on assessed risk associated with the application, component, supplier, and other relevant risk factors. The requirements of this document supplement the requirements of a higher-level quality standard (e.g., AS9100, AS9003, AS9120, ISO 9001) and other quality management system documents. They are not intended to stand alone, supersede, or cancel requirements found in other quality management system documents, or requirements imposed by contracting authorities. This standard should be implemented when other risk mitigation methods for avoiding the use of SC EEE parts (e.g., acquiring all parts from Authorized Sources, redesigning the system, having obsolete parts emulated, etc.) are either unavailable or inadequate. This standard mitigates the technical risk of performing insufficient inspection and test to determine suspect counterfeit EEE parts. This standard is not intended to be used to assess quality or reliability issues that may arise because of component production issues or due to mishandling, improper storage, or other attributes specific to quality or reliability. The following terminology is used throughout this document and associated AS6171 Slash Sheets: a Shall = is mandatory; b Should = is recommended; and c Will = is planned (is considered to be part of a standard process). This standard should be utilized when parts are not available from sources with known traceability to the Original Component Manufacturer (OCM), Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) for electromechanical parts, or authorized manufacturer. The requirements of this document specify testing based on acceptable levels of risk for a program or customer, to identify anomalies or performance issues that may indicate suspect counterfeit and counterfeit activity. No amount of testing can confirm an item as authentic; this would require that there be a known, unbroken chain of custody to the OCM/OEM or authorized manufacturer. Therefore, organizations should attempt to obtain parts from sources that have known traceability to the OCM or authorized manufacturer to avoid receiving counterfeit parts. All intermediaries from the origin (i.e., OCM/OEM or authorized manufacturer) to the final destination should consist of Trusted Suppliers, and transportation should be provided by logistics carriers that have documented processes and procedures to avoid tampering or substitution during the journey to the parts’ final destination. A preference should be given to parts with known pedigree over parts with unknown pedigree to avoid counterfeit parts. This standard does not apply to parts obtained directly from a Trustworthy Authorized Supplier with traceability to the OCM/OEM or authorized manufacturer. This standard does not have specific test methods to determine if an item is a Fraudulent Part beyond what is considered counterfeit. Test data on anomalies can be gathered for potential legal determination of fraudulent intent or negligence. This document does not make a legal determination of fraud, and appropriate legal counsel should be consulted for further action. Unless otherwise specified in the SOW or PO by the User/Requester, the information in the Appendices is not considered mandatory.
G-19A Test Laboratory Standards Development Committee
Quality Assurance: Risk Mitigation for Lithium-Ion Battery PacksTBMG-264252/1/2017
Safety and reliability are the key concerns when determining the right power source for a medical device. Lithium-ion (Li-ion) batteries are often considered for their higher energy density, lighter weight, longer cycle life, superior capacity retention, and ability to withstand a broad range of ambient temperatures. However, with an increasing number of potentially dangerous incidents — including fires and explosions — from Li-ion batteries, quality assurance is more important than ever for error and risk prevention, particularly for medical devices that use these power sources. Having a holistic quality approach across the battery product lifecycle is essential for achieving safe, high-quality, and environmentally friendly products.
Quality Management Systems - Audit Requirements for Aviation, Space, and Defense OrganizationsAS9101F (Historical)10/31/2016
This standard defines requirements for the preparation and execution of the audit process. In addition, it defines the content and composition for the audit reporting of conformity and process effectiveness to the 9100-series standards, the organization's QMS documentation, and customer and statutory/regulatory requirements. The requirements in this standard are additions or represent changes to the requirements and guidelines in the standards for conformity assessment, auditing, and certification as published by ISO/IEC (i.e., ISO/IEC 17000, ISO/IEC 17021-1). When there is conflict with these standards, the requirements of the 9101 standard shall take precedence.
G-14 Americas Aerospace Quality Standards Committee (AAQSC)
Test Methods Standard; General Requirements, Suspect/Counterfeit, Electrical, Electronic, and Electromechanical PartsAS6171 (Historical)10/30/2016
This SAE Aerospace Standard (AS) standardizes inspection and test procedures, workmanship criteria, and minimum training and certification requirements to detect Suspect/Counterfeit (SC) Electrical, Electronic, and Electromechanical (EEE) parts. The requirements of this document apply once a decision is made to use parts with unknown chain of custody that do not have pedigree back to the original component manufacturer, or have been acquired from a broker or independent distributor, or when there are other known risk elements that result in the User/Requester to have concerns about potential SC EEE parts. The tests specified by this standard may also detect occurrences of malicious tampering, although the current version of this standard is not designed specifically for this purpose. This standard ensures consistency across the supply chain for test techniques and requirements based on assessed risk associated with the application, component, supplier, and other relevant risk factors. The requirements of this document supplement the requirements of a higher level quality standard (e.g., AS9100, AS9003, AS9120, ISO 9001) and other quality management system documents. They are not intended to stand alone, supersede, or cancel requirements found in other quality management system documents, or requirements imposed by contracting authorities. This standard should be implemented when other risk mitigation methods for avoiding the use of SC EEE parts (e.g., acquiring all parts from Authorized Sources, redesigning the system, having obsolete parts emulated, etc.) are either unavailable or inadequate. This standard mitigates the technical risk of performing insufficient inspection and test to determine suspect counterfeit EEE parts. This standard is not intended to be used to assess quality or reliability issues that may arise because of component production issues or due to mishandling, improper storage, or other attributes specific to quality or reliability. The following terminology is used throughout this document and associated AS6171 Slash Sheets: a Shall = is mandatory; b Should = is recommended; and c Will = is planned (is considered to be part of a standard process). This standard should be utilized when parts are not available from sources with known traceability to the Original Component Manufacturer (OCM), Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) for electromechanical parts, or authorized manufacturer. The requirements of this document specify testing based on acceptable levels of risk for a program or customer, to identify anomalies or performance issues that may indicate suspect counterfeit and counterfeit activity. No amount of testing can confirm an item as authentic; this would require that there be a known, unbroken chain of custody to the OCM/OEM or authorized manufacturer. Therefore, organizations should attempt to obtain parts from sources that have known traceability to the OCM or authorized manufacturer to avoid receiving counterfeit parts. All intermediaries from the origin (i.e., OCM/OEM or authorized manufacturer) to the final destination should consist of Trusted Suppliers, and transportation should be provided by logistics carriers that have documented processes and procedures to avoid tampering or substitution during the journey to the parts’ final destination. A preference should be given to parts with known pedigree over parts with unknown pedigree to avoid counterfeit parts. This standard does not apply to parts obtained directly from a Trustworthy Authorized Supplier with traceability to the OCM/OEM or authorized manufacturer. This standard does not have specific test methods to determine if an item is a Fraudulent Part beyond what is considered counterfeit. Test data on anomalies can be gathered for potential legal determination of fraudulent intent or negligence. This document does not make a legal determination of fraud, and appropriate legal counsel should be consulted for further action. Unless otherwise specified in the SOW or PO by the User/Requester, the information in the Appendices is not considered mandatory.
G-19A Test Laboratory Standards Development Committee
Guideline for Development of Counterfeit Electronic Parts; Avoidance, Detection, Mitigation, and Disposition SystemsARP6328 (Historical)9/12/2016
This document contains guidance for implementing a counterfeit mitigation program in accordance with AS5553. The information contained in this document is intended to supplement the requirements of a higher level quality standard (e.g., AS9100) and other quality management system documents. This is not intended to stand alone, supersede, or cancel requirements found in other quality management system documents, requirements imposed by contracting authorities, or applicable laws and regulations unless an authorized exemption/variance has been obtained.
G-19 Counterfeit Electronic Parts Committee
Model for Integrating Metrics into the Procurement ProcessEIA830 (Current)7/1/2015
This model is designed to enhance insight into the application of meaningful metrics. The emphasis is on business processes which may best provide indication of the level of risk to the customer when contemplating or continuing business with the supplier base. (E.g., the RFP/RFQ, proposal, supplier selection, and performance).
Systems Management Council
Americas Aerospace Quality Group (AAQG) Requirements for Aerospace Quality Management System Certification/Registrations ProgramsAS9014A (Current)6/12/2015
These requirements are applicable to IAQG sector schemes when making use of ABs, CRBs and their auditors, for the assessment and certification/registration of supplier quality systems in accordance with the requirements of this document. The quality management system standard used by the CRB shall be 9100/9110/9120, as appropriate to the supplier’s activities. It shall be applied to the supplier’s complete Quality System that covers aerospace products. Sectors may use these requirements for other standards. IAQG members have committed to recognize the equivalence of certification/registration of a suppliers quality management system to either of the AS, EN or JISQ/SJAC standards. This AS provides the approval process for Auditor Authentication Bodies (AAB), training course providers, trainers and auditors who meet the requirements of AIR5493 and outlines the America’s sector specific process to implement AS9104. This document is created to be in conformance with AS9104.
G-14 Americas Aerospace Quality Standards Committee (AAQSC)
Aerospace Series – Notice of Change (NOC) RequirementsAS9016A (Current)3/12/2015
The aviation, space, and defense industries rely on the development and manufacture of complex products comprised of multiple systems, subsystems, and components each designed by individual designers (design activities) at various levels within the supply chain. Each design activity controls various aspects of the configuration and specifications related to the product. When a change to design information is requested or required, the change has to be evaluated against the impacts to the higher-level system. Proposed changes to design information that the design activity identifies to be minor and have no effect on their product requirements or specifications have the potential to be concurrently implemented and approved, where authorized to do so. Changes that affect customer mandated requirements or specifications must be approved prior to implementation. In many cases, the design activity is not the design approver or authority; ultimate approval may be several layers above the design activity. Submitting NOC data either electronically or conventionally on paper is subject to the terms and conditions of the customer’s contract. This also includes, where applicable, data access under the regulations of export control. The process of exchanging, coordinating, and approving NOC data varies with the multiple relationships and agreements among all parties concerned. The information provided by this standard forms the architecture for submitting and managing data that allows for concise and accurate communication using various methods. One objective of this standard is to provide the definition of a data set that can be integrated into any form of communication (e.g., electronic data interchange, submission of conventional paper forms). If this standard is invoked in the contract, design activities and Technical Standard Order Approval (TSOA) holders that have responsibility for change management of products used on other higher-level designs shall use the information and processes defined in this standard for submitting change notifications to customers.
G-14 Americas Aerospace Quality Standards Committee (AAQSC)
Manufacturing Management ProgramAS6500 (Historical)11/13/2014
This standard is applicable to all phases of the system acquisition life cycle. It is intended for use on all programs with manufacturing content. It requires proven manufacturing management practices with the goal of delivering affordable and capable systems to the extent that it is invoked contractually. The term “organization” as used in this document refers to the company or facility that is implementing this standard, such as when imposed contractually by the customer. NOTE: The term “shall” is used wherever the criterion for conformance with the specific recommendation requires that there be no deviation. The term “should” is used wherever noncompliance with the specific recommendation is permissible.
G-23 Manufacturing Management Committee
Configuration ControlCMB6_4 (Current)10/1/2014
This Interface Control Plan establishes a program for interface control among the major segments/equipments of a DoD program. This could be an airborne weapon system, Medium Launch Vehicle System, Space Launch Complex System, etc. The program is based on formal agreements between participating organizations, and includes (1) documentation to establish, define and control interface requirements and to detail interface design definition between system segments, (2) interface management under the purview of the Interface Management Boards (IMB) and (3) interface control, through Interface Control Working Groups (ICWGs). The plan establishes the IMB and ICWG policy and procedures. Furthermore, it sets forth the Government Agencies Program Offices, associate contractors and participating Government Agency responsibilities in support of the Interface Control Program and the conduct of interface management/control through the IMBs, and ICWGs.
G-33 Configuration Management
Americas Aerospace Quality Group (AAQG) Requirements for Aerospace Quality Management System Certification/Registrations ProgramsAS9014 (Historical)11/12/2013
These requirements are applicable to IAQG sector schemes when making use of ABs, CRBs and their auditors, for the assessment and certification/registration of supplier quality systems in accordance with the requirements of this document. The quality management system standard used by the CRB shall be 9100/9110/9120, as appropriate to the supplier’s activities. It shall be applied to the supplier’s complete Quality System that covers aerospace products. Sectors may use these requirements for other standards. IAQG members have committed to recognize the equivalence of certification/registration of a suppliers quality management system to either of the AS, EN or JISQ/SJAC standards. This AS provides the approval process for Auditor Authentication Bodies (AAB), training course providers, trainers and auditors who meet the requirements of AIR5493 and outlines the America’s sector specific process to implement AS9104. This document is created to be in conformance with AS9104. NOTE: The requirements defined in this AS are applicable to ABs, CRBs, and Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs), during audit and/or certification/registration to the applicable quality management system standard to meet industry accepted practices.
G-14 Americas Aerospace Quality Standards Committee (AAQSC)
Requirements for Aerospace Quality Management System Certification/Registrations ProgramsAS9104A (Historical)11/12/2013
These requirements are applicable to IAQG sector schemes when making use of ABs, CRBs and their auditors, for the assessment and certification/registration of supplier quality systems in accordance with the requirements of this document. The quality management system standard used by the CRB shall be 9100/9110/9120, as appropriate to the supplier’s activities. It shall be applied to the supplier’s complete Quality System that covers aerospace products. Sectors may use these requirements for other standards. IAQG members have committed to recognize the equivalence of certification/registration of a suppliers quality management system to either of the AS, EN or JISQ/SJAC standards.
G-14 Americas Aerospace Quality Standards Committee (AAQSC)
Items per page:
1 – 50 of 108