2017 CAD/PAD Industry Summit Answers to Contractor Questions

Why do Lot Interfix Numbers not change anymore between contracts?

Response: Lot Interfix Number In accordance with section 4.4.6.7 of MIL-STD-1168, lot interfix numbers are to be changed when deemed necessary by the Government. Listed as an exception under section 4.4.6, Changes in interfixes for technical reasons. As the Cognizant Engineering Activity, NSWC IHEODTD Code E25, In-Service Engineering Branch, currently retains control of the lot interfix number. Practice was adopted from the PAD In-Service Branch when both PAD and CAD In-Service merged. Done for traceability purposes of significant changes during production of the items (i.e. change of propellant manufacturer, change in material, etc.). Note: Code E23, Air Force IPT Branch, currently allows contractors to roll up the lot interfix number for every contract in accordance with section 4.4.5.1.4 of MIL-STD-1168.

What is the need for a preliminary (PA) Ammo Data Card and a final (AC) Ammo Data Card and why are we only being asked for this now?

Response: “PA” vs. “AC” Ammo Data Card (ADC) The preliminary (PA) and final (AC) submission of the Ammunition Data Card (ADC) have always been a requirement. Requirement is in accordance with sections 2.1.2 and 2.1.4.6 of the Worldwide Ammunition-data Repository Program (WARP) User’s Manual. The “PA” ADC is reviewed to determine what configuration is being tested. The information on the ADC is compared to the Product Base Line (PBI) along with all preapproved RFVs and piece parts identified that make up the lot. For items tested at NSWC IHEODTD, a copy of the preliminary ADC is required prior shipment of the Lot Acceptance Test (LAT) units to our facility. For contractor tested items, the preliminary ADC is needed prior LAT. The preliminary ADC is required prior lot release. After lot release, the final ADC is needed prior to shipment of deliverables.

What changes can be expected in the FY18 solicitation packages?

Response: Major Changes to FY18 Sol. Packages Section C – Configuration Control: Critical, Major and Minor definitions updated per Sponsor Requirements which have been flowed down to our CAD/PAD CM Plan. Minor (Class II) change authority has been removed from contractors: All changes to contractor drawings need to be approved by the Navy Configuration Control Board (CCB) prior implementation. Additional RFV guidance documentation will be provided at time of solicitation. Section D – Packing, Marking, and Transportation: Clarification provided for Performed Oriented Packaging (POP) requirement due to frequent inquiries from contractors. KTR #, DODIC and item nomenclature required in POP report POP not required for non-explosives and non-regulated items

Response: Major Changes to FY18 Sol. Packages Section D – Ammunition Lot Numbering: Clarification provided on lot number formation for CADs and PADs PADs lot number based off oldest batch of propellant in the lot CADs lot number based off time of final assembly of end-item Lot interfix and sequence number clarification Section E – Production Lot Test Samples (KTR Testing): New requirement on cancellation notification minimum two days prior planned test date to reduce Government travel cancellation fees/charges. Section E – CAD/PAD Inspection and Acceptance: Sample plates no longer a requirement Government retains sample plate records to be used as baseline for the evaluation of the quality image for each production lot manufactured. For new contractors, baseline will be based off the radiographic film(s) produced during qualification of the item. Radiographic Test Technique (RTT) still a requirement

Response: Major Changes to FY18 Sol. Packages (cont’d) Section E – CAD/PAD Energetic Materials Requirements: Clarification provided for age of energetics due to constant inquiries from contractors. Age of energetics not to exceed 24 months based on original manufacturing date or retest date KTR waiver in form of Request for Variation (RFV) KTR waiver in form of approved energetics test plan Section H – Government Furnished Property: One-hundred percent (100%) radiographic inspection on percussion primers prior to installation Done as a result of PVU percussion primers shipped to a contractor with the wrong anvil installed, which triggered the radiographic examination on all PVUs prior shipment. Radiographic inspection needed to ensure that no adverse effects occurred during transportation and/or contractor’s storage of GFP percussion primers.

Why does it take so long for RFVs, LATs, data, and other submittals take so long to review at Indian Head and receive a letter when we have the same types of reviews and letters getting through Hill contracting within a week?

Response: Navy Processes Approval Processes for Contractor Request for Variances (RFV) and Engineering Change Proposals (ECPs) are derived from Sponsor Configuration Management Plans, Delegation Letters, Memorandums of Agreement (MOAs) and Memorandums of Understanding (MOUs). Navy approval processes currently differ from Code E23, Air Force IPT Branch. For items used on Navy and Army applications, the delegation of authority for Minor and Major* RFVs as well as Class II changes resides within the Senior Engineer. For items used on Navy and Army applications, the delegation of authority for Major** and Critical RFVs as well as Class I changes is retained by the Sponsor. The Air Force has delegated authority for Minor RFVs as well as Class II ECPs to the E23 engineer responsible for the item. Class I ECPs or Major/Critical RFVs must be coordinated with the System Program Office (SPO) and processed via the Change Control Board (CCB). Work continues to standardize processes between Sponsors and E23/E25 branches. RFV, Contractor ECP and lot release processes provided next. Items designated per the definitions in Section C “Configuration and Control” of the contract, DOD-STD-2101, and ANSI/EIA 649 guidance for designation of Critical, Major, and Minor classification. Key: * Majors that do not affect the qualification status of the item ** Majors that affect the qualification status of the item Recent RFV process changes reduced turn-around time by 38% while also increasing emphasis on ensuring stronger technical justifications are captured to support future understanding of configuration changes in the event of inquiry or modification.

USN RFV Processing Time Improvements in FY17 Goal: Minor/Major NOTE: RFV, ECO and DCN review timeline begins when all necessary data is supplied to evaluate the document. Goal: 14 Calendar Day Turnaround for Minor and Major RFVs (Excludes any Major RFV that would require Re/Qual)

RFV & ECO/DCN Process In Service Engr (ISE) Team Lead Staff Engr ECO Class II Sponsor review (for concurrence) Sponsor Approval (Critical/Class I) Internal RFVs skip to Team Lead Gate In Service Engr (ISE) Team Lead Staff Engr Tech Dev/ISE Mgr Senior Engr Archive/Distrib Within eChange CM Reviews & Initiates in eChange Config Mgmt (CM) Acq Mgmt Specialist (AMS) Contractor submits to Contracting Officer Outside eChange NOTE: If additional testing other than First Article Test (FAT) is required, then ECO/DCN needs to be submitted outside the scope of the contract.

Lot Release Process LAT Samples Test ISE CDRLs and Test Data Review ISE Memo to AMS E25 NAVSUP Letter Review/Signature E21 NAVSUP Letter Review/Signature AMS generates NAVSUP letter Approval Letter sent to NAVSUP