"Len Over 21" wrote ...
So, if a product isn't available commercially, the commercial
product must be used anyway? :-)
Makes for very lightweight products. Those would have lots of
things not there. :-)
The next step would be to modify a commercial product to meet the standard
or specification. If that is not possible, then R&D it and produce the
product through a specific contract with the developer.
As you know, many "commercial" products already meet or
exceed what we would commonly refer to as Milspec.
They do? Gosh. All this time thousands of design engineers
have been "wrong" according to His Majesty with the bionic VTC!
Thanks for the heads-up.
The FAR is the Federal Aquisition Regulation (15 and 42) and the DFAR is
the
defense version. If you are a contractor and or sub-contractor on a
government contract, you are required to be familiar with it.
I am? We are? I suppose. That's what the "bean-counters" are
for, Arnie. Not my area. I'm intimately into the product itself
and its very specific specifications. We are very familiar with
those specific specifications.
The managerial levels and the accountants can handle the
administrative details. Us design folk aren't required to be legal
beagles sniffing out things in the financial-contract half of an
award, just the engineering-contract part of it. [those specific
specifications mentioned]
You, as the "developer" of the product (as a sub-contractor) would not be
directly responsible, but the general contractor "is". Therefore, it is in
their best interest to provide you with those regulations. Whether the
mistake is yours or the contractor's, the government can and will assess
interest, damages, or cancel the contract for non-performance.
Seriously,
you might want to tell your employer to supply you a copy since you and I
both are bound by what it says.
My contractor, not my "employer." There's a difference, but the
difference is a petty detail that you Pentagon lords of the Rings
don't bother with. :-)
In this case, the contractor is acting as your employer. You, as the
sub-contractor have legal obligations to perform to the standards outlined
in the contract.
I'm not worried about the contract administration tasks. So far,
to the best of my observation, no contract regulation has ever
been able to communicate by radio, search for a submarine, or
test out another electronic unit. Maybe you know of some
contract document that has?
Documents no, but a breach of a contract regulation (as designated through
the Contract Officer) can result in the assessment of interest, damages, or
cancellation of the contract for non-performance
I'm sure that you need only imply you always tell the truth
in here and that is the Final Word. :-)
Do you know what COTS is? Ask around. Don't sleep on the job.
COTS = Commercial Off The Shelf.
I'm quite familiar with the term COTS. I didn't respond because it was a
moronic question to ask someone who works in the system.
Riiiight. And all the contract administrators can "work on the board,"
do the designs, get their hands dirty in the labs, monitor the
environmental testing, troubleshoot failures, and, in general, make
the PRODUCT work. Suuuuure.
The term COTR is exactly as it implies. A technical expert. That is why I
administer contracts concerning security issues, and others administer your
contract. I guarantee, the COTR on YOUR contract is an expert in that field
and can perform the technical surveillance as necessary. They probably
already have.
Just who do you think specifies whether or not a commercial, off
the shelf component will WORK in a PRODUCT? Here's a clue,
bionic one, it's NOT the contract administration side of a contract.
The producer of that component MUST certify that is is within contract
specifications. The COTR, a technical expert, will also determine through
surveillance, inspections, or various other means, if the component meets
the technical specifications of the contract. It's a check and balance
system to insure the product works as promised.
"Millions" in contract awards have been awarded since WW2. The
dollar amounts, normalized for the COLA, serve only to indicate the
size of a particular project. That's a manager and bean-counter
thing; us folks with the dirtier hands concentrate on the works of a
project in order to fulfill a contract.
And as the COR, I make sure that you do.
Not HERE, sweetie. Your name on the corporate visitor's list at
the lobby ain't there nor did security ever give you a pass for
visitor access.
It was a rhetorical answer, Leonard. I work as the COTR on a security
contract. In that area, I am the technical expert. Your COTR is also a
technical expert in electronics.
We surveille, inspect, rate, and coordinate
with the contractor concerning every aspect of the contract for the CO.
The
6 million dollar contract (for which I am still the COR) extends over a
period of 2 years. We are only 3 months into it at this point, and have
just completed our first quarterly performance rating for them. They did
quite well.
Okay, I'll have my dentist erect a plaque with your name on it.
It would be fun to have you visit the main plant and watch you
"surveille" the work on the prototypes. I'll bet all your morse code
and amateur experience would make you very knowledgeable
about the work being "surveilled."
I won't be doing that anytime soon, not my contract. But I guarantee that
YOUR COTR has already made such a visit. Known to you or not.
Oh, and leave the weeds at the entrance. There's lots of clean
rooms here and we can't allow dirt or vegetation into them.
New stuff, Leonard. Doesn't even remotely resemble what you did in
1955. I
gave you the web site to research. What, did the BIG words stump you?
"BIG" is also an acronym now? [what will they think of next?]
Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious? Antidisestablishmentarianism?
I'm working with HEMT, PHEMT, and GaSP devices. For radio
purposes...and some of that will bleed over to WiFax, one of the
IEEE 802 standard systems for broadband (it ain't "Wi-Fi" but one
of the families within the standard). DoD will own the plans per
terms of the overall contract, but the techniques and notebook
data aren't owned by da gubmint.
I bet you a dollar to a donut that the military specific application of
that
technology is quite proprietary.
"Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious" is probably proprietary to Walt
Disney Productions. I don't know the details but the Disney
corporate buildings are at the corner of Verdugo and Buena Vista
in Burbank. "Antidisestablishmentarianism" is free for public
use, in some dictionaries. HEMT, PHEMT, and GaSP are
non-copyrighted process terms in the RF-electronics industry.
I'll meet you at the Krispy Kreme at the Empire Center in Burbank.
You bring the money, I'll bring the appetite.
I didn't say the terms, Leonard, I said the "specific" application of them.
My bet still stands.
--------
Now, how does your "COR" superiorness relate to the NCVEC
petition (RM-10870) and the term "Communicator" class of
amateur radio license? :-)
I am an extra class amatuer radio operator. The changes in the NCVEC,
testing, or any other myriad issues won't effect me in the least. I'll
concentrate on the danger that BPL is posing. The issue of Morse testing is
long since over. Time to move on.
Arnie -
LHA / WMD
|