ron vogt Posted March 23, 2017 Report Share Posted March 23, 2017 in yesterdays' AAP, the questioner asked whether MIL-STD target paper could be a commercial item. The procuring buyer had said no, because the MIL-STD paper was stronger. However, there probably are thousands of varieties of paper, and this particular variety of target paper would seem to fit both types of modifications permitted under the commercial item definition: modifications that are made for any customer, and modifications unique for the government customer, but minor. In addition, target paper, even Mil-STD target paper, would certainly seem to be 'of a type' of paper. Putting aside this particular case, the AAP answer went much further. It said categorically that "No - It's either MIL-STD or commercial it cannot be both." I'm interested in opinions on whether this is correct. If something is manufactured to a MIL-STD, is it categorically excluded from being a commercial item? If so, why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Mansfield Posted March 23, 2017 Report Share Posted March 23, 2017 No, that's not correct. Military standards are commercial standards for some items. For example, MIL-PRF-23699F-STD is a standard for gas turbine lubricant that is required in some commercial aircraft (see also https://www.exxonmobil.com/english-us/aviation/pds/glxxmobil-jet-oil-ii). The next time you take a commercial flight, take a close look at the wing. You may see small signs saying "Use MIL-STD-XXX Lubricant Only" or something similar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Vern Edwards Posted March 23, 2017 Report Share Posted March 23, 2017 You're probably talking about a Mil-Spec, not a MIL-STD. See MIL-P-10831B, Target, Paper. Whether or not the paper described in that specification is commercial would depend on whether its available in the commercial marketplace. However, I don't think you could use the MIL-Spec in a solicitation and contract and call the item a commercial item, but I think there are probably more than a few MIL-Spec items that are commercially available. Keep in that MIL-Specs include a lot more than just the product specification, such as inspection procedures and standards and packaging requirements that might exceed commercial requirements. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ron vogt Posted March 23, 2017 Author Report Share Posted March 23, 2017 I quoted the AAP question as referring to a MIL-STD. The answer also called it that. I don't know whether that's a correct designation, but that's not important to the question. Even if a MIL-Spec called out inspection and packaging, why would that disqualify it from being a commercial item? The commercial item definition focusses on the characteristics of the item, not how it's inspected. Can't it be a commercial item and still require certain inspection and packaging procedures? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Vern Edwards Posted March 23, 2017 Report Share Posted March 23, 2017 Ron: The issue is not whether the product specification is in a mil-spec. The issue is what the specification says and how the buyer wants to use it. If the mil-spec describes a commercial item, then it's a commercial item. Otherwise, it's not. If you try to use the actual mil-spec in the solicitation you're just going to get into a fight with policy people. Just convert the thing into Word and delete the military references. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ron vogt Posted March 23, 2017 Author Report Share Posted March 23, 2017 OK, so back to my question: when you say "If the mil-spec describes a commercial item, then it's a commercial item", then your answer is that AAP is incorrect in saying that a Milspec item cannot be a commercial item? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joel hoffman Posted March 23, 2017 Report Share Posted March 23, 2017 Yes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Vern Edwards Posted March 23, 2017 Report Share Posted March 23, 2017 Yep. Are you surprised that AAP was wrong? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts