paris_tj Posted July 26, 2018 Report Share Posted July 26, 2018 Excuse me if this is the wrong place to ask this. I am finishing up my first contract and I need to do some part marking and I am very unclear on what needs to be done. I am hoping someone can shed some light on this for me. My part drawing specifies: "IDENTIFY BY MIL-STD-130 BY STENCILING USING WHITE LACQUER PER TT-L-32, TYPE 2.". Question #1 - What is the minimum I can mark on this part, part is very small. If I understand MIL-STD-130 correctly this is what I need though it will not fit. ODA-PIN CDA-CAGE MFR-CAGE Question #2 - Stenciling - I have never seen stenciling available with letters this small, we are talking .08" to maybe 1/8 at most. How shall this be done? Again, I apologize if this the wrong place. Don Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C Culham Posted July 27, 2018 Report Share Posted July 27, 2018 Don - I gather you are a contractor and your questions relate to performance and interpretation of the contract requirements. As such you should pose your question to the contracting officer if you are the prime contractor or if a subcontractor to the primes representative. I do suggest that you put your question in writing and request a written response. Hope this helps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Vern Edwards Posted July 27, 2018 Report Share Posted July 27, 2018 22 hours ago, paris_tj said: Question #1 - What is the minimum I can mark on this part, part is very small. If I understand MIL-STD-130 correctly this is what I need though it will not fit. ODA-PIN CDA-CAGE MFR-CAGE Question #2 - Stenciling - I have never seen stenciling available with letters this small, we are talking .08" to maybe 1/8 at most. How shall this be done? What version of MIL-STD-130 are you looking at? Revision and date? With what agency is your contract? Have you seen this, or a page like it? https://www.mpofcinci.com/blog/guide-to-mil-std-130-identification-labels/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paris_tj Posted July 30, 2018 Author Report Share Posted July 30, 2018 1. It does not specify a version, all I can say is the drawing was done in the early to mid 1980's. 2. DLA 3. Yes I have seen that. I have been told and read several different things. I just want to be 100% sure I get this right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paris_tj Posted July 30, 2018 Author Report Share Posted July 30, 2018 C Culham, Believe me I have tried, thus for all I have gotten is the mil-std-130 regurgitated back to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Vern Edwards Posted July 31, 2018 Report Share Posted July 31, 2018 9 hours ago, paris_tj said: 1. It does not specify a version, all I can say is the drawing was done in the early to mid 1980's. 2. DLA 3. Yes I have seen that. I have been told and read several different things. I just want to be 100% sure I get this right. @paris_tj The current version of MIL-STD-130 is revision N (MIL-STD-130N) and is dated 17 Dec 2007. There has been one change, dated 16 Nov 2012. Is that the version cited in your contract? Which version do you have? You can get it here: http://quicksearch.dla.mil/qsDocDetails.aspx?ident_number=35521 Get it. Read it. See if that answers your questions. If not, contact the contracting officer or the contracting officer's technical representative and ask them for instructions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paris_tj Posted July 31, 2018 Author Report Share Posted July 31, 2018 Vern, I am so sorry I upset you. I have read thru the specs at least 10 times, I would not be asking the question if my reading answered the question. And yes I have contacted the CO, and thus far they have been no help. And to answer your question, the drawing that has these specs are on does NOT reference a version at all. And secondly, I have offered to pay several people, but no one knows the answer that I have asked/offered. So Vern, I apologize for inconveniencing you. You can ignore my post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Vern Edwards Posted July 31, 2018 Report Share Posted July 31, 2018 @paris_tj You say "the drawing that has these specs are on" does not reference a version. The current version of MIL-STD-130 is a 54-page long document. Do you have such a document or only a drawing of the item you are making that references it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paris_tj Posted July 31, 2018 Author Report Share Posted July 31, 2018 Yes I have several versions of the MIL-STD-130 PDF document. I am referencing the part drawing it self. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Vern Edwards Posted July 31, 2018 Report Share Posted July 31, 2018 Let's work this through. The current version of the military standard is Revision N, Change 1, which is dated 16 Nov 2012, which was almost surely before the award of your contract. Right? The drawing you have appears to predate the current version. Is that correct? Apparently, the marking method specified on the drawing will not work. Is that correct? If so, then the very first thing to do is write to the contracting officer, tell him or her what you have determined in that regard and request instructions by a specified date. Have you done that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paris_tj Posted July 31, 2018 Author Report Share Posted July 31, 2018 By dates on the drawing, my best estimation is that this was the version enforce when it was drawn originally. REVISION F - Identification Marking of U.S. Military Property - April 21, 1982 Marking method possibly will work, depending on amount of text required to be on it. This is the reason for me asking what is the bare minimum we needed. I have opened a PAR with the CO, and they sent me this back... Quote Per tech Pulled directly from MIL-STD-130. Contractor must review this standard. All marking questions will be answered. Shaun Strain FHTD "4. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS 4.1 Methods of applying. The required marking shall be applied to an identification plate (see Figure 1), identification band, identification tag, or identification label securely fastened to the item, or shall be applied directly to the surface of the item and be compliant with 4.2, 4.3, 4.5, and 4.7. The design activity shall implement the guidance of 4.2 in specifying the actual method(s) to be used in applying markings. Recommended marking methods are shown in Table II with recommended selection criteria shown in Table III. a. Marking materials creating hazardous conditions shall not be used. b. When items cannot be physically marked or tagged due to a lack of marking space or because marking or tagging would have a delete rious effect, the detailed marking requirements specified in section 5 shall be: (1) applied to a supplemental bag or other package that encloses the individual item, or (2) applied to the unit pack in addition to, or in combination with, the identification marking information specified in MIL-STD-129. When combining marking requirements with MIL-STD-129, the manner, method, form, and format of MIL-STD-129 shall be followed and the informational requirements of this standard shall be fulfilled. " Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paris_tj Posted July 31, 2018 Author Report Share Posted July 31, 2018 If they would allow me to do the stencil work via silk screening I could easily get the text and bar code on the part possibly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neil Roberts Posted July 31, 2018 Report Share Posted July 31, 2018 Paris, you have not answered one of Vern's questions: Does your contract with DLA reference MIL-STD-130 and if so, what version if any? Also, you have said you have been told or read several different things about how to mark this part? What are those several different things? Is one of them to mark the shipping document or packing slip instead of the part because of the size problem with the part marking? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joel hoffman Posted July 31, 2018 Report Share Posted July 31, 2018 6 minutes ago, Neil Roberts said: Paris, you have not answered one of Vern's questions: Does your contract with DLA reference MIL-STD-130 and if so, what version if any? Also, you have said you have been told or read several different things about how to mark this part? What are those several different things? Is one of them to mark the shipping document or packing slip instead of the part because of the size problem with the part marking? I believe that paris_tj said that only the drawing refers to the MIL Standard, without a specific issue date. The drawing is dated 1982. The government has provided some direction. tj has a further question that should be addressed to the government for clarification. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paris_tj Posted July 31, 2018 Author Report Share Posted July 31, 2018 Quote Does your contract with DLA reference MIL-STD-130 and if so, what version if any? Contract does not have any reference to part marking or MIL-STD-130, only the drawing has the reference. Quote Also, you have said you have been told or read several different things about how to mark this part? What are those several different things? ODA-PIN MFR-CAGE or ODA-ODA# CDA-CADA# MFR-CAGE Or CDA-CDA# MFR-CAGE etc I do not know IF any are correct. Quote Is one of them to mark the shipping document or packing slip instead of the part because of the size problem with the part marking? MIL-STD-130 says if space is to small you can bag and tag, BUT my drawing conflicts that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Vern Edwards Posted July 31, 2018 Report Share Posted July 31, 2018 @paris_tj What you have is a situation in which you have contracted to provide something based on an old drawing. The government's QA people may not be intimately familiar with the drawing or with MIL-STD-130. Moreover, the current version of MIL-STD-130, revision N change 1, incorporates a large number of documents by reference. See Section 2, Applicable Documents. Those documents apply to your work to some extent. You need help that we cannot provide. My advice is that you have a sit-down or conference call with the CO and the CO's QA person and decide among you what to do. And you'd better do it NOW, before you are at risk of late delivery. Good luck to you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neil Roberts Posted July 31, 2018 Report Share Posted July 31, 2018 Paris, you say that MIL-STD-!30 is not included in your contract. I hope you have read all contract documents to verify that MIL-STD-130 is not called out anywhere, including being incorporated by reference in another MIL-STD and/or American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) contract document such as perhaps ASME Y14.100 Engineering Drawing Practices. The Government apparently is instructing your company to comply with MIL-STD-130 (and the dated version is not clear). If I were the contract manager for your company, I would insist that the Government issue a contract Mod to incorporate whatever advice they give since from what you say, your company is not contractually obligated to comply with MIL-STD-130 or any deviation. As an aside, In my experience, MIL STD specs are not generally incorporated into a contract with reference to a version alpha/numeric revision because they are constantly evolving and in my previous experience, the general contract interpretation is to apply the latest version in the absence of an alpha letter call-out in the contract. I do not know what your function is, but if you are not the contract manager/responsible company Executive, I suggest you consult with them and let them make the decision. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joel hoffman Posted July 31, 2018 Report Share Posted July 31, 2018 Isn’t the drawing part of the contract? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neil Roberts Posted August 1, 2018 Report Share Posted August 1, 2018 (edited) Joel, I don't know if the drawing is part of the contract but I am willing to assume it is. Drawing note 4 is clear about required identification language. I see note 4 language "Identify by MIL-STD-130..." as ambiguous as to it whether Contractor is required to comply with all of MIL STD-130, or only the identification requirements of MIL-STD-130 as it relates to Note 4 issues. To me, there is a risk that aside from the identification requirements in note 4, the Government may contend upon inspection or otherwise that additional requirements are applicable. The CO response to the PAR was ambiguous to me in saying "Contractor must review this standard" (MIL-STD 130). Should it be taken that the CO interpretation is that, for example, specifications, standards and handbooks called out as incorporated by reference in MIL-STD-130 are also to be complied with by Contractor? This is why I took the position that a contract MOD should be issued to incorporate whatever advice is given by the Government and that internally, the responsible Contractor function should be involved. Thanks for bringing this up Joel as I should have been clearer in my previous post. Edited August 1, 2018 by Neil Roberts typo. Added the word "in" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C Culham Posted August 1, 2018 Report Share Posted August 1, 2018 On 7/27/2018 at 5:50 AM, C Culham said: I do suggest that you put your question in writing and request a written response On 7/30/2018 at 1:13 PM, paris_tj said: Believe me I have tried, thus for all I have gotten is the mil-std-130 regurgitated back to me. Based on the above and the further discussion in this thread that support my original conclusion that the questions posed by the OP are a matter of contract performance/interpretation we still have left the OP with the approach of having to confirm what the OP should do with regard to marking by the contracting officer/agency. As the agency has not been the best in addressing OP's questions collaboratively I suggest a more direct approach. Something to the effect, again stated in formally in writing and addressed to the CO, that goes something like this - "Based drawing XX at note 4 I (we) have determined through further reference to MIL-STD-130 and your past correspondence to me (us) that the parts upon delivery will be marked as follows. (Then state how the parts will be marked) If this approach to marking is not acceptable please advise as to how marking is not in compliance with contract and will not meet the required standard and contract requirements. Absent a response, within XX days, it will be my (our) understanding that the intended marking are concluded by you (the contracting officer) to be compliant with MIL-STD-130 and will be acceptable performance under the contract." Any thoughts from those that have attempted to help the OP on using such an approach? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Vern Edwards Posted August 1, 2018 Report Share Posted August 1, 2018 At this point I think we should stop trying to help. However... If the goal is to prompt the CO to act, it might work. If the goal is to legally indemnify yourself, it might not. Either way, send it by USPS certified mail, return receipt requested; Federal Express; and email---just to show you're serious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paris_tj Posted August 1, 2018 Author Report Share Posted August 1, 2018 Thank you all. At this point, since I have talked dozens of people on the internet and via phone and thus far I have not gotten 2 people with the same answer I am writting a formal letter to the CO. We will see what happens. Again, thank you all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts