Steve,

"relies upon the performance specification to determine the product requirements.  In other
words don't tell the manufacturer how to
design/build/qualify/produce/warrant equipment because it costs too much,
tell her/him what you want the equipment to do, for how long, in what
environment and all with minimal risk and a reduced cost --"

Have you heard of this DoD document: DoD 5000.2-R   Effective date 06/2001

MANDATORY PROCEDURES FOR MAJOR DEFENSE
ACQUISITION PROGRAMS (MDAPS) AND
MAJOR AUTOMATED INFORMATION SYSTEM (MAIS) ACQUISITION PROGRAMS

C3.2.3.2.2.5.  T&E on commercial and non-developmental items shall ensure performance,
operational effectiveness, and operational suitability for the military application in
the military environment, regardless of the manner of procurement.
Test planning for these items shall recognize commercial testing and experience,
but nonetheless determine the appropriate DT&E(Developmental Test And Evaluation),
OT&E(Operational Test and Evaluation), and LFT&E(Live Fire Test and Evaluation)
needed to assure effective performance in the intended operational environment.

David A. Douthit
Manager
LoCan LLC

"Sauer, Steven T." wrote:

> Hi Jim,
> This sounds like a dissident to the DOD Acquistion Reform Policy instituted
> back in the mid 90s that did away with the "how to" spec's/std's (i.e.
> MIL-E-5400, MIL-STD-275, MIL-P-55110 and MIL-STD-2000) and relies upon the
> performance specification to determine the product requirements.  In other
> words don't tell the manufacturer how to
> design/build/qualify/produce/warrant equipment because it costs too much,
> tell her/him what you want the equipment to do, for how long, in what
> environment and all with minimal risk and a reduced cost -- yeah right!
> If I were a betting man, I would say that an Air Force Program Manager (not
> the whole Air Force) has been bitten by the misuse of no-clean chemistry on
> a previous program or contract.  So, in a sense, this may be the second time
> and it is not going to be shame on the PM.
> This reminds me of years gone by while with the Navy -- after MIL-STD-2000
> was cancelled, NAWCADLKE-MISC-05-MT-0002 was developed and released by the
> same Navy folks (I'm one of the guilty) who supported the SOLD program.
> This document found its way into contracts and product specifications not
> without notice but there was little the bigger DOD folks could do.
> Remember, you get what you pay for and if that Air Force PM wants no-clean,
> he probably has a damn good reason why.
>
> Steve Sauer
> Northrop Grumman, Xetron
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jim Jenkins
>
> ...the Air Force has issued a directive disallowing the use of no-clean
> fluxes
> on any of their hardware.  The customer is flowing down that requirement to
> us.  Do any of you know of this directive or what they could be referring
> to?
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Technet Mail List provided as a free service by IPC using LISTSERV 1.8d
> To unsubscribe, send a message to [log in to unmask] with following text in
> the BODY (NOT the subject field): SIGNOFF Technet
> To temporarily halt delivery of Technet send e-mail to [log in to unmask]: SET Technet NOMAIL
> To receive ONE mailing per day of all the posts: send e-mail to [log in to unmask]: SET Technet Digest
> Search previous postings at: www.ipc.org > On-Line Resources & Databases > E-mail Archives
> Please visit IPC web site http://www.ipc.org/html/forum.htm for additional
> information, or contact Keach Sasamori at [log in to unmask] or 847-509-9700 ext.5315
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------