Defense - Military Systems Case Study

Defense (Military Systems)

YazarOnline Standart Okuma Süresi 3 minutes

Key standards to know (and why they matter)

  • MIL‑STD‑1916 — DoD’s preferred methods for acceptance of product; emphasizes prevention and process‑oriented controls (SPC) over legacy acceptance sampling. Taylor Enterprises sqconline.com
  • MIL‑STD‑882E (w/ Change 1) — The DoD System Safety standard practice for identifying hazards and mitigating risk across the lifecycle (aligned with DoDI 5000 series). cto.mil Defense Acquisition University
  • DFARS 252.246‑7007 — Contract clause requiring a Counterfeit Electronic Part Detection and Avoidance System (traceability, screening, reporting). Also implemented in the eCFR. Acquisition.gov eCFR

Documented issues (with primary, authoritative sources)

  1. Counterfeit electronic parts in the DoD supply chain
    • The U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC) published a formal report documenting the presence and risks of counterfeit electronic parts across defense programs. armed-services.senate.gov Congress.gov
    • GAO investigations found that suspect counterfeit parts can be readily obtained and pose safety, mission, and readiness risks, driving DFARS and contractor system requirements. U.S. GAO+1 https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-12-375
    • GAO 2016 follow‑up found DoD needed to improve reporting/oversight to reduce counterfeit risk — reinforcing the need for robust detection/avoidance systems. U.S. GAO
  2. Acceptance & process control gaps
    • DoD guidance around MIL‑STD‑1916 explicitly pushes industry toward prevention‑based process control (SPC) rather than relying on lot sampling — a frequent maturity gap in supplier quality systems. (Companion handbook explains the shift and intent.) Defense Acquisition University sqconline.com
  3. System safety rigor
    • MIL‑STD‑882E defines how programs must perform hazard analyses and risk acceptance; gaps in applying the current standard or carrying forward analyses through configuration changes are a common audit and readiness finding. cto.mil

Typical challenges (seen across primes, Tier1/2 suppliers)

  • Traceability/control for electronics: Incomplete pedigree records, broker purchases, or weak screening allow suspect parts into assemblies; reporting/containment steps are unclear or inconsistent across sites. armed-services.senate.gov U.S. GAO
  • Standards edition & flow‑down: Program docs (SOW, SQARs) cite different editions of MIL‑STDs/DFARS or omit DFARS counterfeit clauses, creating contractual ambiguity and audit exposure. eCFR
  • Overreliance on end‑item inspection: Suppliers still lean on AQL/lot sampling instead of process controls encouraged by MIL‑STD‑1916, leading to variation escapes. sqconline.com
  • Fragmented system‑safety work: Hazard analyses required by MIL‑STD‑882E aren’t continuously updated as designs/configurations change, weakening risk acceptance decisions. cto.mil

Best Practice playbook

  1. Implement and audit a DFARS‑compliant Counterfeit Parts system
    • Build procedures around DFARS 252.246‑7007: approved supplier lists, traceability to original manufacturers/authorized distributors, authentication testing when pedigree is uncertain, and mandatory reporting (GIDEP, etc.). Use the eCFR text to ensure clause coverage and wording. eCFR
  2. Harden traceability & purchasing controls using GAO/SASC lessons
    • Prohibit broker buys unless risk‑assessed; require full chain‑of‑custody documentation for electronics; verify C of C authenticity; conduct incoming inspection & test profiles aligned to risk (e.g., IDEA‑STD‑1010 methods where applicable). The SASC/GAO findings justify these controls in supplier flow‑down. armed-services.senate.gov U.S. GAO
  3. Adopt prevention‑based acceptance per MIL‑STD‑1916
    • Replace pure acceptance sampling with SPC and process capability targets; formalize escape response (containment, root cause, error‑proofing) when process metrics trend out of control. Use the MIL‑HDBK‑1916 companion to structure plans and training. sqconline.com
  4. System Safety integration (MIL‑STD‑882E)
    • Maintain a living hazard log; tie hazard analyses to configuration control (ECPs, waivers/deviations) so risk acceptance authority sees current data; verify contractor artifacts match 882E with Change 1. cto.mil
  5. Contracting & flow‑down hygiene
    • Ensure solicitations, POs, and supplier quality clauses consistently reference the exact editions of MIL‑STDs and DFARS clauses (e.g., 252.246‑7007). Use ASSIST/DAU links to check for current revisions before release. Defense Acquisition University QuickSearch

Quick reference

Benzer Gönderiler