Re: rant on "mil spec" was [TowerTalk] RG-11 Source?

["Jerry Keller - K3BZ" <k3bz@arrl.net>]

As a DoD Contracting Officer for 25 years, and active when all that $600 hammer and $1000 toiletseat 
and $5000 coffeemaker stuff hit the fan, I can tell you

(1) some $600 "hammers" are items that carry an everyday name but are not always everyday items.
Some are REALLY special and $600 is the right price. Very, very few, but in specialized military 
situations, it can happen.

(2) The real problem is that some pretty ordinary items are bought to a drawing spec and not a "use" 
or "performance" spec. The problem usually originates with an engineering drawing... you know how 
anal engineers can be (flamesuit ON) 8^) But when it boils down, it's the Government Contracting 
Officer's responsibility, and every attempt is made to NOT do this, especially since all that fuss 
was made. Even though it happens only a very few times out of literally millions of parts and items 
purchased,  as Contracting Officers, many of us were very embarrassed by it, as well we should have 
been.

(3) Government procurement specs are written as a configuration spec (a drawing) for the purpose of 
competition, and therefore have to be very clear... otherwise you'll have bids coming in for apples 
when you want oranges. But the effort to make the specs clear and unambiguous is a double-edged 
sword. In many instances the answer is a "performance" spec where the bidder is encouraged to 
propose an item that will do the job, not just conform to a drawing, and performance specs are 
increasingly in use today for items where there are commercial performance equivalents.

There's still some horror stories and probably always will be..... after all, it's the bleedin' 
Government, ain't it?..... but I think a great many of these instances have been corrected.

73,  Jerry K3BZ

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "RICHARD BOYD" <ke3q@msn.com>
To: <w2lk@earthlink.net>; "Jim Lux" <jimlux@earthlink.net>; <TowerTalk@contesting.com>
Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 2005 2:20 PM
Subject: Re: rant on "mil spec" wasRE: [BULK] - [TowerTalk] RG-11 Source?


> And $795 ash trays or $600 toilet seats or $600 hammers might be bundled in the same contract with 
> $1 automobile engines -- other items that the supplier takes a loss on and makes it up on 
> something else that they really don't want to have to make, are not in the business of making, but 
> the government wants to buy them in the same package.  I've seen it happen, and the "horror 
> stories" about ridiculously overpriced items have always struck me as... "There might be more to 
> the story."  You have to look at the whole package of what was bought and see if it all evened 
> out, something very few of us are in a position to do.
>
> 73 - Rich, KE3Q
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Les Kalmus" <w2lk@earthlink.net>
> To: "Jim Lux" <jimlux@earthlink.net>; <TowerTalk@contesting.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 2005 2:07 PM
> Subject: RE: rant on "mil spec" wasRE: [BULK] - [TowerTalk] RG-11 Source?
>
>
> > It sounds like this is why they have those $795 ash trays.
> >
> > Les
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: towertalk-bounces@contesting.com
> > [mailto:towertalk-bounces@contesting.com]On Behalf Of Jim Lux
> > Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 2005 1:51 PM
> > To: TowerTalk@contesting.com
> > Subject: rant on "mil spec" wasRE: [BULK] - [TowerTalk] RG-11 Source?
> >
> >
> > At 09:19 AM 2/9/2005, Steve Katz wrote:
> >
> > >Tower Talkians,
> > >
> > >Anyone have a good source for quality RG-11?
> > >
> > >::I have mil-spec RG11/U on spools.  How much do you need?
> >
> > I don't want to beat up on Steve here, but he triggered an area near and
> > dear to my everyday work.
> > Just a quibble here about the term mil-spec... (a similar phenomenon occurs
> > with high rel electronic parts, except there, it's with reference to 883B,
> > Class S, etc.)
> >
> > There's nothing special about mil-spec stuff. It just means that someone,
> > somewhere who had to buy something for the government wrote a spec, got it
> > approved, etc. For instance, MIL-P-43988 is the 10 page mil-spec for toilet
> > tissue in MRE-Packets (actually, it's been superseded by ASTM-D3905-1993,
> > Toilet Tissue, Industrial). We also, of course, have to ask the question,
> > "Whose military?"
> >
> > Of course, the military tends to buy things that can operate in harsh
> > environments, so if you've picked the "right" mil-spec that might imply a
> > better quality (or more appropriate) widget.  However, for some things, you
> > might not want the mil-spec product: perhaps non-mil-spec Charmin might
> > provide a better toilet tissue experience than ASTM D3905 compliant
> > stuff?).  A good example is MIL-STD-810, which defines a variety of
> > environments for equipment; Be aware that some of those environments are
> > pretty benign, so claiming "meets MIL-STD-810" for your radio might not be
> > all that impressive, however, some of those environments are pretty abusive
> >
> > One aspect of using industry standard designations (and that's
> > fundamentally what a mil-spec is) is that there is the (legally
> > enforceable) assumption that the product being sold has been tested or
> > verified to comply with the spec. Here, we get into such fuzziness as
> > "designed to meet".   The problem comes in about whether you can really
> > sell something as complying with a specification that no longer exists
> > (officially).  I couldn't do an electrical design for a client and claim
> > it's "code compliant" if it met the 1981 NEC.
> >
> > And this is where the problem lies. There is no such thing as "mil-spec"
> > RG-11 any more... Just like there's no such thing as mil spec RG-8, RG-213,
> > etc. All the polyethylene insulated cables were purged 10 or more years ago.
> >
> > Back in August 1993:
> > "
> > CABLES, RADIO FREQUENCY, FLEXIBLE COAXIAL, 75 OHMS,M17/6-RG11, UNARMORED,
> > M17/6-RG12, ARMORED
> > ..
> > MIL-C-17/6B is inactive for new design. For new designs use specification,
> > MIL-C-17/181B, Cables, Radio Frequency, Flexible, Coaxial, 75 Ohms,
> > M17/181-00001 Unarmored, M17/181-00002 Armored.
> >
> > The Qualified Products List (QPL) associated with this inactive for new
> > design specification will be maintained until acquisition of the product is
> > no longer required whereupon the specification and the QPL will be canceled.
> >
> > "
> >
> > Not to say that you couldn't legitimately claim that you've got cable made
> > to a particular obsolete spec.  Or, you could say, I'm selling coax with
> > the following characteristics, and then have your own mfr spec that happens
> > to copy the parts of MIL-C-17/xxx needed.
> >
> > And, you might use the (obsolete) RG number as a shorthand to illustrate
> > the type of cable. i.e. "RG-8 type cable"  This is what Belden does...
> > their cables are all made to Belden specs, and have specific Belden part
> > #s, and they get identified as "Type 11 cable", meaning, looks a lot like
> > what you used to buy as RG11, in terms of impedance and physical
> > dimensions, but not in terms of much else.
> >
> >
> > Jim, W6RMK
> >
> > (I'll be happy to send the 400kB Mil spec for TP to anyone who wants it...)
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> >
> > See: http://www.mscomputer.com  for "Self Supporting Towers", "Wireless
> > Weather Stations", and lot's more.  Call Toll Free, 1-800-333-9041 with any
> > questions and ask for Sherman, W2FLA.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > TowerTalk mailing list
> > TowerTalk@contesting.com
> > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> >
> > See: http://www.mscomputer.com  for "Self Supporting Towers", "Wireless Weather Stations", and 
> > lot's more.  Call Toll Free, 1-800-333-9041 with any questions and ask for Sherman, W2FLA.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > TowerTalk mailing list
> > TowerTalk@contesting.com
> > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
> _______________________________________________
>
> See: http://www.mscomputer.com  for "Self Supporting Towers", "Wireless Weather Stations", and 
> lot's more.  Call Toll Free, 1-800-333-9041 with any questions and ask for Sherman, W2FLA.
>
> _______________________________________________
> TowerTalk mailing list
> TowerTalk@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk


_______________________________________________

See: http://www.mscomputer.com  for "Self Supporting Towers", "Wireless Weather Stations", and lot's more.  Call Toll Free, 1-800-333-9041 with any questions and ask for Sherman, W2FLA.

_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk