RFD 24-05200940A1 MIL-PRF-32432A Packaging Update_print.pdf

PM SPE ENGINEERING CHANGE REQUEST (ECR)

(Vendors – Complete Blocks 2 – 19 and Submit to PM SPE)

1. PM SPE CONTROL NUMBER

2. ORIGINATOR 3. ECR TYPE

a. TYPED NAME (First, Middle Initial, Last) b. ADDRESS (Street, City, State, Zip Code)

RFD

RFW

4. CLASSIFICATION

5. TITLE OF ECR

6. ITEM DESIGNATION 7. PROCUREMENT ACTIVITY

8. BASELINE AFFECTED

a. MCN / NSN b. MODEL / DESIGN CODE

9. END ITEM NOMENCLATURE 10. CONTRACT NUMBER AND LINE ITEM

11. LOTS / MATERIAL AFFECTED 12. REOCCURING DEVIATION (if Yes, Provide CAR# in Block 12 & Status in Block 18)

13. EFFECT ON COST / PRICE 14. EFFECT ON DELIVERY SCHEDULE

15. OTHER SYSTEMS / CONFIGURATION ITEMS / INTERFACES AFFECTED

16. DESCRIPTION OF ECR

17. NEED FOR ECR

18. CORRECTIVE ACTION TAKEN

19. SUBMITTING ACTIVITY

a. TYPED NAME (FIRST, MIDDLE INITIAL, LAST) c. SIGNATURE

b. TITLE / ORGANIZATION d. DATE (YYYYMMDD)

PM SPE FORM 1 (ECR), JULY 15 Page 1

PM SPE CONTROL NUMBER

TITLE OF ECR

20. PM SPE JUSTIFICATION

21. ATTACHMENTS

22. COR (APPROVAL AUTHORITY FOR MINOR ECRS) / PM SPE TECHNICAL STAFF APPROVAL / DISAPPROVAL FOR MAJOR OR CRITICAL ECRS)

a. APPROVAL

b. SIGNATURE c. DATE SIGNED

(YYYYMMDD)

23. APM APPROVAL / DISAPPROVAL (APPROVAL AUTHORITY FOR MAJOR ECRs)

24. PM SPE APPROVAL / DISAPPROVAL (APPROVAL AUTHORITY FOR CRITICAL ECRs)

PM SPE FORM 1 (ECR), JULY 15 Page 2

PM SPE CONTROL NUMBER

TITLE OF ECR

PM SPE FORM 1 (ECR), JULY 15 Page 3

Comparative/Requirement Analysis

· Reason:

· Industry has indicated that they want alternative packaging for commercial APEL products with appropriate labeling. Upon investigation, phrasing of the packaging requirement was determined to be incorrect because it only allows for the use of boxes or packaging that is not practical. This change would allow for more packaging methods to be used.

· Requirement:

· Requirement is currently to use a box or “blister pack” a blister pack is mostly used to contain multiple pharmaceuticals and not accurately an individual item. The requirement would be changed to allow the use of clear plastic “zipper lock” bags and for the labeling to be simply displayed (to include an insert) rather than specify it must be printed or adhered to the packaging

· Impact of Modification:

· Allowing multiple ways to package allows the industry base to decide what is most commercially advantageous to them and allow flexibility to advertise and package their product or explore alternative solutions in the event of a supply delays.

Impact Analysis

· Industrial Base:

· The industry requested the change, but impact analysis concludes that more choices allows for ease of cost or schedule by allowing alternative paths to meet the packaging requirements. Additionally, this change allows for established packaging methods to be allowable and won’t force a lose because of mandatory compliance.

· Operational:

· Operationally, the end item products are not affected. Upon receipt of the object, packaging is generally disposed of. As for the packaging itself, printing, sticking, or an insert is determined to be equivalent and there is not an expected impact that the APEL Logo is not displayed.

· Logistic/Sustainment:

· There is no impact to Logistics/Sustainment. The APEL logo and packaging does not affect the logistics or sustainment. Currently either a box or plastic wrap is used and ultimately the change of the packaging would not be seen by logistics.

· Test Method/Procedure:

· Packaging is covered in section 5. There is not test method or procedure to check the commercial packaging of the end item product. As there is not a way to test this, or a test plan document affecting this requirement, concurrence from the test manager is not required.