CAGE code required or not

[tlittlef]

I was reading a previous thread and still had questions regarding the use of a CAGE code on a Drawing BOM. If we are building a BOM for a drawing and fine a CAGE code for a vendor and add it to the BOM and then when we go to order the parts (minor hardware) we discover a better price with another vendor or the original is out of stock, do we need to REDLINE the drawing BOM to reflect the actual vendor of the material?

We recently ran into this with several items being purchased from vendors other than the one listed on the BOM due to shortages or cost. We did NOT want to add cost to the project (Government) due to REDLINES of actual CAGE codes used. What is the expectation and acceptable process, and are there any directives on this issue?

 

[3DDave]

CAGE is used with a vendor item number and identifies who made the item.

If you put that on a drawing and do not buy that item, the government might see that as committing a fraud and will certainly see that as failure to follow process and may audit you to see what else is on the drawings that your company chose not to do.

That said, it doesn't say who you should buy that item from, as long as the original maker is the one identified on the drawing, so if you were to buy (example) Sylvania lightbulbs from a hardware store or a supermarket or from a lighting supply vendor because it is the Sylvania CAGE code and the Sylvania part number, then that should be OK. But if you bought OSRAM substitutes, that is likely not OK.

 

[tlittlef]

This is inline with what we have done in the past. EX: We are purchasing a Sylvania bulb from McMaster Carr and using the MMC CAGE code but when we purchase the bulb, McMaster Carr is out of stock and we purchase the Item from Mouser, should the CAGE code be changed on the drawing BOM or not? From our past we have added the CAGE code for where we intended to purchase the item which may end up differently due to several reasons in the end.

The second part is if all of these small items are used on an assembly of our own design where we own the design, are the minor item CAGE codes required? We have looked in both MIL and ASME and cant find this.

 

[IRstuff]

We are purchasing a Sylvania bulb from McMaster Carr and using the MMC CAGE code

It seems to me that the CAGE code should be associated with the manufacturer, not distributor. Note that the CAGE code was originally known as Federal Supply Code for Manufacturers (FSCM), so distributors weren't necessarily part of that system.

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg

faq731-376 forum1529 Entire Forum list

http://www.eng-tips.com/forumlist.cfm

 

[tlittlef]

Being new to this company that is what I thought. I was used to using the CAGE code for the part or material and NOT the distributor or vendor such as MMC. I was just trying to find this in writing or a guideline. Help is appreciated.

 

[IRstuff]

there's this

https://quicksearch.dla.mil/Transient/C703F9C67935453D9780B1208BEB0E0F.pdf

particularly the last page

see also thread1103-377101

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg

faq731-376 forum1529 Entire Forum list

http://www.eng-tips.com/forumlist.cfm

 

[3DDave]

IR - that link is a "transient" link and died when you left the session. Is there a document number you were looking for?

 

[IRstuff]

we can go with

https://imlive.s3.amazonaws.com/Fed...66310105016710/2702784_ATTACH DID 2702784.pdf

but the official source is here:

https://quicksearch.dla.mil/qsDocDetails.aspx?ident_number=217821

and screen shot. Note the manufacturers CAGE description

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg

faq731-376 forum1529 Entire Forum list

http://www.eng-tips.com/forumlist.cfm

 

[3DDave]

That must be an electronic submission; CAGE already covers the manufacturer's name and address and so forth.

Ah, yes: "The BOM shall be provided as an electronically editable, machine-readable, Comma Separated Values (CSV) text file with alphanumeric fields enclosed in double quotation marks"

I wonder if they want a bunch of redundant info to make up for people entering bad data.

 

[IRstuff]

Probably, where's there's people, there's errors.

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg

faq731-376 forum1529 Entire Forum list

http://www.eng-tips.com/forumlist.cfm

 

[CWB1]

The second part is if all of these small items are used on an assembly of our own design where we own the design, are the minor item CAGE codes required?

Unless your DoD contract requires it, no, and most don't IME bc that info is controlled by the purchasing BOM and resourced as needed, same as in private industry. DoD print standards defer to Y14 unless otherwise required.

 

[tlittlef]

Here is a second question for clarification from the group. I have my own thoughts but there seems to be some confusion here and being new to a company of 20 years some people think that the current way must be correct.
Is the BOM referred to in the supporting documents a separate document or what some refer to as the Parts List on the drawing itself? Like I said, I have my own thoughts on this which is where we are having a CAGE code issue. If we are using our drawing border to include our CAGE code and we are making an assembly that we own with minor hardware, are we required to add CAGE codes for minor parts (screws, gaskets) as well as our own parts with our part numbers?

 

[3DDave]

As a practical matter the CAGE code completes a part number. It is possible for hundreds of companies to use "12345" as a number for a part. This number is not unique and your purchasing may find there is a wide variety of items that meet that number. Adding the CAGE code makes that number unique so there is no confusion as to which of possibly hundreds of components is the one intended.

Typically, if you have created internal numbers for controlling typical hardware it is assumed that absent that identifier that the applicable CAGE code will be that of the design authority identified in the titleblock. Leaving the ones controlled by the design authority blank cuts the clutter; in a database the CAGE would likely be filled in for all parts to keep the rules simpler.