New part numbers???

[chrisca]

New guy here, so please be gentle ;-)

We have a generator & drawings created by someone else & we aquired ownership (CDA) of the drawings (6000xx series - CAGE 6X123).

We removed two hoses and a filter and put a new, single hose in place.

The new hose (with connectors) was built by General Hose - CAGE 33333, part number 12345-1. No labels came with it.
We want to attach a label to it.

So we create an assy of the hose & the label and put it on the 600012 drawing which calls out the hose assemblies.
The lead engineer thinks we can use a part number for the hose assy of 600012-15 - CAGE 6X123 (the company which created the drawing).
I don't think we can do this because we would be creating a new part number for another company (even though we own the 6000xx drawings).

My suggestion, rather than creating a hose assy is to simply use the new hose 12345 (with CAGE 33333) and the label is a separate part.

Bottom line?
Can we create a new part number (600012-15 CAGE 6X123) using the company which created the drawing?

TIA!
Chris

 

[ewh]

I don't think it's right to use 600012-15 with the other companies cage code (even if you own the drawings). They should control anything that they may be seen as responsible for. It may be alright to use the base number, as long as your company has it documented, but you should probably use your own cage code.
I think that your solution is the best. Simply use the hose vendors number 12345 with the hose vendors cage code 33333. It is clean documentation and would go far in eliminating any confusion later.

 

[swertel]

Have you read through the MIL-STD and ASME Specs dealing with this issue yet? If you give me another day, I'll find the exact ones.

In general, the original design activity was CAGE 6X123. You can use the same part number but the revision must state that the new design activity is your CAGE and thus differentiates the two. Remember that a part number, in the military world, is defined not only by the P/N assigned by the design activity, but the CAGE Code as well. Having the same part number with a new CAGE is the same as having a new part number -- if the part is completely interchangeable in form, fit, and function.

I agree with ewh that your solution is cleaner, but either way is correct as long as you do not use the other companies CAGE Code. Obviously, the lead engineer does not understand the use of CAGE Codes well enough.

--Scott

For some pleasure reading, try FAQ731-376