When we promote drawings to fabrication within Intralink we pull in all parts and assemblies needed to make the drawings and they (along with the drawings) are promoted to a particular release level (fabrication as the final step, other than AS Built). The revision number must be assigned if they are a value other than 0; the version numbers are automatically assigned. This will also include data curves if they are needed or skeleton parts (used in making the port cuts). We do not store the STEP or IGES files in the promotion process since they can be directly made from the properly stored ProE files. When Jerry stamps and signs the drawings he (effectively) is stating that the data that supports the drawings are included in the promoted drawing package. I’ve set up a process where he must look at the listing presented in Intralink to verify that all items are present. Realistically I’m not sure that he can tell but must assume that they are there…. Not sure how to improve on it.

-Tom

-----Original Message-----
From: Wayne T. Reiersen
Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 2004 9:57 AM
To: Thomas G. Brown; Bob Simmons
Subject: RE: Need Drawing and Rev # for Weld Joint R&D Task

How are we effecting change control on design data such as Pro/E models that are not covered by our drawing control procedures (e.g. PDF and have Jerry sign)?

-----Original Message-----
From: Thomas G. Brown
Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 2004 10:44 AM
To: Bob Simmons; Michael E. Viola; Wayne T. Reiersen; 'goransonpl@y12.doe.gov'
Cc: Frank A. Malinowski; 'Nelson_Brad'; Arlene E. White; Phil Heitzenroeder; 'Larry L. Sutton'
Subject: RE: Need Drawing and Rev # for Weld Joint R&D Task

I just wanted to interject in the conversation one additional piece of information. We now not only supply drawings to the vendors but also a lot of other data. In addition to drawings we include all Pro/E parts and assemblies as well as STEP files and when appropriate point text files and surface IGES files. So the information provided is extensive. This should be listed in a spread sheet format (as David did for the MC’s for the FDR). It seems appropriate that the spread sheet listing would be an addendum to the Spec.

-Tom

-----Original Message-----
From: Bob Simmons
Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 2004 9:27 AM
To: Michael E. Viola; Wayne T. Reiersen; Thomas G. Brown; 'goransonpl@y12.doe.gov'
Cc: Frank A. Malinowski; 'Nelson_Brad'; Arlene E. White; Phil Heitzenroeder; 'Larry L. Sutton'
Subject: RE: Need Drawing and Rev # for Weld Joint R&D Task

Mike, et al:

Wayne and I think we have a reasonable solution here:

(1) If SOW and Spec, then contract needs to reference both documents and their applicable revision number. Spec needs to list all the drawings and their rev numbers since it is the technical basis of the design. Since the spec exists, the SOW need not reference any drawings at all – it needs to merely point to the “latest version of the spec”. If conflicts arise, the contract shall take precedent. If we add a drawing, change a drawing, both the spec and drawings (impacted ones only) need to be revised. We will not accept revising drawings without also revising spec.

(2) If no spec, then the SOW need not reference the specific drawings and rev number, but the contract MUST. If not, then the SOW must be the ultimate source document.

So in case of the weld R&D task, the SOW may have to be modified to provide correct list of drawings but will need to point to the contract as the ultimate source document. It needs to also clearly state that in the event there is a discrepancy between the SOW and the contract, the contact shall take precedent. I will need to modify the SOW to update the drawing list (but with no rev #) and to add the appropriate contract precedence wording.

Bob S.

Bob Simmons

NCSX Systems Engineering Support Manager

Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory (PPPL)

Tel #: (609) 243-2766

Fax #: (609) 243-3030

-----Original Message-----
From: Michael E. Viola
Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 2004 10:16 AM
To: Wayne T. Reiersen; Bob Simmons; Thomas G. Brown; 'goransonpl@y12.doe.gov'
Cc: Frank A. Malinowski; 'Nelson_Brad'; Arlene E. White; Phil Heitzenroeder; 'Larry L. Sutton'
Subject: RE: Need Drawing and Rev # for Weld Joint R&D Task

Wayne,

A few days ago Larry Sutton and Phil were chatting and realized that it would be a lot easier if the SOW referred to the Contract for the list of drawings. That way when the drawings were updated it involved Larry simply sending out one amendment instead of revising the SOW or SPEC with a half dozen signatures. Wouldn't that be OK?

Mike

From: Wayne T. Reiersen
Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 2004 10:03 AM
To: Bob Simmons; Michael E. Viola; Thomas G. Brown; 'goransonpl@y12.doe.gov'
Cc: Frank A. Malinowski; 'Nelson_Brad'; Arlene E. White
Subject: RE: Need Drawing and Rev # for Weld Joint R&D Task

Let’s be clear here. The SOW should never take the place of a spec. The SOW defines the work to be performed. The spec defines the technical product along with the drawings identified in the spec. If the product is completely defined by the drawings, then a spec is not required. If there is a spec, then the SOW needs to point to it. If there is no spec but only drawings, then the SOW needs to point directly to the drawings.

-----Original Message-----
From: Bob Simmons
Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 2004 8:24 AM
To: Michael E. Viola; Thomas G. Brown; goransonpl@y12.doe.gov
Cc: Wayne T. Reiersen; Frank A. Malinowski; Nelson_Brad; Arlene E. White
Subject: Need Drawing and Rev # for Weld Joint R&D Task

Mike, Tom, and Paul: