Is The CAGE Code (DAI) column really still required in modern engineering assembly parts lists?

[fsincox]

Is The CAGE Code (DAI) column really still required on modern engineering assembly drawing parts lists?
Commercial world and/or Military, most of the books and standards I have say it is a mandatory column in a parts list. My people are talking about eliminating it as we now mostly commercial applications, we really still do some military jobs too. If they want to go to two different systems so be it, I am not recommending it, but it is not my choice. I just want to know if you guys have any insight on this?

 

[ctopher]

We do both commercial and military (and space).
It's mandatory on everything here, but I don't know who mandates it.

Chris, CSWA
SolidWorks 14
SolidWorks Legion

 

[fsincox]

Chris,thank you
Do you actually fill in Cage Codes or use a general note like: "see note 1" and say a note in the general note that says: "1. vendor item-see source or vendor item control drawing"?
Thank you,
Frank
Merry Christmas to you all, you guys have helped me out many times!

 

[ctopher]

It's on the drawing template, next to the part number.

Chris, CSWA
SolidWorks 14
SolidWorks Legion

 

[Tunalover]

If the B/M calls out a company part number defined by a Vendor Item Drawing, the design activity's (your company's) CAGE code goes in that column. The Vendor Item Drawing then defines the manufacturer and manufacturer's part number and spells out all the acceptance criteria and specifications required of the part.

It depends on the customer's documentation requirements. Sometimes it's sufficient to just enter the manufacturer's CAGE code and part number on the B/M.




Tunalover

 

[3DDave]

CAGE code is an extension of the part number. It is used as a shortcut to putting the full name and address of the maker of a part into the tiny box on the PL. Without the CAGE there is no way to tell where a part comes from. It is not only a military requirement, but is used for all government procurement and accounting. Did you know that the #1 qty of CAGE codes is for Sherwin-Williams? That's because they supply paint for painting federal offices nationwide. The CAGE on each contract is for the local supplier of the paint, which is also where the payment is made.

In an assembly there could be two different parts with the same base part number, but different makers. The CAGE is the only way to distinguish them.

Perhaps they are thinking that since the procurement system already records this and since the drawings aren't deliverable, as they might be under a military contract, that they are covered. True, but it leaves them open to synchronization errors where there is no way to discover when there is a lack of synch. The joke, a man with one watch knows the time; a man with two watches is never sure? The inverse of that is that a man with one watch doesn't know anything about how well his watch performs; a man with two watches can compare them and see what causes one to slow or run faster than the other and is better equipped to spot problems.

The alternative to using a CAGE on the PL is to assign in-house numbers to purchased parts and make drawings of those purchased parts that call out the maker name and address. In fact, most defense contracts prefer this because that independent drawing can have all the information that is critical to using the part, allowing inspection to verify that, over time, the part maker doesn't alter the construction of the part. And yes, suppliers change the functionality of parts with no change to the base number all too often.

In addition, the separate drawing allows for the case where the original part goes out of production and an alternate is required. Without knowing the important characteristics of the part, it is an expensive operation to retrieve that info for the purposes of either designing an in-house replacement or locating a new supplier.

 

[fsincox]

Thanks,
Guys,
I was under a little different impression, I thought I read last night the CAGE Code was NOT needed to be entered in the parts list it was the same as on your drawing CAGE (basically your parts). It also does not need to be in if it is defined by a nationally recognized standard part.
I thought it was to be added if the item specified was a Source or Vendor Item Control Drawing that was controlled by an outside design activity, therefore, NOT your own CAGE Code.
Historically, we have all the Mil spec parts and all purchased parts on Control Drawings under our own part numbers. I was trying to advocate moving away from that. From 3DDave’s comments I am getting the impression that there are good reasons to do just that.
Basically, if you are saying you are following ASME Y14 or MIL-STD-100 are you actually in non-conformance at audit time, if you do not follow this particular practice?
Frank

 

[3DDave]

Even nationally recognized standard parts need a CAGE. Usually this is included as part of the Specification so it isn't required on the using drawing. For example Mil-spec parts have the CAGE as part of the spec for the responsible entity. Of course the DoD also had a QPL so you knew who they thought could supply conforming items because that's who they got their own spares from.

It is typically assumed that the CAGE on the drawing is indicative of the default CAGE for all parts that either don't have one or have a related specification. OTOH I had one whiny Doc control person complain that dash numbers in a weldment drawing PL were insufficient to describe the parts and the parts all needed the drawing number prefix, mostly because they were too stupid to figure out what to enter into the ERP system.

I'm not sure what you mean by "there are good reasons to do just that." I'm hoping it is keeping the control drawings. I've seen the ugly results from those occasions when people try to cut the drawing count by just using the vendor number, only to have the supplier change some critical item or stop selling the part.

 

[tbuelna]

The CAGE code is a standard method of identifying businesses involved in supplying goods and services to the US federal government, either directly or on a sub-contract basis. Companies that supply goods or services to numerous federal government contracts at the same time often do so thru different branches of the company. So large companies often have different CAGE codes for each division. All government contracts, whether commercial or military, require some level of traceability. And the CAGE code system is one way to do this function.

 

[looslib]

We have removed the CAGE code column from our BOM tables. We have recently started renaming what had been internal part numbers into a 3-digit vendor code and then their part number. We can identify who the supplier is and have their number without doing additional look ups.


"Wildfires are dangerous, hard to control, and economically catastrophic."

Ben Loosli

 

[Tunalover]

Ben, what happens if you outsource an assembly? No one else will be able to use the B/M.

Tunalover

 

[looslib]

The advantage of being in a classified system environment. We only outsource components, never assemblies due to the classified nature of the work. We also use a 2-line description in the BOM of purchased parts, so part MMC-12546a253 has a description note of McMaster-Carr 12546a253 or equiv.


"Wildfires are dangerous, hard to control, and economically catastrophic."

Ben Loosli

 

[3DDave]

I've seen projects that get badly burned using McMasterCarr part numbers directly. They don't make things; they are a broker and, while they are fast and a good source, they are prone to their suppliers making unwanted and unexpected changes without a related change in the p/n. It's a pain when they do this, and they are among the best sources.