Issue link: https://iconnect007.uberflip.com/i/1166358
SEPTEMBER 2019 I PCB007 MAGAZINE 79 requires certification to MIL-PRF-31032, obvi- ously, is a sector that is worth investigating if you are not already certified today. 2. Effects of the Costs of Military Certification What resources are required to be certified to MIL-PRF-31032? High costs could play a role in retaining certification or initiating this activity. Having completed the initial certification for three different companies, I have a good under- standing of the initial investment. This initial work consists of writing documentation (qual- ity management plan), third-party testing, self- auditing, DLA site audit, and the resulting DLA corrective actions. This will require approxi- mately six man-months using a resource with an experienced background in quality. Third-party testing test costs depend on how many material types you are trying to certify. Most sites start with their two main types. Costs run to about $1,700 for each material type. The site self-audit, DLA audit, and audit corrective ac - tions add another man-month. Assuming $5,000 per month, the total initial certification expense would be as follows: 7MM x $5,000/month + 2X $1,700 = $35,000 + $3400 = $38,400. Ongoing certification consists of third-party audits and DLA required reporting. This takes one-half the time of a full-time quality profes- sional. Therefore, six months x $5,000/month represents an ongoing cost of $30,000 per year. Ongoing third-party testing for two materials is approximately $12,000 per year. The total ongoing cost of $42,000 per year ($30,000 + $12,000) is obviously something to consid- er, especially for a smaller company where it could prohibit initial and/or ongoing certifica- tion. Overall, since these entry and ongoing costs have not changed since 2003, they realis- tically did not affect the number of PWB com- panies certified to MIL-PRF-31032. 3. Effect of Military Product Requirements (Military Specifications or IPC Industry Standards) When they think of PWBs built for the mili- tary, many people associate them all with mili- tary specifications. This is not a conclusion that should be assumed. Certainly, we have many military PWBs that require MIL-PRF-31032, MIL-PRF-55110, or MIL-PRF-50884; however, based on data collected over many years, ma- ny of them are built to IPC/industry standards. With the magnitude and the ever-changing military contracts, it would be quite a challenge to determine what percentage require military specification requirements. From experience, the more the contract supports strategic U.S. defense, the more likely the fabrication re- quirements are pure military. Such contracts often require 100% of the boards to meet mili- tary specifications. The extent of boards that require MIL-PRF-31032, MIL-PRF-55110, or MIL-PRF-50884 is a critical factor of the analy- sis of certification investment, potential mar- ket share, and associated payback. Data collected over the last 7–8 years for general military boards from various contracts indicates the percent that requires fabrication to military specifications varies between 5% and 12%. I see no downward trend in such percentages, and therefore, do not consider it a major factor in the reduction of military PWB suppliers over the last 15 years. An in-depth study of these percentages would be welcome. Therefore, if you consider initial certification or re-certification to MIL-PRF-31032, you must complete a detailed analysis of each potential military part number you might build and de- termine if its fabrication and test specification is commercial or military. 4. Effects of Profit Margins Only accountant experts could detail the on- going profit margins in the last 15 years for military PWBs; however, in general, they tend to be higher than commercial products since there is limited capacity to build them. With military demand increasing from 2003 to 2018, it is reasonable to assume the profit margins are acceptable and is not a negative factor in the number of companies certified to military specifications. 5. Effects of PWB Company Consolidations Has the change of PWB fabrication sites to multi-company ownership had an effect on the