|
|
|
    |
|
 |
GEM is a U.S Government sponsored program, whose mission is to provide form, fit, and function replacements for microcircuit part types in situations where private industry is unable to meet the Government's needs. GEM meets the form, fit, and functions of the original part by meeting 100% of the performance, quality assurance, and other requirements specified in the original part specification (SMD, M38510, SCD), and is marked with the part specification, part number, and quality assurance symbol. GEM is operated in accordance with the FAR, and does not compete with private industry. GEM continues to make a major contribution to supporting the warfighter:
GEM has supplied emulated devices to all branches of the military services and numerous OEM's. Since the inception of the GEM program in 1987, there have been no reports that indicate that GEM devices are causing failures of any kind in any DOD weapons system applications. Is the GEM Program in compliance with government procedures? Form Fit and Function There has been numerous discussions regarding the form, fit and function of an original device. Because the original device typically had two to four "original manufacturers" whose versions of the part were not identical and whose parts varied to some degree with each production lot and within each production lot, using the broad term "original part" leads to an imprecise and subjective interpretation of what constitutes a part's form, fit and function. When the military or a defense contractor procures an integrated circuit, the device specification defines the aspects of a device's form, fit and function required to ensure proper operation in the intended application. GEM devices meet the original part's form, fit, and function as defined by MIL-PRF-38535 and as delineated in the original device specification. The GEM program manufacturers devices using DSCC QML certified design, fabrication, and testing procedures to ensure that ALL requirements are rigorously validated and verified by Sarnoff and independent QML test sub contractors. Why GEM is correct in using existing PINs? Configuration Management One of the most important requirements emphasized by the military services at the inception of the GEM program in 1987, was the desire to have a form, fit, function interchangeable device that would utilize the existing device Part Identification Number (PIN). This implementation would eliminate the costs to the military associated with generating new specifications and also would lower the documentation cost associated with updating the military's technical orders and manuals. Although the GEM contractor and the DSCC GEM Program Office must be satisfied that all specification requirements are being met, the cognizant Government specification activity makes the decision whether the GEM parts are approved or qualified and if GEM parts are to be marked with the existing PIN. It has been suggested that because GEM uses a technology that may be different from the technology previously used to built the parts, a part number change is required. Part number configuration control practice is to assign a new part number if a change of requirements affects interchangeability. Technology is not a requirement for MILSPECs that cover ICs and, specifically in the case of GEM, the technology has not been shown to affect interchangeability. Because no specification requirements are changed, no new part number is required to be assigned, nor would it be appropriate. The cognizant government authority on the PIN issue is Mr. Greg Saunders, Director Defense Standardization Program. Mr. Saunders responded via a formal letter to the Semiconductor Industry Association (SIA) on 18 Sep 03 (see actual letter) that addressed GEM utilizing existing military PINs.  What's the Real Story? GEM Technology - Performance and Reliability There have been articles within DoD industry publications and allegations made at several conferences and industry / government meetings that indicate that GEM devices have been causing "soft Failures" in F-15 applications. We believe that these allegations are FALSE. A lead engineer within WR-ALC who supports the F-15 platform, including the fire control radar, specifically stated that NO soft failures have been observed (let alone documented) with regard to GEM parts.
To our knowledge there have been no valid discrepancies reported that indicate that GEM devices are causing hard or soft failures in any DOD weapons system applications since the inception of the GEM program in 1987. The following additional data is provided:
The GEM Technology is NOT adversely affecting DoD Weapons Systems Is GEM Unfair Competition? Aftermarket Support There has been information circulated alleging the GEM program is unfairly competing against the IC industry, this statement could not be further from the truth. Here are the facts: DSCC makes every attempt to first obtain the original manufacturers' devices when an original manufacturer is approved to supply the item. This process includes identifying residual pockets of product and working with aftermarket manufacturers. In 1997, the GEM program entered into an agreement with the Semiconductor Industry Association (SIA) meant to ensure the GEM program was not emulating circuit designs still supported through the IC industry. The agreement included provisions for notifying Industry whenever a new GEM emulation was being considered. This practice continues today and all responses are evaluated by the government to ensure that private industry has priority when it has demonstrated the capability to produce the device and are responsive to the government's need.
Through 2004, Sarnoff has been instructed to no-bid on >215 occasions and the customer was directed to the IC Industry. We consider all industry support to DoD an invaluable resource. It would not be in the Government's interest to undercut our industrial base. The decreasing industrial base is the very reason GEM was initiated; the IC industry does not support all of DoD's requirements. In cases where the commercial sector provides a source meeting its requirements, the Government has gone with the commercial sector. Should there be concerns? An Aftermarket firm's Web Site Content Concerning GEM One aftermarket firm's web site has a subject area titled "GEM TEST DATA". In this area of their web site, the aftermarket firm has published a letter "response" dated June 19, 2003 to a DSCC letter dated 24 Oct 02. The certificate of conformance(s) (C of C's) provided to the firm for the M38510 devices did not reflect the full "pedigree" of the supplied GEM devices. New C of C‘s describing their true pedigree and conformance to MIL-PRF-38535 have been forwarded to the firm. The certificate of conformance currently used by the Sarnoff Corporation has been reviewed and approved for use by DSCC-V. The firm incorrectly indicated that three of the GEM MIL-Spec devices were improperly marked with a "Q" compliance mark and were also missing a "J" certification mark. It's important to realize that MIL-M-38510 was declared inactive on 27 Aug 93 with all sections referred to corresponding sections of MIL-PRF-38535. A review of MIL-PRF-38535 paragraph 3.6.3 Certification marks, states "All microcircuits acquired to and meeting the requirements of this specification and the applicable SMD, associated device specification, or military temperature range data book parts, which are approved for supply under QML shall bear the "QML" or "Q" certification mark. The "J" marking which was required by MIL-M-38510 may be marked in front of the military designator portion of the associated device specification part number at the QML vendor's option. This "J" was not and shall not be considered part of the official part number used to assign a national stock number." Of the five devices the firm had tested, 4 out the 5 devices were electrically compliant to the specification marked on the device. One device was electrically non-compliant due to differing interpretations of the test set up for the subject device from the detail specification. It had nothing to do with the GEM technology. Although it would be simple to redesign and construct parts meeting the specification, as the GEM program now understands it, QML parts are now available from industry at this time. Therefore we are not implementing the simple change to remedy the altered specification interpretation (in consonance with our industry non-competition policies). There also has been some discussion by this aftermarket firm that the use of the GEM technology may place potentially incompatible electronic parts into major weapons systems. Although the technology used within the GEM program may differ, the developed GEM circuit design is subjected to the same test conditions employing the same min/max limits as the original device. The GEM program has been in existence for over 19 years. The development of the GEM technology started in 1987 with extensive insertion testing starting in the early 90's and continuing today with over 2300 individual tests with outstanding first pass success. Since 1995, the GEM program has worked closely with the DSCC Specification and Qualification organizations to develop a QML process and have been certified a full QML supplier. Since 1997, the GEM program has supplied over 70,000 devices to the DoD. The shipment of these devices has eliminated items on backorder at DSCC, as well as eliminating both OEM production and repair line shut downs. The use of the existing PIN and NSN has been proven to be beneficial to the DoD, eliminating documentation charges associated with updating service technical orders / manuals. Since 1993 when GEM devices started being used by the DoD, there has not been one military or OEM customer reported discrepancy indicating that the use of the GEM technology would not operate successfully in their weapons system applications. |
|