A.J. DI MASCIO, DBA & CAPT. CAMERON 0. MIXON, USN (RET.
THE RE VERSE ENGINEEMNG
PROCESS: A COMPETITION
ENGINEERING PERSPECTIVE
THE AUTHORS
Dr. A.J. Di Mascio is currently a senior program managerfor
VSE Corporation of Alexandria, Va. Prior to joining VSE he
was a career civil servant in the Department of the Navy (retired
in May 1986). His last two assignments were director, Office of
Naval Acquisition Support and deputy commander of the Nav-
al Air Systems Command. He has a doctorate degree from
George Washington University and B.S. and M.S. degrees
from Drexel Institute of Technology.
Capt. Cameron 0. Mixon, USN (Ret.) wasgraduated from the
Georgia Institute of Technology in 1950 and was subsequently
commissioned and entered active naval service. During World
War 11 he entered the Navy as an apprentice seaman and was
discharged after the war ended as a chief petty officer (motor
machinist, diesel). A s a commissioned officer, he served
aboard the USS Walker (DD-517) as engineer officer. In 19SS
he was designated an engineering duty officer after which he
served on the COMMINELANT StafJ then as repair officer
aboard the USS Yellowstone (AD-27). He had tours of duty at
SRF Yokosuka, Charleston, and Long Beach Naval Ship-
yards, and in the Vietnamese Naval Shipyard in Saigon as the
senior naval advisor. His last tour prior to retirement was as
senior machinery inspector on the INSUR V Board, Washing-
ton, D. C . He is currently employed by VSE Corporation where
he has been active in the areas of breakout and reverse engi-
neering.
ABSTRACT
Reverse engineering can be a powerful tool in the develop-
ment of a competitive technical data package. However, it
should be incorporated as one subset of the several tools avail-
able in a comprehensive competition engineering program.
There are several technical programmatic, and economic fac-
tors which must be considered within the overall system con-
text of such a competition engineering framework prior to
committing to implementation of reverse engineering. This
paper presents an overview of some of the principal technical,
management and economic considerations which should be
factored into the planning, decision-making, and control pro-
cesses when applying reverse engineering techniques to a Re-
plenishment Spares Breakout Program. A decision-making
model and process management descriptive model are pre-
sented as guides to planning and control.
INTRODUCTION
I n recent years much emphasis has been placed upon
the efficacy of promoting significantly higher levels of
competition in the acquisition of our defense systems
and equipment, as well as in the acquisition of the re-
plenishment spares for these systems and equipment.
One of the results of this emphasis, and the related
media and political attention, has been the many and
varied competition-enhancing initiatives advanced at
several levels within the Department of Defense (DOD).
The adverse media publicity during the 1982-1983 time-
frame concerning the apparent and real inordinately
high costs of spare parts was at least indirectly respon-
sible for the enactment of the Competition in Contract-
ing Act (CICA) of 1984 and several specific DOD direc-
tives to increase competition. The CICA had the affect
of reemphasizing that full and open competition is to be
the rule, and not the exception, for Federal Government
procurement.
As a natural consequence of implementation of the
CICA and several of the complementary initiatives, the
criticality of technical data has once again become a
prominent concern in the defense material support com-
munities. The importance of technical data as a critical
resource in the system acquisition and life cycle support
processes has been punctuated. Competitive procure-
ment of systems in production, as well as competitive
procurement of replenishment spares and spare parts, is
dependent on the timely availability of complete and un-
encumbered technical data packages (TDPs). Full and
open competition is often impeded by a variety of im-
pediments - some valid and some invalid. The absence
of a complete TDP unencumbered by inappropriate sole
source or proprietary limitations can be a significant
impediment.
The technical data/TDP requirements for the entire
life cycle of a system should be defined in the system ac-
quisition planning process based upon the approved ac-
quisition strategy. In the cases in which it has been de-
termined that production competition is cost-effective
and practical, the acquisition plan, and the complemen-
tary technical data management plan, must be struc-
tured to facilitate the acquisition of a high quality full
design disclosure TDP. The selection of the best acquisi-
tion strategy or design approach should be derived from
an informed technical assessment and a cost-benefit
analysis. However, the cost-benefit analysis may be
conditioned by some additional constraints such as af-
fordability or critical schedular considerations. One
should expect that in some cases, the existence of legiti-
mate proprietary rights may have the affect of
precluding efficient competition at some levels in the
system/equipment hierarchy. T h e significant
consideration is that commercial enterprises may have
valid economic interest in protecting data and
information on processes or items which they developed
at their own expense. The Federal Acquisition
Regulations acknowledge the legitimate rights of such
firms to protect these data and information from
disclosure to potential competitors. Obviously, the
important operative requirement is to identifv and
recognize legitimate proprietary rights. This is not
always self evident; often it may require specific data
Naval Engineers Journal, March 1988 47
 REVERSE ENGINEERING
rights investigations by specialized legal and paralegal
staffs or consultants.
The consequences of not being able to develop and
implement rational and economically efficient competi-
tive acquisition strategies which are technically sup-
ported by quality TDPs are often manifested in signifi-
cant economic, technical, political, social, and/or mili-
tary problems or impediments. These potential prob-
lems and impediments can be real or perceived. In some
cases, the horror stories that have been highlighted
have been fed by appearances and perceptions. How-
ever, in many cases, the past practices should be altered.
Some historic scenarios of the system acquisition past
should not continue. Scenarios which indicate overde-
pendence upon sole-source contracting in areas in which
scrutiny would not support this type of dependence.
Scenarios in which it is common place to expect that,
when TDPs are acquired, they are prepared by protec-
tive development contractors without appropriate
government oversight and practical final acceptance
procedures. Accordingly, we become tacitly resigned to
TDPs which are unclear, inadequate, inaccurate, in-
complete, not current, or aU of the above. In many cases
we may be motivated to award subsequent production
contracts to the developing contractor to compensate
for the lack of appropriate acquisition management dis-
cipline and quality TDPs even in the cases in which the
inherent technical and economic considerations would
not impel sole-source awards.
It is important to note that the production of the TDP
should not be viewed as an isolated event appended to
the end of the product development process. It must be
planned and managed as an integral element of the de-
velopment process. Further, TDP production must be
specifically interrelated to the configuration manage-
ment discipline - the logical consequence of the config-
uration identification component. The configuration
identification process provides the regimen for baseline
management (baselining) and baselining should control
the development and lead to an efficient product base-
line (production) definition.
When this type of acquisition strategy and disciplined
configuration management/TDP development has not
been implemented, the resulting TDPs are often incom-
plete or otherwise inadequate. When competition is
seemingly precluded by the lack of TDPs, the reverse
engineering process provides tools which can be used to
develop or complete the TDP.
REVERSE ENGINEERING: A POWERFUL TOOL
A complete, comprehensive, and accurate TDP will
contain appropriate drawings, material specifications,
and process specifications defining the product baseline
for a systems, equipment, or a component. This TDP is
usually prepared by the system development contractor
or secondhhird tier vendors to permit subsequent com-
petitive procurements of the items. The absence of such
a competitive TDP is a critical impediment in the imple-
mentation of replenishment spares breakout. If the re-
quired technical data is incomplete, or otherwise lack-
48 Naval Engineers Journal, March 1988
DI MASCIO/MIXON
ing, or if it is inappropriately restricted as proprietary,
the Government is generally locked into a sole source
supply arrangement. When it is determined that there is
no other alternative avialable for acquisition of the re-
quired TDP, the reverse engineering process may pro-
vide a practical option to the continued sole source pro-
curement. Reverse engineering (RE) is a method of inde-
pendently producing technical data that is otherwise un-
available. The resulting TDP can be utilized in compe-
titive solicitations for alternate manufacturing sources.
To support breakout, and as part of the continuing
effort to improve the acquisition efficiency, RE may be
implemented on selected systems and equipment, when
cost effective to do so. RE is, in fact, Step #19 of the
DAR Supplement 6 Replenishment Parts Breakout Pro-
gram, Breakout Screening and Coding Process:
Obtain or develop the necessary datafor a reliable data
package. Reverse engineering to develop acquisition
data may be employed if the conditions (i) through (iv)
cited in DAR 9-202.2(0(1) have been met and if there is
a clear indication that the costs of reverse engineering
will be less than the savings anticipated from the compe-
titive acquisition, but only in accordance with DAR
1-304.2(b)(4). If there is a choice between reverse engi-
neering and the purchase of data (step #21), the decision
shall be made on the basis of relative costs, quality,
time, and other pertinent factors.
The Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) Policy
Memorandum dated 17 April 1985 defines reverse engi-
neering as follows:
Reverse engineering is the process whereby drawings
and specifications are made as a result of physically ex-
amining and measuring existing parts to produce techni-
cal data with unlimited rights.
In other words it is design engineering in reverse -
instead of first developing documentation to produce
hardware, the sample hardware is analyzed to produce
documentation. See Figure 1.
Potential candidates for RE are identified upon com-
pletion of the DARS-6 Breakout Screening and Coding
Process and subsequent data rights investigations.
These potential candidates are then subject to specific
selection criteria. Further, the reverse engineering pro-
cess is limited by certain legal constraints. Through RE
an exact replica of the hardware is produced. In the
nominal case, no changes (or improvements) are made;
therefore, it is not normally a product improvement
program. However during the process, design changes
FORYARD ENGINEERING
DESIGN
DEVELOPWENT
REVERSE
ENGINEERING
I
Figure 1. Engineering in reverse.
 DI MASCIO/MIXON
or improvements may be identified which could be im-
plemented to enhance operability, product assurance,
and/or supportability of the system, equipment, or
component. These engineering changes or improve-
ments may be recommended in the Follow-on Consid-
erations at the end of the process.
LEGAL AND ETHICAL IMPLICATIONS
RE does not imply a confiscation of a companys
rights when the item under consideration is in the public
domain. The courts have ruled that RE is legal when
used properly. Even proprietary items can be reverse
engineered if the process is controlled within the
bounds of the established ethical and legal constraints.
(These constraints will be outlined later in this paper.) In
any questionable situation the cognizant office of
counsel and/or office of patent counsel should be con-
sulted for specific legal assistance. Government contract-
ing guidance states as follows:
A final method of obtaining competition without vio-
lating proprietary rights is for the Government to re-
verse engineer the product and use the drawings created
thereby in a competitive procurement. DAR 1-304.2(b)
(4) describes this as the least desirable method, stating:
As a last alternative, a design specification may be
developed by the Government through inspection and
analysis of the product (i.e., reverse engineering) and
used for competitive procurement. Reverse engineering
shall not be used unless significant cost savings can be
reasonably demonstrated and the action is authorized by
the head of the procuring activity.
This is a legal and proper method of overcoming pro-
prietary constraints as indicated in Stanley A viation
Corp. vs. United States, 196 U.S.P.Q. 612 (D.Col.
1977); 48 Comp. Gen. 605 (1969). In Stanley, the court
stated :
Reverse engineering of a privately developed product
even if it is the subject of a trade secret, is proper unless
the product was improperly obtained, or the inventors
engineering drawings were utilized . . .
If it is decided to use a proprietary item or process, the
appropriate decision maker may elect to pursue one of
the several available options. Some of the most generally
applicable options are:
(1) sole source procurement of the itemlprocess (the
nominal source control situation);
(2) acquire limited or unlimited rights in data for the
proprietary item/process;
(3) acquire licensing agreement for the production of
the item or use of the process;
(4) redesign the system/equipment to preclude the need
for the proprietary item/process; or
( 5 ) reverse engineering
We must recognize there are certain inherent advan-
tages to the legitimate sole source scenarios in some
cmes. In legitimate sole source situations there should
REVERSE ENGINEERING
be significant cost, schedular, and/or technical efficien-
cies which may impel continuation of the sole source
conditions. There may be additional advantages which
further support the arguments for proper sole source
procurements in limited cases.
WHY REVERSE ENGINEERING?
RE is a powerful competition engineering tool for de-
veloping technical documentation. Usually the process
is used to develop competitive TDPs (i.e., design disclo-
sure packages for competitive procurements). RE is a
good technical and business alternative for acquiring a
TDP when other alternatives are not practical or not ef-
fective because: the developer (or current supplier) is
not willing to provide the data (or sell it at a reasonable
price), the data does not exist (or is incomplete), or the
data is proprietary.
Normally the documentation developed through RE
is delivered to the Government with unlimited rights.
However, it is important to emphasize that RE can be
an expensive process. As a general rule, RE should only
be considered when no other alternatives are available
to get the necessary data. Cost effectiveness should be a
major factor unless there are some significant overrid-
ing factors.
GOVERNMENT IMPLEMENTATION
In 1985, the DOD directed that each service imple-
ment a RE program in response to a Congressional
mandate.
The Congressional Committee Report on Appropria-
tions (DOD Appropriation Act, 1985), states the follow-
ing:
I. . . The committee is aware that some services cur-
rently employ review teams of engineers and cost ana-
lysts who perform should cost analyses on parts. Such
analyses often indicate that the parts could be legally re-
verse engineered and subsequently manufactured at
greatly reduced cost on a competitive basis. However,
the amount of reverse engineering required exceeds what
Government employees can accomplish.
The committee therefore directs each service to es-
tablish a pilot program for reverse engineering of spare
parts on a contract basis in Fiscal Year 1985. It is envis-
ioned that a huge number of dollar value spare parts
which are routinely purchased from a sole source due to
unnecessary proprietary data restrictions will be reverse
engineered on a contract basis to produce technical data
where legally feasible. Each service is expected to fund a
pilot program of at least $5 million within its spare parts
budget .
Each of the Services has implemented this guidance
with somewhat different approaches. The United States
Air Force has elected to utilize the contracted out re-
verse engineering (CORE) approach. In the CORE pro-
gram, individual contracts are awarded for each item.
The contracts include the requirements for the RE pro-
cess and one or two production lots. The Army elected
to implement a single omnibus pilot program with the
Naval Engineers Journal, March 1988 49
 REVERSE ENGINEERING DI MASCIO/MIXON

DATA ECONOMIC DECISION

ORIGINATOR:
VERIFICATION AUGMENTATION ANALYSIS
A
PRELIMINARY
UCISTICS ISSUE (CERTIFICATION DATA SOURCES
o ALTERNATES

17;
o COMPETITIVE

aSCXEENING

YES I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

I 1
= I DATA RIGHTS IMPLWENT
I
I YES PROBLE)((S) NO REVERSE
1 I ENGINEERING
I
(CO~ETITION
I
RESTRICTIVE
I
ACQUISITION SAMPLE
I
METHOD SUFFIX NO PARTS
I

A CODES) AVAILABILITY
I

1-I-d I
I
I
COMPETITIVE ALTERNATE
I
I
(MIC/MSC CODES AVAI IABLE
I
1C 6 2C) I

I
ANALY S ES/AS S ESSiiENT

Figure 2. Reverse engineering process - candidate selection procedures.

Belvoir Research, Development and Engineering Center RE CANDIDATE SELECTION

(BRDEC) designated as the lead activity. One of the
outputs of the Army/BRDEC pilot RE program was a
RE Handbook (MIL-T-115). The complete results of
these pilot programs are not yet available. The Congress
related the RE process to the spare parts management
reforms initiative and mandated a system management
philosophy to emphasize the need for coordination
among complementary programs. The Congressional
Committee Report on Appropriations (DOD Appro-
priation Act, 1985) discusses Spare Parts Management
reforms, as follows:
I. . . The reforms need continued full support by the
Office of the Secretary of Defense and managers in the
services and the Defense Logistics Agency. The services
must cross-share ideas and information. In the near
term, the most difficult aspect of the program is the im-
plementation of a cost effective breakout program; is-
sues in the acquisition and management of technical
data must be successfully resolved; coordination of pro-
gram management and logistics management is vital;
planning for spares procurement must be a prime re-
sponsibility of procurement executives at all levels.
In the Navy, the Naval Supply Systems Command
(NavSup) provides this system management coordina-
tion, in conjunction with the other systems commands,
under the umbrella of the Buy Our Spares Smart
(BOSS) Program. NavSup has designated the Spares
Competition and Logistics Technology Program Office
(PML-550) as the focal point for this effort.
50 Naval Engineers Journal, March 1988
Cost-effectiveness (CE) must be the continuing pri-
mary determinant in the RE candidate selection and exe-
cution procedures. A practical CE calculus is required
- one which accounts for effectiveness, cost-benefit,
and leverage considerations. Figure 2 provides a generic
descriptive model of a disciplined RE candidate selec-
tion process which can accommodate the CE require-
ments. The prospective candidates, which are initially
identified by various sources (e.g., inventory control
points) are assessed by applying the first 19 steps of the
DARS-6 Breakout Screening and Coding Process in or-
der to determine if they are qualified candidates. This
initial phase may be accomplished as an integral part of
a Replenishment Spares Breakout Program, during the
initial provisioning, or as a separate specific initiative.
The primary considerations are:
Criticality - Items which would cause serious per-
sonnel injuries or fatalities and/or serious derangement
to major machinery, equipment, or weapons systems as
a result of failures are classified as critical. These
items, and especially those which are certification de-
pendent, should not be normally considered as appro-
priate candidates for reverse engineering - unless those
items are mission essential and/or replacement parts
cannot be procured via normal channels.
Warranty - Parts under manufacturers warranty
normally should not be considered as appropriate candi-
dates, unless the customer is willing to accept the risk of
 DI MASCIO/MIXON
FUSCTIOSAL DISASSEYBLY
( 6 INTERFACING
STUDY)
/ o PARTS CONTROL \
4!
c I
FABRICATION
YES
Figure 3. Reverse engineering process.
potentially voiding the warranty on the particular equip-
ment.
Legal Constraints - RE is proper if personnel in-
volved in the effort have not had access to any proprie-
tary data and they were not previously employed by the
original manufacturer in any capacity where access to
the data or processes was available. The personnel per-
forming the reverse engineering cannot have visited or
witnessed the manufacturing processes in the manufac-
turers facilities. The technical documentation required
must be legitimately developed through engineering
evaluations of the existing hardware in the public do-
main. Additionally, only documentation which is in the
public domain may be collected and utilized (to facil-
itate the effort and avoid duplication). The Government
must screen all data requested before delivery t o the RE
contractor to preclude inadvertent access to any propri-
etary data. Some examples of documentation in the
public domain include: Technical Manuals, Operation
and Maintenance (O&M) Manuals; Commercial Cat-
alogs; Sales Brochures; Standards and Specifications;
and Unrestricted Drawings. The Office of Patent Coun-
cil will provide assistance on the legalities of patent
infringements.
Availability of Sample Hardware - Actual hardware
samples will be required. The number of hardware sam-
ples required for analyses varies with the complexity of
the part and the testing requirements. Normally two
samples will suffice. (One will usually be destroyed dur-
ing the RE process.) Only unused functional items
should be provided as RE samples; otherwise, any de-
fects will be replicated in the TDP.
Alternate Sources - A major consideration during
the selection process is to insure that there are potential
REVERSE ENGINEERING
MATERIAL
* ANALYSIS 1
l o COHPOSITION \
I
o FINISHES
o HEAT TREATNENT
CUSTOXER
REVIEW (PRODCCTION
PRODUCT
IflPROVEHENT 6
SUPPORTABILITY
No
TEST h DELIVERY
EVALUATION DATA PACKACE
manufacturers, other than the original equipment man-
ufacturer (OEM), with suitable facilities and equip-
ment, who may be interested in competing for a con-
tract award. RE is not cost-effective if only one manu-
facturer has the requisite tooling, special test equip-
ment, and production capability necessary for quantity
production.
Cost-Effectiveness - Finally, an analysis should be
conducted t o determine if RE would be cost-effective.
The unit prices, annual buy quantity, and item life cycle
must be considered. The cost to reverse engineer an item
plus the calculated life cycle cost differential after RE
must reflect a substantial calculated savings over the
current life cycle cost to justify RE. The substantial sav-
ings amount is a judgment call and should reflect
some discounting procedure to account for present
value considerations.
THE REVERSE ENGINEERING PROCESS
The typical reverse engineering process involves a
number of procedures. An outline of the generic process
is schematically illustrated in Figure 3. The major proce-
dures are:
Funcational and Economic Analyses - The function-
al and economic analyses include: data collection from
documentation in the public domain; evaluations to de-
termine missing technical data, definitions of test re-
quirements, and any additional hardware requirements;
and development of schedules. It also includes develop-
ing an understanding of functional characteristics and
interfaces. The economic analysis is continuously re-ex-
m i n e d and refined utilizing the latest cost information.
N a v a l Engineers J o u r n a l , March 1988 51
 REVERSE ENGINEERING
The economic analysis provides the basis for continuing
CE decisions.
Disassembly Procedures - The disassembly proce-
dures include: initial inspection and testing to ensure the
sample hardware functions properly; the physical con-
figuration audit (PCA) to determine if the hardware re-
ceived matches the available technical documentation
and to identify the differences; parts identification to
document standard and non-standard piece-part and de-
fine drawing requirements such as assembly drawings,
detail drawings, and special formats. The physical inter-
face requirements are also identified and documented
during this phase.
The PCA is a critical element of the RE process. A
PCA is the formal examination of the as-built ver-
sion of a Configuration Item (CI) against its available
technical documentation in order to establish the CIs
product baseline. The PCA is also used to assist in di-
mensional analysis.
REVERSE PLAN
ENGINEERING
Once the initial steps in the RE process are completed
a detailed plan can be developed. The detailed reverse
engineering plan is developed to define the complete set
of tasks necessary to complete the TDP and to establish
the management procedures to ensure that objectives
are achieved in a timely manner.
HARDWARE
DIMENSIONAL
AND MATERIALANALYSES
The hardware is analyzed to determine: the dimen-
sions (including tolerances and working envelopes); the
materials specification (including composition and fin-
ishes); and the electrical/electronic operating character-
istics required. During this phase of the process, the en-
gineering sketches and specifications for drafting the
complete production drawings are developed.
DRAFTING
The drawings (Level 3) are then drafted in accordance
with: DOD-D-1000 (Engineering Drawings and Asso-
ciated Lists); DOD-STD-100 (Engineering Drawing
Practices); ANSI Y 14.5 (Dimensioning and Toleranc-
ing) (American National Standards Institute); and other
pertinent specifications.
PRODUCIBILITY
ANALYSIS
Producibility studies are conducted to determine if
the initial draft drawings and specifications developed
are adequate for competitive production. Standard pro-
duction engineering discipline is applied during this pro-
cedure. Production engineering, in this context, consists
of engineering drawing and material/process specifica-
tion analyses to verify the completeness and clarity nec-
essary fro economical production. This analysis should
result in end-product drawings consistent with the
fundamental rules of DOD-STD-100 and suitable for
quantity procurements from any capable source as de-
52 Naval Engineers Journal, March 1988
DI MASCIO/MIXON
fined in DOD-D-1000. End-product drawings ensure the
maximum interchangeability of parts, components and
subassemblies without detriment to functional perfor-
mance or military characteristics. Maximum pro-
ducibility benefits are obtained when production
engineering is coordinated with development process.
The production engineers role will normally include
producibility studies and production reviews.
REVIEWS
PRODUCTION
Production reviews, based on actual bids for produc-
tion items, are conducted to determine estimates, sched-
ules, intrinsic values, and should-cost estimates.
PRODUCTION
PROTOTYPE
Prototype production includes procurement, fabrica-
tion, inspection, assembly, and testing in accordance
with the test plan.
Prototypes range from a simple part to a fully inte-
grated system and from experimental to production pro-
totypes. They are used to validate concepts and hard-
ware for function and producibility and to verify the
TDP. The completeness and adequacy of a TDP must
be determined early to preclude the necessity for devel-
opment of several levels of TDP (i.e., Level 1/2 draw-
ings or Level 3 drawings). The reduction of duplicate
work reduces costs. Additionally, provisioning docu-
mentation and computer software requirements to sup-
port maintenance and operations should be determined
early.
To validate the RE process, prototypes are fabricated
in accordance with the developed technical documenta-
tion to certify function and producibility. Prototype
testing will verify the TDP.
THE TDP
FINALIZE
When all of the steps indicated in Figure 3 are com-
pleted, the TDP is finalized. This includes: mono-de-
tail/multi-detail drawings; quality assurance provisions
(QAPs); qualified products lists (QPLs); parts lists;
special test equipment; manufacturing processes; and
material specifications.
FOLLOW-ON
CONSIDERATIONS
The follow-on considerations include recommenda-
tions for: end-term TDP update; integrated logistics
support (ILS) posture improvements (e.g., train-
ingkechnical manuals, etc.); engineering changes (de-
sign improvements, reliability improvements, value en-
gineering and/or human factors engineering); procure-
ment follow-up; and re-coding recommendations.
THE BENEFITS O F REVERSE ENGINEERING
The benefits of reverse engineering include the fol-
lowing:
DI MASCIO/MIXON
Complete competitive TDP with level 3 drawings will
be developed;
Data problems will be solved;
Product improvements can be identified;
Alternate suppliers can be identified;
The item price could be reduced; and
Competitive procurements will be increased in com-
pliance with current DOD policies.
The basic RE concept is not new. RE has been em-
ployed in varying degrees throughout history. The cur-
rent techniques employed are perhaps more sophisti-
cated because of the available metrology equipment and
the complexity of the extant technologies.
A word of caution is required. Continual vigilance
must be maintained to recognize that counterfeit parts
REVERSE ENGINEERING
often show up in failed equipment. These bogus parts
are not to be mistakenly identified as parts produced by
a competent RE process. Replacement repair parts
manufactured by a competent firm using the RE process
will:
(1) Be a part which passed an approved acceptance test
after being manufactured using an approved TDP
which was developed following a set of procedures
similar to those illustrated in Figure 2 (including di-
mensional and material analyses as well as produci-
bility analyses); and
(2) Be exact duplicates of the approved sample and
stamped with the identifying Federal Supply Code
for Manufacturers (FSCM) of the approving author-
ity.
Naval EngineersJournal, March 1988 53