Skip to main content

AS9100D to IA9100: What Changes for Aerospace Tooling Suppliers

AS9100D is the SAE quality management system standard for aviation, space, and defense organizations, and IA9100 is the new revision of the 9100 standard, which the International Aerospace Quality Group (IAQG) was still drafting when it issued its November 2023 key-change summaries. As contracting reasoning, a buyer can flow AS9100D down to the suppliers who build its tooling, handling fixtures, and mechanical ground support equipment (MGSE). UTEC Industrial designs, engineers, machines, fabricates, and installs custom material handling systems for aerospace and heavy industry from its Spokane Valley, WA facility, integrating Allen-Bradley PLC and motion control with in-house CNC machining, heat treating, and stress relief. This article covers what AS9100D is, what IAQG's drafts change, who names AS9100 in contracts, and how FAI, APQP, and PPAP apply to tooling. As engineering reasoning, quality requirements can reach every link of a tooling supplier's chain, design → engineering → parts machining → fabrication → assembly → weld fatigue → stress relief → drives → controls → tuning → monitoring, and several draft changes, including information security, counterfeit-part prevention, and measurement system analysis, bear on its controls end.

What is AS9100D, and how does it relate to ISO 9001?​

SAE AS9100D, Quality Management Systems — Requirements for Aviation, Space, and Defense Organizations, is the revision SAE International published on 20 September 2016. SAE's listing gives an original issue in November 1999 and revisions A (2001), B (2004), C (2009), and D (2016). Its abstract says the standard "includes ISO 9001:2015 quality management system requirements and specifies additional aviation, space, and defense industry requirements, definitions, and notes", that those requirements are "complementary (not alternative) to customer and applicable statutory and regulatory requirements", and that in a conflict with customer or applicable statutory or regulatory requirements "the latter shall take precedence".

IAQG's page for the standard says it "standardizes quality management system requirements to the greatest extent possible and can be used at all levels of the supply chain by organizations around the world". IAQG's history slides record the 2009 revision as "Accepted by DCMA for supplier flow down requirements", and list product safety, risk-based thinking, and software/data protection among the 2016 revision's themes.

IAQG's FAQ on the 2016 revision adds that a quality manual "is no longer specifically required", but an organization must comply "if you have statutory, regulatory, or customer requirements to maintain a quality manual" (SAE AS9100D-2016; IAQG 9100 standard page, accessed 2026; IAQG IA9100 Key Change Summary, 2023; IAQG 9100:2016 FAQ, 2017).

Has IA9100 replaced AS9100D yet?​

Not as of October 2026. IAQG's 9100 page lists 9100:2016 materials and does not mention IA9100; SAE's listing shows no revision after AS9100D. IAQG's November 2023 presentations describe a draft: their next steps were to distribute the IA9100 Coordination Draft by the end of 2023, disposition its comments, and hold formal balloting and dispositioning, with publication planned "in alignment with ISO 9001 release".

The iso.org page for ISO 9001:2026, Edition 6, says it was "Published on 16 September" and "emphasizes the importance of quality culture and leadership and separates risk and opportunities", and the ISO 9001:2015 page shows that edition as withdrawn, at stage 95.99. ISO's FAQ says organizations certified to ISO 9001:2015 "will have to transition to the new version within the timeframe set by their certification cycle"; that statement is about ISO 9001 certificates, and neither iso.org page mentions AS9100 or IA9100.

AS9100D is still SAE's current revision, while the ISO edition it says it includes is withdrawn, and no source read for this article records an IA9100 publication or sets a transition period. As engineering and contracting reasoning, ISO 9001:2026 does not by itself change an AS9100D requirement, and a purchase order that names "IA9100" before publication leaves supplier and auditor with no fixed text.

For the 2016 revision, IAQG's FAQ says "IAQG decided to match the ISO 9001:2015 transition period of September 2018 so organizations could avoid two separate transition efforts and audits". That decision covered 9100:2016, and the FAQ sets nothing for IA9100 (SAE AS9100D-2016; IAQG 9100 standard page, accessed 2026; IAQG IA9100 Key Change Summary, 2023; ISO 9001:2026; IAQG 9100:2016 FAQ, 2017).

What does IAQG's draft summary say will change in IA9100?​

IAQG's two November 2023 presentations, a clause view and a system view, summarize the IA9100 drafts, not a published standard, and any listed change can still move. The clause view reports 247 proposals and 14 concepts, and states that "120 items of 247 met IAQG and scope criteria". The system view's writing guidelines say proposed changes are assessed to ensure, among other tests, that they "are not contractual in nature", "do not contain product or sector specific requirements", and "are auditable and define 'what' not 'how'".

The draft changes the clause view lists, by topic, are:

  • Product safety. NOTE items become requirements, including hazard identification, safety risks, the safety impact of changes, safety-process effectiveness, training, communication and awareness, and event reporting.
  • Counterfeit parts. NOTE items become requirements, including training, obsolescence monitoring, traceability, test methodologies, monitoring counterfeit-part reports, and segregation, containment and reporting of suspect or detected parts.
  • Information security. A new requirement "to safeguard the QMS to achieve intended results".
  • Quality culture and ethics. Leadership ensures goals and objectives that build a quality culture are consistent with policies, vision, mission, values, and context, and promotes an ethical work environment.
  • Operational planning. APQP is "one method for operational planning and control", and planning adds operations to prevent, detect and mitigate the risk of foreign objects and debris (FOD).
  • Measurement. Measurement system analysis (MSA) is introduced in a NOTE "for analysing variation".
  • External providers. A NOTE changes to allow remote inspection and audit of the external supplier, and the information-for-external-providers clause is restructured, "including adding direct and sub-tier control".
  • Production process verification. Its structure changes "to make it clear that it is more than FAI".
  • Audit. Reviewing performance indicators moves from NOTE to requirement, and risks are included when an audit program is established.
  • Definitions. The definitions slide lists counterfeit part, critical items, key characteristic, product safety, and special requirements, and marks one change, against counterfeit part: "Examples of software and electronic device added to modified part."

The clause view numbers information security two ways on adjacent slides; this article cites topics, not draft clause numbers, and each item is to be checked against IA9100 once published (IAQG IA9100 Key Change Summary, 2023; IAQG IA9100 Key Changes System View, 2023).

When does a federal contract require a higher-level quality standard such as AS9100?​

Under 48 CFR 46.202-4 paragraph a, requiring compliance with higher-level quality standards "is necessary in solicitations and contracts for complex or critical items (see 46.203) or when the technical requirements of the contract require" control of design, work operations, in-process controls, testing, and inspection, or attention to organization, planning, work instructions, documentation control, and advanced metrology. Paragraph b lists examples: ISO 9001, ASQ/ANSI E4, ASME NQA-1, SAE AS9100, SAE AS9003, and ISO/TS 16949, plus the product or process standard SAE AS5553. It names "SAE AS9100" with no revision letter.

Section 46.203 defines the terms. Complex items have "quality characteristics, not wholly visible in the end item, for which contractual conformance must be established progressively through precise measurements, tests, and controls applied during purchasing, manufacturing, performance, assembly, and functional operation either as an individual item or in conjunction with other items". A critical application "is one in which the failure of the item could injure personnel or jeopardize a vital agency mission".

DCMA's manufacturing surveillance manual, in the version effective June 9, 2025, as archived on 10 November 2025, says the production planning and control processes it surveils "are driven by the Quality Management System (QMS) pursuant to" FAR 52.246-11 "and usually reference a specific standard(s) that applies (e.g., AS9100, International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 9001)"; if the contract specifies no standard under that clause, the functional specialist "will submit a contract deficiency report to have the specific standard incorporated". The wording of FAR 52.246-11 and its flowdown paragraph is set out in Supplier Requirements for Defense Handling Equipment.

As contracting reasoning, whether a given fixture or stand is complex or critical under those definitions is the buyer's determination to state in the order; none of these sources says every piece of tooling must be built under AS9100 (48 CFR Part 46, §§46.202-4 and 46.203; DCMA-MAN 2303-01 Vol 5, 2025, §3.2.c.1; FAR 52.246-11, DEC 2014).

What does NASA require of suppliers of critical hardware, piece parts, and services?​

NASA's hardware quality assurance directive, NPR 8735.2C, names AS9100D by revision letter. It applies to NASA Headquarters and Centers, and to contractors "only to the extent specified or referenced in the applicable contracts, grants, or agreements". Under §5.2.2, project managers include these supplier requirements in the project QA program:

  • Paragraph a. Suppliers of procured critical hardware systems, with "subassemblies, functional systems, mission payloads, spacecraft, aircraft, or launch systems" as examples, and of launch services, are compliant to AS9100D; these systems are considered critical and complex as defined in 48 CFR 46.203(b) and (c), and "Third-party certification to AS9100D is preferred over compliance to AS9100D."
  • Paragraph b. Suppliers of piece parts determined to be critical items, of special processes determined to be critical (for example plating, polishing, soldering, brazing), or of services determined to be critical (for example machining, laboratory testing, transportation, storage) maintain a QMS complying with one of AS9100D (preferred), ISO 9001 Fifth Edition, AS9003A, or ISO/IEC 17025:2017 (preferred for laboratory testing and calibration services).
  • Paragraph c. The project manager "may" accept Nadcap, IPC, or a DLA qualified-manufacturer listing as alternate equivalent approaches for paragraph b.

Its note says ISO 9001 Fifth Edition and AS9003A "provide less stringent requirements than AS9100D though all three are considered suitable for acquisitions of critical but non-complex items". Section 4.1.4 a(3) lists "ground support equipment" among the items whose criticality project managers consider, and Appendix A defines a critical item as one which, "if defective or fails, directly contributes to a failure to meet crew safety, technical, programmatic, regulatory, or other stakeholder objectives". As engineering reasoning, a machining shop or ground-equipment builder meets the AS9100D question through the criticality determination and the contract, not through the type of equipment alone (NASA NPR 8735.2C, 2023, §§4.1.4, 5.2.2 and App. A).

How does the product-safety requirement reach a build-to-print tooling shop?​

IAQG's FAQ on the 2016 revision was asked whether the product-safety requirement applies to "raw material providers, small organizations, lower tier, build to print, machine shops, as for complex organizations, equipment manufacturers". It answers that the requirement "is directly linked to the final use of the product", that all organizations "should know the final use of the product that they deliver", and that according to that use and the potential consequence of failure they should be able to determine critical items as defined in 9100.

Safety here means aviation, space and/or defense safety related to the product's operation, "[d]ifferent from" people safety at work (HSE) and from security against malicious actions, and the FAQ says "The 9100 standard does not require the implementation of a safety management system (SMS)", although 9100 compliance contributes to building one.

The draft wording in IAQG's system view would require the organization to "plan, implement, and control the processes needed to assure product safety", through processes that include, "as appropriate", seven items, from hazard identification "including reactive and proactive methods" to reporting safety events to the customer, authorities, and type certificate holder "in accordance with customer and regulatory requirements". As understood from AS9100D §8.1.3 and §8.1.4, the 2016 text already requires product-safety and counterfeit-prevention processes and lists the supporting items in NOTEs, the structure the deck's "NOTE items now requirements" describes. As understood from AS9100D §3, the 2016 text defines critical items, key characteristic, product safety, counterfeit part, and special requirements.

As engineering reasoning, the failure mode for tooling is a supplier that does not know what its fixture will hold: a turnover fixture or lifting adapter for flight hardware has a final use whose failure consequence the supplier cannot assess until it learns that use, which the FAQ says may come internally or from the customer or the customer's customer (IAQG 9100:2016 FAQ, 2017, FAQ 2.9; IAQG IA9100 Key Changes System View, 2023; SAE AS9100D-2016).

How does the counterfeit-parts change reach the control panel on powered tooling?​

Counterfeit-part prevention is already in the 2016 revision; on powered tooling it reaches the control panel, as the reasoning below sets out. IAQG's FAQ lists some methods for clause 8.1.4: training; obsolescence monitoring of design decisions and parts selections "to be appropriate for service life of product"; acquiring parts from original manufacturers, authorized distributors, or other approved sources; traceability; verification and test methods; reporting; and segregation of suspected or known counterfeit parts. In the draft wording shown in IAQG's system view, counterfeit-prevention processes "appropriate to the organization and the product" "shall include, as applicable" seven items, from training to "segregation, containment and reporting of suspect or detected counterfeit parts".

DoD contracts that include DFARS 252.246-7008 carry a separate rule that the IAQG decks do not cite. Under DFARS 252.246-7008 paragraph b.1, a contractor first obtains electronic parts that are in production or currently in stock from the original manufacturers, their authorized suppliers, or suppliers that obtain the parts exclusively from those sources; paragraph b.2 allows contractor-approved suppliers only when parts are not available that way, and only if the contractor approves them using established counterfeit-prevention industry standards and processes, assumes responsibility for authenticity, and has its selection subject to Government review, audit, and approval.

As engineering reasoning, both requirements meet in a powered fixture's panel, and the failure mode is an obsolete controller bought from a broker to finish a build, which breaks traceability to the original manufacturer. As further engineering reasoning, specifying controllers, drives, and I/O that are in current production at the design stage lets the panel's electronic parts be obtained under paragraph b.1 and is the kind of decision the FAQ's "obsolescence monitoring of design decisions and parts selections" addresses; a supplier meets each requirement on its own terms (IAQG 9100:2016 FAQ, 2017, FAQ 2.10; IAQG IA9100 Key Changes System View, 2023; DFARS 252.246-7008, JAN 2023).

What does the new information-security requirement add, and how does it differ from DFARS cyber rules?​

The draft wording in IAQG's system view adds: "The organization shall plan, implement, and control information security to safeguard the QMS to achieve its intended results." It also says that when documented information is managed electronically, "data protection processes shall be defined[,] implemented, and maintained", with protection from loss, access control, and unauthorized changes among its examples. The same deck's writing guidelines say changes "define 'what' not 'how'", and the deck names no security framework.

DoD contracts set a method. Under DFARS 252.204-7012 paragraph b, the contractor provides adequate security on all covered contractor information systems, and for a covered system that is not part of an IT service operated on behalf of the Government, paragraph b.2 applies NIST SP 800-171 "in effect at the time the solicitation is issued or as authorized by the Contracting Officer", except as paragraph b.2.ii provides.

As engineering reasoning, the two land on the same files (interface drawings, CAD models, inspection data, and PLC programs) but answer different questions: the draft asks whether the quality system's information is protected well enough to achieve its results, and the DFARS clause sets a named control baseline for covered defense information; meeting one is not evidence of meeting the other (IAQG IA9100 Key Changes System View, 2023; DFARS 252.204-7012, MAY 2024).

How do sub-tier control and flow-down change for a supplier's own vendors?​

IAQG's system view marks this sentence as existing 9100 text: "The organization shall require that external providers apply appropriate controls to their direct and sub-tier external providers, to ensure that requirements are met." The draft adds, as a new item in the information communicated to external providers, "Determining the level of control of their direct and sub-tier external providers", and the clause view adds a NOTE change "to allow remote inspection and audit of the external supplier".

IAQG's FAQ explains that the intent of the 2016 clause 8.4.3 m flow-down is "to ensure external provider personnel understand the role they play in conformity, product safety, and ethical behavior". As understood from AS9100D §8.4.3 and §8.4.1, the information for external providers runs from item a to item m, item m covers that awareness, and §8.4.1 carries the sub-tier sentence quoted above.

NASA states the buyer's side: under NPR 8735.2C §5.1.1 b, procurement officials are provided requirements language that provides for flow-down of the project's QA program requirements "to the lowest appropriate tier of the supply chain". As engineering reasoning, a failure mode is a purchase order to a machining, plating, NDT, or calibration vendor that drops the buyer's flow-down clauses, leaving the supplier unable to show the control the draft asks it to determine (IAQG IA9100 Key Changes System View, 2023; IAQG IA9100 Key Change Summary, 2023; IAQG 9100:2016 FAQ, 2017, FAQ 2.13; SAE AS9100D-2016; NASA NPR 8735.2C, 2023, §5.1.1).

How does AS9102C first article inspection apply to tooling and fixtures?​

As engineering reasoning, the removed single-run exemption matters for tooling, where a fixture can be built once: where a buyer invokes AS9102C on a one-off fixture, the supplier can no longer rely on that exemption.

SAE AS9102C, revised 28 June 2023, "establishes the requirements for performing and documenting FAI". IAQG's summary of the Rev B to Rev C changes lists, among others:

  • Purpose. A clarification that FAI "is not a product acceptance document".
  • Application. A clarification "that each item shall have a separate FAI", and removal of the "unique single run production order exemption".
  • Planning. A "documented process to plan for FAI", verification of planning activities, and a requirement to "verify the revision for embedded or deliverable software".
  • Re-accomplishment. In §4.6, "potential to affect fit, form, and function" is replaced with "invalidated or not represented characteristics".
  • Forms. Form 1 field 22, "FAIR Reviewed/Approved By", is required.

As understood from AS9102C §4.6, the standard lists the changes after which a full or partial FAI is re-accomplished, including changes to the design, the manufacturing process or source, and the production location.

For production approval holders under 14 CFR part 21, FAA AC 21-43A says a first article inspection "should be conducted for a new production line, changes to the manufacturing or quality processes, or a new supplier", and AC 21-43A found AS9102A (revision A, 2004) acceptable as guidance for first article processes; the AC "is not mandatory and does not constitute a regulation". FAR 52.209-3 first article approval, with contractor testing, a first article test report, and the contracting officer's written approval, conditional approval, or disapproval, is a separate contract mechanism (SAE AS9102C-2023; IAQG 9102 Summary of Changes, 2023; FAA AC 21-43A, 2015, §3.6.5.4; FAR 52.209-3, SEP 1989).

Where do APQP and PPAP fit, and why does the draft say verification is "more than FAI"?​

SAE AS9145, issued 8 November 2016 with no lettered revision, "establishes requirements for performing and documenting APQP and PPAP". Its abstract says APQP "begins with conceptual product needs and extends through product definition, production planning, product and process validation (i.e., PPAP), product use, and post-delivery service". IAQG's 9145 page defines PPAP as "an output of APQP confirming that the production process has demonstrated the potential to produce products that consistently fulfill all requirements at the customer demand rate".

The draft links to APQP without mandating it: a draft NOTE in the system view says "One method to achieve operational planning and control can be through the use of a methodology such as Advanced Product Quality Planning (APQP)", and the clause view says production process verification is restructured "to make it clear that it is more than FAI". As understood from AS9100D §8.5.1.3, the 2016 clause gives first article inspection as one example method and references 9102. As understood from AS9145, APQP is organized in phases from planning through product and process validation to ongoing production, and PPAP has a defined list of elements.

As engineering reasoning, a one-off fixture has no "customer demand rate" of its own, but a drilling or assembly fixture a production line depends on is part of the process PPAP confirms; a failure mode is a fixture qualified by its own first article while nobody verifies the process it serves (SAE AS9145-2016; IAQG 9145 standard page, accessed 2026; IAQG IA9100 Key Changes System View, 2023; IAQG IA9100 Key Change Summary, 2023; SAE AS9100D-2016).

What controls, software, and measurement evidence does a quality system ask of powered tooling?​

Powered tooling carries an intelligence layer (encoders, limit switches, load cells, VFD or servo drives, and a PLC program), and several quality requirements reach it:

  • Equipment and software control. As understood from AS9100D §8.5.1.1, Control of equipment, tools and software programs, equipment, tools, and software programs used to automate, control, monitor, or measure production processes are validated before release for production and maintained, including storage and periodic preservation or condition checks.
  • Software revision at first article. IAQG's 9102 summary says Rev C requires verifying "the revision for embedded or deliverable software" in FAI planning, and that on Form 3, field 8, "Requirement", "added recording software".
  • Measurement variation. A draft NOTE says the extent to which measurement introduces variation "can be determined by measurement systems analysis, gauge R&R, or attribute analysis", and another says that, according to the nature of the product and depending on the specified requirements, statistical techniques "can be used to support" items including process capability studies, statistical process control, and control plans.
  • Traceability and configuration. As understood from AS9100D §7.1.5.2 and §8.1.2, measuring equipment is calibrated or verified against traceable standards, and configuration management covers product identification and changes.
  • Delivery records. NASA-STD-5005D Appendix B lists examples of GSE acceptance data package documentation, which "include, but are not limited to", a master verification matrix, material certifications and lot traceability, and a "Software/Firmware Version Description document".

As engineering reasoning, the failure mode on powered tooling is the untracked program change: a PLC routine, drive parameter set, or HMI recipe edited after first article without a revision record, leaving the delivered fixture behaving differently from the one inspected, and revision control of the program, drive parameters, and HMI application, like that of the drawings, closes that gap. UTEC Industrial, a Rockwell Automation Recognized System Integrator, builds Allen-Bradley ControlLogix and CompactLogix control, VFD and servo drives, and UL 508A panels into the handling equipment it fabricates (SAE AS9100D-2016; IAQG 9102 Summary of Changes, 2023; IAQG IA9100 Key Changes System View, 2023; NASA-STD-5005D-2013, App. B).

Where does a quality system touch the design-to-monitoring chain for tooling?​

A tooling or MGSE supplier's quality system applies link by link along the build chain:

  • Design and engineering. IAQG's history slides list risk management and configuration management among the 2009 revision's changes, and its FAQ, on risk management under clause 8.1.1, says "9100 is not prescriptive in providing the 'how' risk management is to be performed".
  • Parts machining. As engineering reasoning, measurement traceability and the draft MSA NOTE bear on the gauges and CMM programs that accept a machined interface.
  • Fabrication, weld fatigue, and stress relief. IAQG's FAQ says ISO 9001:2015 removed the standalone special-process sub-clause, with the requirement continuing in its sub-clause on control of production and service provision, and that 9100:2016 "added it as clause 8.5.1.2, Validation and Control of Special Processes". As engineering reasoning, welding, heat treating, and stress relief are processes a buyer can treat as special processes.
  • Monitoring. IAQG's FAQ says that, "based on customer agreements or other requirements", an organization may be responsible for support after delivery, for example technical support, routine maintenance, or in some cases recall.

UTEC Industrial performs NDT and CMM inspection, automated vibratory stress relief, factory acceptance testing, and on-site commissioning, and the records at those links can be written into the purchase order. The assembly, drives, controls, and tuning links carry the first-article, software, counterfeit-part, and information-security items above, and the MGSE build chain itself is covered in What Is Mechanical Ground Support Equipment (MGSE) for Aerospace Handling? (IAQG IA9100 Key Change Summary, 2023; IAQG 9100:2016 FAQ, 2017, FAQs 2.8, 2.14 and 2.15).

What should a buyer settle with a tooling supplier during the AS9100D-to-IA9100 period?​

As engineering and contracting reasoning, a quality requirement the purchase order implied but did not name is a source of disputes. Before award, buyer and supplier can settle in writing:

  • Standard and revision. Which QMS standard applies, with its revision (AS9100D today, ISO 9001, AS9003A, or another), whether compliance or third-party certification is required, and how a later IA9100 publication is handled on a long order.
  • Criticality. Whether the buyer has determined the item to be critical or complex under its own rules, such as FAR 46.203 or NPR 8735.2C, and the final use the product-safety requirement depends on.
  • First article. Whether AS9102C applies to a one-off fixture, and how software and firmware revisions are recorded.
  • APQP, PPAP, and sub-tier. Whether AS9145 is invoked, and which clauses pass to sub-tier vendors.
  • Electronic parts and information. Whether DFARS 252.246-7008 and 252.204-7012 apply, kept separate from the quality-system requirements.
  • Records. The acceptance data package, with NASA-STD-5005D Appendix B as one public example list.

The builder-selection side is covered in Choosing a Builder: Design-Build vs. Build-to-Print for Custom Machinery. The FAR 46.202-4 examples name "SAE AS9100" with no revision letter, and as contracting reasoning the revision then has to come from the contract itself (48 CFR Part 46, §§46.202-4 and 46.203; NASA NPR 8735.2C, 2023, §5.2.2; SAE AS9102C-2023; SAE AS9145-2016; DFARS 252.246-7008, JAN 2023; DFARS 252.204-7012, MAY 2024; NASA-STD-5005D-2013, App. B).

Related Articles

References​

  • SAE AS9100D: Quality Management Systems -- Requirements for Aviation, Space, and Defense Organizations. SAE International, 2016.
  • International Aerospace Quality Group. 9100 Quality Management Systems – Requirements for Aviation, Space and Defense Organizations (undated web documentation, accessed October 2026). IAQG.
  • International Aerospace Quality Group. IA9100 Key Change Summary (clause view), November 2023. IAQG, 2023.
  • International Aerospace Quality Group. IA9100 Key Changes – System View, November 2023. IAQG, 2023.
  • International Aerospace Quality Group. 9100:2016 Series of Standards – Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs), December 2017. IAQG, 2017.
  • ISO 9001:2026: Quality management systems — Requirements. International Organization for Standardization, 2026.
  • 48 CFR Part 46: Quality Assurance. GSA, DoD and NASA (FAR), as amended 2021.
  • Defense Contract Management Agency. DCMA-MAN 2303-01, Volume 5: Surveillance: Manufacturing. U.S. Department of Defense, 2025.
  • FAR 52.246-11 (DEC 2014): Higher-Level Contract Quality Requirement. U.S. General Services Administration, 2014.
  • FAR 52.209-3 (SEP 1989): First Article Approval—Contractor Testing. U.S. General Services Administration, 1989.
  • NASA. NPR 8735.2C w/Change 2: Hardware Quality Assurance Program Requirements for Programs and Projects. National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 2023.
  • DFARS 252.246-7008 (JAN 2023): Sources of Electronic Parts. U.S. Department of Defense, 2023.
  • DFARS 252.204-7012 (MAY 2024): Safeguarding Covered Defense Information and Cyber Incident Reporting. U.S. Department of Defense, 2024.
  • SAE AS9102C: Aerospace Series - First Article Inspection Requirements. SAE International, 2023.
  • International Aerospace Quality Group. 9102 Summary of Changes, Rev B to Rev C, July 11, 2023. IAQG, 2023.
  • FAA AC 21-43A: Production Under 14 CFR Part 21, Subparts F, G, K, and O. Federal Aviation Administration, 2015.
  • SAE AS9145: Aerospace Series – Requirements for Advanced Product Quality Planning and Production Part Approval Process. SAE International, 2016.
  • International Aerospace Quality Group. 9145 Advanced Product Quality Planning and Production Part Approval Process (undated web documentation, accessed October 2026). IAQG.
  • NASA. NASA-STD-5005D w/Change 2: Standard for the Design and Fabrication of Ground Support Equipment. NASA, 2013 (Change 2, 2024).

Ready to Discuss a Material Handling System?​

UTEC Industrial designs, engineers, machines, fabricates, and installs custom material handling systems for heavy industry, from the stress-relieved structure and drives to the Allen-Bradley PLC controls, tuning, and monitoring that run them, at its Spokane Valley, WA facility. Send UTEC the application, loads, and duty cycle to start a system review.

Request a Quote →

Questions? Call (509) 922-1832 or email sales@utec.co

Last updated on