R22 and previous year's designs

[gbrettmiller]

The distinction I see is that Example 3 refers to obtaining the design from "a professional publication", not from another - or your own - team. In fact, the definition of COTS itself specifies:

"...part commonly available from the VENDOR, available from a non-team source, ..."

And the definition of VENDOR seems to exclude an FRC team, based on the requirement to meet all of the conditions it sets.

[Gary Dillard]

Originally Posted by gbrettmiller

The distinction I see is that Example 3 refers to obtaining the design from "a professional publication", not from another - or your own - team. In fact, the definition of COTS itself specifies:



And the definition of VENDOR seems to exclude an FRC team, based on the requirement to meet all of the conditions it sets.

Yes, but the definition refers to the fabricated part (it says component or mechanism) not the design. The part is not COTS, period. But it doesn't say that the design had to come from a vendor - if they got it from a professional publication it didn't necessarily come from a vendor. Example 2 says "openly available blueprints". There is no distinction on who generated the design.

[gbrettmiller]

Originally Posted by Gary Dillard

Yes, but the definition refers to the fabricated part (it says component or mechanism) not the design. The part is not COTS, period. But it doesn't say that the design had to come from a vendor - if they got it from a professional publication it didn't necessarily come from a vendor. Example 2 says "openly available blueprints". There is no distinction on who generated the design.

From example 3:

The design drawings would be considered a COTS item.

This to me means that the design itself would have to meet the criteria given in the definition of COTS, which include being provided by a VENDOR.