LW50,
Sorry, my bad - I was responding to an earlier post about Boeing's role with Chinook. The DAOS accreditation I referred to was only for Philadelphia and the Chinook programme for the UK, not RJ. My sincere apologies for contributing to inadvertent thread drift.
In any case, if (as I understand it) RJ was bought FMS, the Design Organisation will be the USAF Program Office, not Boeing. It's one of those aspects of the US system that is not well understood over here - in many cases, the manufacturers are effectively a 'build to print' organisation. The relevant DoD program office authorises all drawings, owns them, and carries the responsibilities of the Design organisation, managing and 'owning' the design in detail.
What this means is that when the UK MoD goes to a US aircraft company and request that they prove that they are an accredited ADO, the first response is often blank incomprehension. Boeing in Philly have got over the bar, but it would be interesting to compare their DAOS 'exposition' with that of, say, Agusta Westland.
It's another area where lack of detailed knowledge within the MoD (in this case how the US DoD procurement system and the USG work) can lead to projects being launched with very limited understanding of the actual risks faced.
Best Regards to all those trying to make it work,
Engines