Is anyone familiar with PRI - Nadcap? I've been a Quality Manger for an aerospace metal finishing company for over 18 years. I have written Quality Manuals and procedures for it based upon MIL-I-45208; AS9003; and now AS9100. However, due to the implementation of Nadcap by the aerospace Prime Contractors, trying to answer the PRI's auditor findings of nonconformances in our process has been a challenge to say the least. I am familiar with the 5 why's and have been through PRI's Root Cause-Corrective Action, Nadcap Style school and I still can not please the Staff Engineer that reviews my responses. Has anyone experienced the same frustration? If so, what approach have been taken to effectively please PRI?

Thank you in advance for your help.

I moved this aerospace - Not sure which forum it fits best in, though.

Nadcap is the National Aerospace and Defense Contractors Accreditation Program - A condition of Boeing approval. I don't have any direct experience with it. Maybe one of the other folks here does.

I did find this Boeing link: National Aerospace and Defense Contractors Accreditation Program (http://www.boeing.com/companyoffices/doingbiz/nadcap/)

PRI is a nonprofit handeling the approval of special process as flowed down contractualy to the supplier base of the aerospace primes.
Once signed up for an audit you have access to all the applicable internal PRI docs that cover the what , how and such of the audit process and what is required for cause and C/A response to findings. They even provide training in this since it has been an issue that has come up.
Keep in mind that the staff engineer at PRI is acting on behalf of the comitee of prime contractor reps. This comitte (of 5 or so) review the audit and actions comming out of it from both the supplier, auditor and PRI staff engineer. They hold PRI accountable to act correctly on their behalf. The days of getting the buyer from a prime to help you out are gone since the audit now represents the requirements for a much larger group and would impact them all.
If you are really up against the wall on this, have you tried to contact the rep on the supplier advisory board for the comidity you are getting audited on? They may be able to help you "know" what is required or give you some guidance with the best understanding of what you are being audited on.

Another tidbit of info: as the aero primes move away form special process qualification and auditing (a headcount reduction action) PRI is growing in authority and they are 'flexing their muscles'. They are much more interested in technical quality and rigid process controls than ISO/AS or even QS for automotive. Their auditors and staff engineers tend to be engineers as opposed to auditors. and many were laid off from the primes...some are more picky than others. Teh 'old' days of alternate approaches to satisying a requirement are gone. In fact I once had a conversation concerning teh auditors requiremetns for my companies lot control process. THe auditor was very proscriptive and wanted everything written down on a paper traveler as opposed to in a computer (event tho the computer system could be made far more foolproof than a paper system). My primes (GE and Rolls) and my AS9100 registrar were happy with the system, but it wasn't good enough for the PRI special process auditor...and he had authority over the general lot control system thru a single sentence in teh special process requiremetns doc. I think this is a reaction to the perceived 'looseness' of ISO9000. I also got the same input from our military auditors.

I'm sensing a pendulum swing away from ISO to the more proscriptive quality requiremetns and being audited by all of your cutomers as none of them trust the others or ISO/AS to keep their supply chain in line.

PRI is Performance Review Institute. Web page http://www.pri-network.org/
NADCAP is National Aerospace Defense Contractors Accreditation Program.
PRI audits quality systems and many "Special Processes" but often the Aerospace Prime manufacturers also wish to audit the special processes.
The original document for test laboratories was an evolution of the GE Aerospace S400 document. SAE now issues the AS7101, as one of the documents PRI can audit to.

Satisfying an audit deficiency for PRI can be frustrating. What I found is you can talk with one of your Prime Supplier Quality Assurance representatives to get some ideas on what is desired. Note they will not tell you what competitors are doing, nor how to solve the problem, but will often make suggestions that you can apply to obtain the right process or controls on the process. In one case of an audit deficiency, I found that our methods were about 20 years out of date, compared with the available technology. After making the investment, it really did improve our process controls.

Wes

I have spent an hour on the PRI.org website that took me to eAudits which explained to me that eAudits was designed to audit suppliers processes to NADCAP standards. Which is fine, but what are the NADCAP standards?

I work as the Quality Manager for a Gage Lab. A company is asking for a detail quote as well as Nadcap accreditation. We are ISO/IEC 17025 accredited (still suffering that headache, thanks A2LA). And whats wrong with the A2LA accreditation. By definition we had to show our competence once already. :confused:

Wolfe,

You are not the first or only one to be required to have both.

There are currently five accrediting bodies that are recognized through the MRA approach for calibration (which I presume you are since you are a gage lab).....IAS, A2LA, NVLAP, L-A-B, and SCC/CLAS.....so far as I know, NONE of which are accepted through the PRI/NADCAP/Boeing system.....even though PRI is a NACLA signatory for testing - but not for calibration.

Interesting huh?

Hershal

Wolfe,

You are not the first or only one to be required to have both.

There are currently five accrediting bodies that are recognized through the MRA approach for calibration (which I presume you are since you are a gage lab).....IAS, A2LA, NVLAP, L-A-B, and SCC/CLAS.....so far as I know, NONE of which are accepted through the PRI/NADCAP/Boeing system.....even though PRI is a NACLA signatory for testing - but not for calibration.

Interesting huh?

Hershal

With A2LA being a signatory of ILAC and NAVLAP being a member of ILAC, and PRI-NADCAP being a signatory of NAVLAP then shouldn't PRI-NADCAP recognize an A2LA Accreditation. If not then why not? Then why have the MRA to begin with if no one is going to recognize it.

With A2LA being a signatory of ILAC and NAVLAP being a member of ILAC, and PRI-NADCAP being a signatory of NAVLAP then shouldn't PRI-NADCAP recognize an A2LA Accreditation. If not then why not? Then why have the MRA to begin with if no one is going to recognize it.

It is NVLAP not NAVLAP. While I don't agree with the separate Accreditation, I believe the reason that NADCAP does not accept the A2LA is that the A2LA is based on ISO/IEC 17025, while there are many specific additional requirements to meet NADCAP. As an example for stress rupture testing, ISO/IEC 17025 allows the lab to specify the ASTM standard that they comply with. The NADCAP document states which type of thermocouples are permitted, based on the temperature range of the test. They also specify how many and where the thermocouples must be placed and the allowable temperature variation from the specified test temperature.

These specific requirements are based on the history of tests and the experience of aerospace primes in their own laboratories and in supplier laboratories.

NADCAP also specifies "special processes." An aerospace prime will conduct a separate audit for special processes, in addition to the PRI audit. Examples include welding and sieve screening. These special processes are often dependent on the operator skills.

Another area is collaborative testing, round robin testing, and/or proficiency testing. A2LA requires interlaboratory testing, but lets the lab select which program in which to participate. The NADCAP requires both internal and external comparison testing. They also periodically send test specimens for the lab to test, and results are compared between many labs. As a result, the NADCAP program requires many more comparison tests that is typically required to satisfy the A2LA auditors. In all cases, if your results are outliers, then corrective action is required.

Wes R.

Wolfe does have a good point.....PRI is a NACLA signatory for testing, which means they are recognized for testing lab accreditation under ISO/IEC 17025. They are not recognized for calibration and do not accredit calibration labs. NADCAP is a different entity (technically) than PRI, and does not have any recognition obligations.

Hershal

Is anyone familiar with PRI - Nadcap? I've been a Quality Manger for an aerospace metal finishing company for over 18 years. I have written Quality Manuals and procedures for it based upon MIL-I-45208; AS9003; and now AS9100. However, due to the implementation of Nadcap by the aerospace Prime Contractors, trying to answer the PRI's auditor findings of nonconformances in our process has been a challenge to say the least. I am familiar with the 5 why's and have been through PRI's Root Cause-Corrective Action, Nadcap Style school and I still can not please the Staff Engineer that reviews my responses. Has anyone experienced the same frustration? If so, what approach have been taken to effectively please PRI?

Thank you in advance for your help.
gfox,
I have been through NADCAP audits for composites and etching. I've had similiar problems with our responses the key I found out is to use the 8-D approach and ensure that your NADCAP implementation team reviews the CAR prior to submitting it, this process has worked well for us in answering the CAR's we received from PRI, also I think the auditors they use are questionable at times as well.

gfox,
We received NADCAP accredidation last year for EDM,
electrical discharge machining. Had three Major and 2
minor n/c's.
I found if you follow their instructions as you answer
you will probably be successful the first time. In fact
and not to blow my own horn, I was commended for
my responses and corrective action. The staff engineer
commented that most responses are poor and not very
well thought out.

I did have one issue that went around the mulberry bush three
times before the resolution became acceptable. NADCAP is nothing
more than a watered down 9100 system which focuses on the process
and the process only. It was invented in my opinion so people like G.E
and Boeing don't have to employ auditors.

Of course all of these companys are on the board and make the rules
as to what is audited and whether you will in the end be accepted.

Just another game, if you want to play.....

If you have any specific questions...let me know.

Bob

gfox,
We too have Nadcap for heat treating (merit the last 2 audits) and AS9100/ISO from PRI as well. I agree with Bob in that if you follow their instructions as you answer the first time, you will probably do pretty well. I have heard from every auditor we have had that most of the problems (reasons why corrective action responses get 'kicked back' from the staff engineer) are because they were not well thought out.

PRI does offer a root cause/corrective action analysis class that you might consider (although it is pretty basic). This class is offered at each of their meetings (4 times per year). Perhaps you might consider that. There is a small fee.

Also, a suggestion, if you can, start going to the task group meetings now before you get audited to see what types of findings other companies are getting. Plus, you can start meeting the task group and looking ahead to changes they will be making on the standard(s) you will be working with. We did this and it helped a lot. The meetings are free to attend, your only cost will be travel, room, and board.

In regards to PRI itself, I have been most pleased with the customer service, sales organization, and auditors themselves. I do have a lot of experience with them, having dealt with them on both sides (AS9100 and Nadcap).

Please feel free to contact me with any questions you might regarding the Nadcap process itself or PRI.

One of our plants is considering NADCAP registration and I have a few questions about the process.

1. What are the steps in getting registered?
2. What types of Corrective actions are being written?

Thanks!


:bonk:

dbzman,
The steps in getting registered would be (assuming you have already contacted pri, received the quotation, set the audit date), the auditor will contact you for when they want to receive your quality documentation surrounding the area you are wanting to get registered for. You will also have to fill out an audit checklist for the auditor based on the area you are trying to get registered for. We have Nadcap for heat treating so we have to submit all documents relating to heat treat, age/anneal, tensile testing, etc. (The auditor may have questions about your documentation prior to the audit due to the documentation you send). Note- PRI will send you the audit checklist (we follow AMS 2750 and the heat treat audit checklist so we know exactly what the auditor is going to be looking for).

There really are no surprises- you have all the documents you need because PRI sends you everything in advance. The only 'surprise' might be interpretation by the auditor. Note- the auditor does not determine if you 'pass'- the task group that meets quarterly takes the recommendation by the auditor and determines if you 'pass'. Any findings you might receive are also not worked through with the auditor; rather, they are worked through with the Staff Engineer and then sent on to the task group. It seems a little tricky, but once you get through the first audit it will make sense.

If you get the chance, I HIGHLY recommend going to the task group BEFORE your audit takes place. You are allowed to do this. There is no cost to you besides room/board. Besides, you might get to meet your auditor before your audit (we did- but didn't know it until the auditor came to our facility). It also gave us a chance to start to get to know the task group and what changes were going to be taking place with the specifications we were following. We also got to voice opinions on changes in the specifications! The audit checklist is discussed at great length at these meetings and we got the opportunity to see what is going to be looked at by the auditor. They have 4 meetings each year. 1 in Tempe, Arizona each January, 1 in Pittsburgh each October, and the other 2 change locations but are in April and July.

Regarding types of corrective actions written- not sure if you mean from the auditor (as in findings) or corrective actions written by the auditee.

I would be happy to give more info. I have been involved with PRI since 1999. Send a private message and I can e-mail or call.

You have been very helpful. Our facility will also be getting NADCAP for Heat Treating. They do seem to have a lot of forms and checklists to go through. By corrective actions I meant the findings (nonconformance’s) from your audit. Sorry for the confusion.

The facility was just registered to AS9100 this year and the GM of the facility wants to be NADCAP by the end of the year. I believe that this is too soon. How long did it take you to prepare?

:thanx:

Since we were already well-documented in our heat treat processes (due to Boeing D1-9000 at the time and ISO), I would say it took us about 6 months to prepare for the Nadcap audit. We wanted to make sure we were ready so we kept going over the checklist and fixing anything that needed to be fixed (documents, training, etc.). We did have to change the way we did certain things. But we were following the specifications prior to getting ready for the audit. The audit checklist was the biggest help in getting ready.
Congratulations on your AS9100 registration! :applause: That should help you to some extent with this audit.
Regarding getting Nadcap by the end of the year, do you have all the documents you need? Have you gone through the checklist? Are you confident that you can pass? If you meet the requirements- then by all means, schedule the audit. It took us a while because we had a lot of 'tweeking' to do to our system. Ex. we had to increase training of Supervisors and Operators, etc. Lots of little things.

Regarding findings, here are 3 that I will post here in brief:
1. PO states to process parts to spec XXX, in that spec it states electrical conductivity testing is to be done IAW spec TTT. Spec TTT states each part is to be tested, supplier only tested samples. Supplier has a verbal understanding with customer if TTT is not called out on PO, only samples have to be tested. This understanding is verbal only, nothing is in writing.
2. Customer's PO states to process per XXX latest revision. Most current revision is '00'. The traveler is calling revision '96'. Note- supplier is working to latest revision and has the current revision on file.
3. The logs for the system accuracy test does not include the time the test was performed.
Hope this helps.

Go to this site and register. You will find everything you need specific to your processes. http://www.eauditnet.com.
Good Luck

Note- PRI will send you the audit checklist (we follow AMS 2750 and the heat treat audit checklist so we know exactly what the auditor is going to be looking for).
.

what sort of problems did you have with AMS2750?
(the standard itself or the audit)

thanks,

GD

what sort of problems did you have with AMS2750?
(the standard itself or the audit)

thanks,

GD

Hello there! To your query, here is one thread where some of the posters have had issues:

http://elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?t=24369

If you are interested in compiling information about the problems, there are quite a few people who check in here that have experience. I would start a thread under this forum, allowing those to give you some information.

The more specific questions you can pose, the better!:agree1: