:confused:
Hi all,
My company is NOT TS or QS certified (we are ISO 9001:2000). We are suppliers to either Tier II or III level automotive suppliers (or deeper). We supply bulk raw materials.
My question is: Is there ANYTHING in the PPAP requirements that indicates that PPAP responsibilities only go so deep? That we are not required to do PPAP packages because....?:magic: This may be the magic we're hoping for. As we all know, these PPAP packages are very time consuming and do not get the support internally that they need to make them effective and useful working documents. Is there anything we can we say to the customer that requests PPAP documents so we can remove this requirement - if we determine we don't want to do it? This decision is ussualy based on the significance of the order (qty or sales volume is small).

There was one school of thought that PPAPs went to the subcontractor level, which could be construed to be tier 2. However, it essentially is up to your customer.

Two options would be to pursue Bulk Material PPAP format (see the 3rd ed PPAP manual for details, or ask to submit limited PPAP information, since only certain items would apply.

It really boils down to what your direct customer requires. Tier 1 suppliers are pushed by the standard to deploy PPAP to their Tier 2 suppliers. If the Tier 2 suppliers are registered to QS/TS, they will likely seek to push it to the Tier 3 suppliers.

It amounts to a game of "Chicken". Whoever blinks first loses. If your customer can easily find another supplier that will PPAP, you might as well accept the fact that you are going to PPAP. If they cannot and you are the only game in town, you may be able stand up to them and submit the basics (e.g., dimensional and material) only.

:confused:
.... Is there anything we can we say to the customer that requests PPAP documents so we can remove this requirement - if we determine we don't want to do it? This decision is ussualy based on the significance of the order (qty or sales volume is small).

Why not use contract review to say no? Quote your regular price for no PPAP, and a higher one for PPAP.

If they bite either way - you're good to go. Not having to do it, or having extra money in your pocket to cover the costs of doing it.

As far as I know, no one has ever got this to happen, but you could be the first!

If your Sales people are too scared to try, you can make your life easier by just complying to the letter of the law.

Try to build as much of the PPAP package as you can to be standard stuff, cookie cutter , so you can just copy it and send it in.

They may not even be checking. Leave pages blank to see if they actually call...if they don't take your preparation efforts down to match their review efforts.

If they call you on it, you can fix it then. You might just save yourself a lot of effort until they call.

On the other hand, a good PPAP can protect you as well. We had to do a PPAP "just because" we moved a machine. We complained about this stupid requirement right up until our layouts revealed the parts out of spec because we bent our lathe when we moved it. We were pretty happy we didn't just ship. PPAP was created in response to real world problems.

Soon China will take care of all this for us anyway.

No matter what industry or product the customer is entitled to request documentation to judge if your product meets his requirements. These requirements include the continual supply of the material. A supplier audit is one way of testing the suppliers conformance and capability to these requirements.
It is reasonable to expect from a reliable supplier that he documents and plans his production, it is also reasonable to expect that he has inspected his product according to the customer requirements and that he has qualified his measurement techniques.
This is the content of the PPAP submission, the movement of this information to the AIAG/VDA etc. forms is the PPAP.
The customer rules- what he wants you are required to supply if you want the business.
TS requires that registered companies use a product and manufacturing process approval procedure. The form of this submission can be agreed with the customer. He must perform this process, help him by suggesting a manner which is least painful.
Not only is he required to approve your product and process business sense dictates this.

I have a question about what an internal QAE states, (in a effort to reduce PPAP demands)::nopity:
CASE1: "We are a supplier of repackaged Bulk Materials and should not be required to complete a PPAP.... and quoting . . .
Bulk materials are transformational materials whereby processing by the Customer affects performance characteristic in the final product." (Thereby releasing us of PPAP?)

CASE2: "We need to start impressing the fact the we are supplying "Bulk Materials" and a possibly PPAP level#4 (Warrant) or reduced to level 2 or 5, which should either reduce or eliminate the need for a complete PPAP.
We may even qualify as "Self Certifying". ":applause:

We are trying to "Push-Back" on the customers who rely on the default level# 3 PPAP requirements (most number of submissions/ documents).
He considers...Our chance of negative impact to the End Automotive Customer are low. Usage of Bulk Materials "is a shared responsibility between the bulk material supplier and the customer". REF: Appendix F, Production Parts Approval Process, 3rd edition.

:truce: I have to wonder: 1) Do materials we receive and repackage require to be PPAPed, if the customer requests it?.. Obviously we can not do that much and our foreign supplier may not want to commit to a PPAP (they haven't even responded). and, 2) Does the arguement about "transformational" material hold water? 3) Is the 2nd case a proper understanding of "bulk materials"? I don't see that much of a difference from the std PPAP and the bulk materials PPAP (PFD , FMEA, control plan... all needed) and the different levels of PPAP do not mean that we don't have the documents on site - is that correct? 4) And, what does "self-certifying" mean.
:thanks:

I have a question about what an internal QAE states, (in a effort to reduce PPAP demands)::nopity:
CASE1: "We are a supplier of repackaged Bulk Materials and should not be required to complete a PPAP.... and quoting . . .
Bulk materials are transformational materials whereby processing by the Customer affects performance characteristic in the final product." (Thereby releasing us of PPAP?)

CASE2: "We need to start impressing the fact the we are supplying "Bulk Materials" and a possibly PPAP level#4 (Warrant) or reduced to level 2 or 5, which should either reduce or eliminate the need for a complete PPAP.
We may even qualify as "Self Certifying". ":applause:

We are trying to "Push-Back" on the customers who rely on the default level# 3 PPAP requirements (most number of submissions/ documents).
He considers...Our chance of negative impact to the End Automotive Customer are low. Usage of Bulk Materials "is a shared responsibility between the bulk material supplier and the customer". REF: Appendix F, Production Parts Approval Process, 3rd edition.

:truce: I have to wonder: 1) Do materials we receive and repackage require to be PPAPed, if the customer requests it?.. Obviously we can not do that much and our foreign supplier may not want to commit to a PPAP (they haven't even responded). and, 2) Does the arguement about "transformational" material hold water? 3) Is the 2nd case a proper understanding of "bulk materials"? I don't see that much of a difference from the std PPAP and the bulk materials PPAP (PFD , FMEA, control plan... all needed) and the different levels of PPAP do not mean that we don't have the documents on site - is that correct? 4) And, what does "self-certifying" mean.
:thanks:
I cannot answer all of your questions about bulk materials, but can address the questions about levels. Arguing about PPAP submission levels is a waste of time and is irritating to the customer. It shows a lack of understanding of the PPAP requirements that your customer will recognize for what it is.

All levels of PPAP require the exact same amount of documentation/work. The different levels only indicate the amount of documentation that must be submitted to your customer.

Regarding self-certification, Ford used to have an ISIR program prior to PPAP. Once a supplier established a track record of successful 1st-time approvals, the Ford SQA could audit and approve them as self-certifying. You could then submit the ISIR paperwork to Ford SQA with the customer approval block stamped "self-certified" and the ISIR was approved at that point. Obtaining Q1 also put you in that status. In our case, this went by the wayside when PPAP was released, and I have not heard of it since. Maybe some other contributors have heard of it.

As an afterthought, I would definitely not buy into Case 1 because bulk materials can be tested using standard test methods under standard test conditions, and should meet requirements independent of customer processing.

I cannot answer all of your questions about bulk materials, but can address the questions about levels. Arguing about PPAP submission levels is a waste of time and is irritating to the customer. It shows a lack of understanding of the PPAP requirements that your customer will recognize for what it is.

All levels of PPAP require the exact same amount of documentation/work. The different levels only indicate the amount of documentation that must be submitted to your customer.


I think that if you look at all the threads this is the most important lesson of all the questions.
As to repackaged material.
This undergoes a process which transforms the amount, package, label and possibility of contamination .
There should certainly be FMEA and CP on the actions that you perform as they affect the quality of the product.

I cannot answer all of your questions about bulk materials, but can address the questions about levels. Arguing about PPAP submission levels is a waste of time and is irritating to the customer. It shows a lack of understanding of the PPAP requirements that your customer will recognize for what it is.

All levels of PPAP require the exact same amount of documentation/work. The different levels only indicate the amount of documentation that must be submitted to your customer.
I agree with you, Howard - this is right on.

We have a supplier who simply refuses to submit a PPAP (they are TS registered).

The reason for no submission is proprietary (patented product). Claiming any DFMEA, Control Plan, PFMEA, raw material validation is proprietary and would violate their patent protection.

Has anyone encountered a similiar situation and what did you do? A better question is what would an auditor say, will they accept this? We are trying to get a customer waiver but I have a feeling we won't win that battle. OEM is BMW.

Help needed!

Thanks

We have a supplier who simply refuses to submit a PPAP (they are TS registered).

The reason for no submission is proprietary (patented product). Claiming any DFMEA, Control Plan, PFMEA, raw material validation is proprietary and would violate their patent protection.

Has anyone encountered a similiar situation and what did you do? A better question is what would an auditor say, will they accept this? We are trying to get a customer waiver but I have a feeling we won't win that battle. OEM is BMW.

Help needed!

Thanks

It's not unusual, but PPAPs are submitted for patented products all the time. The way we've dealt with this in the past is to require the supplier to allow us to review the sensitive documents in the presence of their representatives (in our building, preferably), and then have them submit a warrant and whatever documentation they feel they can. If, however, you feel this is going to be an issue with your customer, you need to discuss it with them.

:magic: One might suspect that a level 4 (Part Submission Warrant only) would be acceptable. Since you can not have all the other documents you may have to either 1) document an audit of their documents (PFD, FMEAA, CP, etc) 2) have a letteer of compliance or 3) a level 2 with statistical data of the process / controls / relevant info.

I don't know if that would be acceptable or what the customer might think but there are some ideas. # 1 should support the requirements - but may not be practical. Comments?

MR 1Putt:

A better question is what would an auditor say, will they accept this?
Ahem... the auditor would say...

We have a supplier who simply refuses to submit a PPAP (they are TS registered). Auditor says, "if you as the customer have requested PPAP for any product and NOT received NOR accepted the PPAP as verification of the supplier's ability to supply product in accordance with your requirements, why did you accept the product? If you issued a purchase order without reviewing the required PPAP information, the purchasing/production processes at your organization would require a more thorough analysis of 7.1"... and potentially some nonconformances...."

The reason for no submission is proprietary (patented product). Claiming any DFMEA, Control Plan, PFMEA, raw material validation is proprietary and would violate their patent protection. The auditor says, "organizations and individuals seek to protect products, servies and processes that are proprietary through the use of patents and confidentiality agreements. Suggesting the supplier consult with their patent counsel/legal advisor may alleviate their fears, however, in a situation where the customer requires PPAP... the organization shall determine the requirements specified by the customer, requirements differing are resoved and they have the ability to meet those requirements. Not just the ability to meet those requirements, they must adhere to customer requirements. The auditor says NONCONFORMING."

We are trying to get a customer waiver but I have a feeling we won't win that battle. Are you the customer that does not want to submit to the PPAP because of proprietary information or is your customer refusing to submit a PPAP to you???? The auditor is confused now..... and your profile says your a a QMS Auditor? Are you an internal auditor or a third party auditor?

Sure, it is a difficult scenario, but you are required to meet your customer's requirements. If BMW requires a PPAP style document, then you either have to persuade your supplier to cooperate, or discuss with the customer what they would have you do.

There is no "judgement call" that an auditor can make in this situation. It is not within our scope of authority.

PPAP level 5 is an inspection of the PPAP documents at the suppliers plant.
This can be performed with a process audit.
It is accepted in Europe that FMEA does not have to be submitted because it is proprietary but inspection is always possible with a confidentiality statement.
Totally unacceptable the fact that he is not willing to submit. I would tell him that if he does not submit then you will inform his CB as this is a blatant non compliance with the standard