We are currently in the process of finding a new supplier for a part we use in the manufacture of one of our products.
What it is: 10" dia' x 3/4" Polyurethane foam disk with a density of 1.2lbs per cubic foot.
This disk is used in the helmet of a PPE suit to reduce the noise of incoming air. After numerous quality problems with our current supplier, it was evident we needed a new source. Here is my dilemna...
As QA Operations Mgr. (don't ask):rolleyes: I feel we need to follow protocol in the evaluation of this new supplier. Our procedure states that for candidate suppliers we will firstly evaluate their product to assure conformance before placing them on our Approved Vendors List. Then cut them a Purchase Order. Makes sense to me. I mean, our customers sure wouldn't just throw us on their approved supplier list and start ordering from us. (Our customer is the Govt. so of course we have to hop through hoops for them.) No biggie.
Anyway. So after I make my statement about following protocol, the purchasing dept.(headed by a VP) comes to tell me that we need to change our procedure. Reason being, this company will have to make a die to form this foam and they sure aren't going to do that without being guaranteed our business.
Now don't get me wrong, I'm all for getting a good quality product, whatever it takes. As part of Mgt. I realize it's also my responsibility to look out for the best interest of the company, however, for auditing/internal procedures sake I strongly believe we should follow our written procedures?
Am I way off here?? What do you guys think? I'm trying to keep us playing by the book, am I missing something?:confused:

Thank you

This problem is typical of what happens when we try to write procedures that are supposed to cover everything, but we can never know exactly what everything includes. I often recommend that the procedure for supplier selection state WHO will DEFINE the criteria to be used, and that this will be done when necessary. The procedure simply gives some of the things to be considered. This allows the organization to flex the criteria based on each situation.

Same is true for employee qualification. If you write a job description that says that a manufacturing engineer must have a ME degree, and you find someone who has a phenomenal amount of experience/skills but does not have the degree, you're trapped. But if you instead state in the procedure who will define the criteria (e.g., HR and department manager), and suggest criteria that might be used, then for each position you can flex the requirements depending on what you find.

Obviously there are situations where this flexibility can be dangerous if used incorrectly. Include risk assessment as part of the process.

This problem is typical of what happens when we try to write procedures that are supposed to cover everything, but we can never know exactly what everything includes. I often recommend that the procedure for supplier selection state WHO will DEFINE the criteria to be used, and that this will be done when necessary. The procedure simply gives some of the things to be considered. This allows the organization to flex the criteria based on each situation.

Same is true for employee qualification. If you write a job description that says that a manufacturing engineer must have a ME degree, and you find someone who has a phenomenal amount of experience/skills but does not have the degree, you're trapped. But if you instead state in the procedure who will define the criteria (e.g., HR and department manager), and suggest criteria that might be used, then for each position you can flex the requirements depending on what you find.

Obviously there are situations where this flexibility can be dangerous if used incorrectly. Include risk assessment as part of the process.

I agree with Duke; you shouldn't paint yourself into a corner. In this case, it doesn't make much sense to deny business to a potential supplier just because your procedure says you must qualify him completely before adding him to the list. One way to take care of this is to classify new suppliers as probationary until there's enough history to give them full approval status.

One way to take care of this is to classify new suppliers as probationary until there's enough history to give them full approval status.
That's what we do.:agree1:

I never thought of a probationary period!:bonk: So....you could set a standard such as, after 10 conforming shipments from this customer, they will be removed from their probationary status and placed on the ASL?
Now should you still request current quality records from them to confirm objective and quantitative evidence? I've already requested a copy of their QA manual and procedures and have sent them a survey for them to complete.
And what if within the first 10 or however many shipments you set as a standard they fail to deliver a conforming product?? Where do you go from there?

I never thought of a probationary period!:bonk: So....you could set a standard such as, after 10 conforming shipments from this customer, they will be removed from their probationary status and placed on the ASL?

Yes, but remember not to paint yourself into a corner again with the criteria.

Now should you still request current quality records from them to confirm objective and quantitative evidence?

Request whatever you think is appropriate. When the time comes to change the status from probationary to approved, the decision should be objective and not arbitrary.

And what if within the first 10 or however many shipments you set as a standard they fail to deliver a conforming product?? Where do you go from there?

Full payment for tooling should be predicated on the supplier's satisfaction of your criteria. It's typical to pay 50% in advance, with the remainder to be paid when the supplier has provided evidence of capability to produce the parts.

Is it possible for the potential new supplier to prototype a quantiy parts so that your company can evalaute to ensure that it meets your product specs? At our company protoype suppliers do not need the formal evalaution, only when they become production suppliers

I never thought of a probationary period!:bonk: So....you could set a standard such as, after 10 conforming shipments from this customer, they will be removed from their probationary status and placed on the ASL?
Now should you still request current quality records from them to confirm objective and quantitative evidence? I've already requested a copy of their QA manual and procedures and have sent them a survey for them to complete.
And what if within the first 10 or however many shipments you set as a standard they fail to deliver a conforming product?? Where do you go from there?

They stay on probation and still get the records. Probation tearms can be what works for you. We decrease our internal sampling of their product after they get off probation. Our customer did the same with us. Our customer reviewed 100% of our product until we reached a certian level, then they reduced it to 80%, 50% 10% and now 5 years later they do not QC/validate at all.
In 5 years, we are the only supplier to make it past the 10% cut, most of the others are still at 50% review.:rar:

morgan,
Do you have a set limit as to how many times you'll reject non-conforming shipments before taking further action? I imagine that if one shipment out of 50 they ship something noncompliant, you would just write up an NCR and log that in their history. But is there a set amount before you take further action, regardless of history??

Also, please see these discussion threads on Supplier Evaluation (http://Elsmar.com/Forums/search.php?do=process&titleonly=1&query=supplier+evaluation).

Initially in lieu of having them make a die to approve them "Conditionally" have them provide a test sample that meets the gov't specification. If their sample piece meets/exceeds the spec continue with the approval process. If like you said, they already make the product (Foam Disk) have them amke a general piece in one of their existing forms and have a 3rd party lab test it to the Mil-Specs. Once you have that, proceed with the approval process.

morgan,
Do you have a set limit as to how many times you'll reject non-conforming shipments before taking further action? I imagine that if one shipment out of 50 they ship something noncompliant, you would just write up an NCR and log that in their history. But is there a set amount before you take further action, regardless of history??

Yes, there are limits. The limits vary by product group. If its bad enough, and we have an alternate supplier, we will drop them if no improvement is made. This has only happened twice.

thank you all for your help.
This has really helped us get back onto the right foot here. I have taken advice and suggestions from each of your responses and I'm really very pleased with the outcome on our end thus far.
I feel we are now ready(from a quality standpoint) to handle the evaluation and approval of this candidate.
However, I have another question. Since this is a first time supplier, I have sent our survey,and request for quality manual. Since I have no history to base anything off of with this supplier what kind of current quality records could I request?
Below is a section from NQA-1 2000 (which I'm working to get our program compliant to) under "control of purchased items and services"

200 SUPPLIER EVALUATION AND SELECTION
Prior to award of a contract, the Purchaser shall
evaluate the Supplier’s capability to provide items or
services in accordance with the requirements of the
procurement documents. Supplier evaluation and selection
and the results therefrom shall be documented
and shall include one or more of (a) through (c) below.

(a) Supplier’s history of providing an identical or
similar product that performs satisfactorily in actual
use. The Supplier’s history shall reflect current capability.

(b) Supplier‘s current quality records supported by
documented qualitative and quantitative information
that can be objectively evaluated.

(c) Supplier’s technical and quality capability as
determined by a direct evaluation of the facilities,
personnel, and the implementation of the Supplier’s
quality assurance program.

since I have no history, and source site is not an option, what out of (b) should/could I be requesting?:confused: