We just found out our China supplier is delivering parts using 304 SS opposed to the 316SS we require. Yes we did ask for and received C of C's containing NDT testing which were wrong (intentionally sent to use and our supplier from the raw material supplier). Of the suspect SS we also found the validated 316SS was conaminated with high %'s of base metals for example more chrome than allowable. The 304SS supplied was also contaminated so bad that it would not be acceptable as 304SS. We also found issues with our domestic suppliers in which their material was purchased abroad. Their is an X-Ray gun available to easly check the material this may be a wise investment for some.

This has caused our company lots of$$$$ and we will have a tough time trying to recoup costs from overseas

Pet food, toothpaste, now stainless steel....What will be next?

Lower prices may look mighty enticing. Dr. W. Edwards Deming encouraged us to look at total cost.

We'll be on the lookout.

We just found out our China supplier is delivering parts using 304 SS opposed to the 316SS we require. Yes we did ask for and received C of C's containing NDT testing which were wrong (intentionally sent to use and our supplier from the raw material supplier). Of the suspect SS we also found the validated 316SS was contaminated with high %'s of base metals for example more chrome than allowable. The 304SS supplied was also contaminated so bad that it would not be acceptable as 304SS. We also found issues with our domestic suppliers in which their material was purchased abroad. Their is an X-Ray gun available to easily check the material this may be a wise investment for some.

This has caused our company lots of$$$$ and we will have a tough time trying to recoup costs from overseas
Welcome to the Cove!:agree1:
Sorry to hear your organization got burned so badly. May I ask what kind of supplier approval process your organization conducted before entering into a contact with the supplier to assure you had a good chance of getting what you ordered?

By the way, do you know if the suppliers OR the Chinese mill are registered to an international Standard such as ISO9001:2000?

:topic:Your organization's experience is one of the reasons I advise my clients to be willing to make purchasing decisions of raw materials and components based on Quality, rather than price.

One of my early mentors used to quote some old aphorism that said [paraphrased], "There is always somebody ready to sell a product cheaper than the prevailing market rate. You have to ask yourself if buying the cheaper product makes you a winner or a VICTIM of the charlatan selling a faulty product."

Ever walk along a shabby street and have a seedy looking guy come up to you and offer to sell you a "genuine Rolex" watch for $100.00? That's pretty much the impression I have when "kitchen table" brokers offer to sell me high tech goods at bargain basement prices.

In my contract machining company, we bought all our stainless steel and other specialty alloys from one domestic mill which offered to take us on a tour of the plant and analysis labs as part of our supplier approval process. It cost us on average about 5% more than other suppliers, but we figure we saved much more than that on time and tooling since the material cut consistently in every lot and did not vary in tooling wear or having to alter feeds and speeds of the machine tools to maintain a consistent high quality finish on our products.

I don't ever recall a case of mislabeling an alloy by "accident" - every case I heard of was absolute intended fraud, most notably when some producer mislabeled bolts for aircraft use, supplying an inferior grade which caused at least one crash.

We just found out our China supplier is delivering parts using 304 SS opposed to the 316SS we require. Yes we did ask for and received C of C's containing NDT testing which were wrong (intentionally sent to use and our supplier from the raw material supplier). Of the suspect SS we also found the validated 316SS was conaminated with high %'s of base metals for example more chrome than allowable. The 304SS supplied was also contaminated so bad that it would not be acceptable as 304SS. We also found issues with our domestic suppliers in which their material was purchased abroad. Their is an X-Ray gun available to easly check the material this may be a wise investment for some.

This has caused our company lots of$$$$ and we will have a tough time trying to recoup costs from overseasDiverting a bit from the thrust of your post, if this supplier is certified to ISO 9001, you should elevate this complaint to their Certification Body because, as described, the supplier's performance seems to be one of a conscious attempt to deceive customers. China is the leading country in number of ISO 9001 certified companies. It is time for the chain of accountability to be exercized. We need to test supplier's resolve in fulfilling the policy statements of commitment to satisfy customer requirements.
As you can imagine, with the recent cases of tainted pet food, tooth paste and other cases such as your sub standard product, a lot of people believe that Chinese suppliers should be under enhanced scrutiny. I say, let's put their ISO 9001 certificates to the test. It is about time for seriousness and responsibility.

If your Chinese supplier is not ISO 9001 certified, thanks for giving me a chance for a :soap:.

Thanks Sidney for providing the statistics on ISO 9001 certifications. Could you please also let me know the approximate date of compiling this information?

Free, abridged version of The ISO Survey (http://www.iso.org/iso/en/iso9000-14000/pdf/survey2005.pdf)

Welcome to the Cove, zagwyn :bigwave:

Nice... The Stainless steel business is tough enough as it is, and things like that is not making it any easier.

/Claes

This brings up an interesting topic--to me, anyway. How do we know our suppliers are providing as promised?

While C of Cs et. al are the accepted gate for supplier quality, It seems to me that some good old-fashioned self defense is called for in the global economy. After all, C of Cs should only be acceptable for verified true suppliers. :2cents:

I respectfully suggest that a front-end and periodic lab test check for supplied material quality is worthwhile, given the down-steam costs for recalling product and perhaps losing customers or even worse for certain industries... :mg:

It should not be difficult to obtain an occasional sample test of metals. For this type of steel, here's what is involved (http://www.azom.com/details.asp?ArticleID=1234) at minimum. I am not affiliated with this web site's owner.

This brings up an interesting topic--to me, anyway. How do we know our suppliers are providing as promised?

While C of Cs et. al are the accepted gate for supplier quality, It seems to me that some good old-fashioned self defense is called for in the global economy. After all, C of Cs should only be acceptable for verified true suppliers. :2cents:

I respectfully suggest that a front-end and periodic lab test check for supplied material quality is worthwhile, given the down-steam costs for recalling product and perhaps losing customers or even worse for certain industries... :mg:

It should not be difficult to obtain an occasional sample test of metals. For this type of steel, here's what is involved (http://www.azom.com/details.asp?ArticleID=1234) at minimum. I am not affiliated with this web site's owner.


I agree. Long time ago, one of my mentors said that if you never bother to periodically verify the validity of C-of-C's and/or C-of-A's: "That piece of paper and a quarter, will buy you a cup of coffee."

I agree. Long time ago, one of my mentors said that if you never bother to periodically verify the validity of C-of-C's and/or C-of-A's: "That piece of paper and a quarter, will buy you a cup of coffee."Your mentor must have provided input for the AS9100 standard, since AS9100 requires this periodic validation of CoC's. Having said that, living under the Starbucks Dynasty, s/he needs to update the saying to "That piece of paper and 14 quarters, will buy you a cup of coffee."

What I think is happening is related to the world prices of the raw materials that make the stainless steel...

We have seen an increase (here in Brazil - but they are world prices) of :

Stainless steel rod (304 / 410 / 420) around 60%
Nickel - around 56%
Manganes and molibdium around 35%

What they may be doing is trying to maintain the same prices by "messing" with the "formulas"...

If they are declaring that they are sending 316 and supplying you with 304, then a formal complaint should be done and if the complaint is not satisfactory to your organization, a formal complaint to their CB should be made.

Complain to a CB?!!:mg:
How about a lawsuit for damages while you are at it?:rolleyes:
Piffle! You won't get a satisfactory response to help YOUR organization either way. Name names and protect other victims, then move on to a responsible and honest supplier.

Those pet owners get any money from China? Neither will you.

This kind of deception has been going on from China for years in the metal industry. This is both through personal and family experience.

I spent 5 years at a company that used many plastic parts from China. As the quality guy, I determined that we could count on ~10 months of consistent data until the tool would start to wear (eventually determined to be worn tooling). Based on discussions with plastics experts here, this is premature tool wear (should last at least 18 months with proper steel at the volume we were using it). One of the major causes of premature tool wear, according to my source, is lower quality metal (there are many others, however, based on all the details I gave him and the graphs I had he felt that poor metal quality was more likely).

In addition to that, my father is a retired plant manager in the tool and die trade. They made tons of profit fixing chinese made molds. In fact, some of the molds were so poor quality (i.e. metal), that they could not fix it. To fix a mold, one needs to know the "grade" of the metal to ensure a "match" to the weld metal. There were many they could not match. In addition, the durometer hardness varies greater than what the auto industry would accept from any NA supplier, but accepted from the Chinese maker regularly. Why? Dirt cheap prices...but resulting in many other costs (ummm...gee could this cause unknown additional costs that could be contributing to the current situation in the auto industry?).

Off my soap box now and looking at total costs,

John

This brings up an interesting topic--to me, anyway. How do we know our suppliers are providing as promised?

While C of Cs et. al are the accepted gate for supplier quality, It seems to me that some good old-fashioned self defense is called for in the global economy. After all, C of Cs should only be acceptable for verified true suppliers. :2cents:

I respectfully suggest that a front-end and periodic lab test check for supplied material quality is worthwhile, given the down-steam costs for recalling product and perhaps losing customers or even worse for certain industries... :mg:

It should not be difficult to obtain an occasional sample test of metals. For this type of steel, here's what is involved (http://www.azom.com/details.asp?ArticleID=1234) at minimum. I am not affiliated with this web site's owner.

I argue C of C's are almost worthless. They simply state this stuff meets spec. Might be useful for a lawsuit, but not for quality management.

C of A's at least show some data that you can test against, to verify their lab and yours gets the same results.

Happened to us too...now we test metalurgy every shipment...expensive but worth it.

Happened to us too...now we test metalurgy every shipment...expensive but worth it.

I understand why you're doing this but could you pass the cost of this metallurgical testing on to your Customer? Is it just the cost of testing or are there some other hidden costs that take away from the company's profits?

Stijloor.

FWIW:
Many folks find themselves in the trap of looking ONLY at the initial cost of a commodity like steel alloy or grain or any other basic material to be further fabricated or manufactured. The trap comes in the soft costs of dealing with distant suppliers, language barriers, loss of personal connection, etc. which sometimes results in a loss of respect of the buyer by the supplier. This lack of respect and personal connection allows the supplier to "justify" cheating or defrauding the buyer he often describes as "soulless."

The teeth in that trap that really bite into a buyer's hindquarters come when that cheating or defrauding (without adequate controls by the buyer) ends up with faulty material incorporated into a buyer's product which causes injury or death to the end consumer.

Witness the recent problems with toothpaste, pet food and children's toys.

The solution:
Investigate and know enough about your supplier so you can have confidence the entire supply chain behind him is straightforward and honest and that he is not an ignorant dupe who accepts faulty product to be passed on to you without similar assurance all the way down his supply chain. (I's really all part of Contract Review - assuring yourself of capability and capacity of supplier to deliver goods or services that meet your requirements.)

When all else fails, be sure to follow the poker player's maxim:
"Trust everyone, but count the cards!" [Independent analysis of materials]

FWIW, FDA has very specific expectations regarding the "verification of certified properties". We received a 483 observation for "no independant verification of certified properties". Their *specific* expectation was that we implement a system to select at least one property from every item we receive on CC (could be any physical or mechanical property) and verify said property:
1. through our own, in-house testing/measurement facilities; or
2. Through a 3rd party if we lacked the verification capabilities.

Further, the expectation was part number (not supplier) specific. In response, we set up a "tickler" system to "randomnly" select one property from each P/N we received on CC only to perform - and document the verification. Oh yeah - this had to be an annual verification & the verified property had to change from year to year (unless there was only one property to choose from, in which case we would re-verify the same property every year). Our initial response that "we do First Article inspections on every new or revised item" was deemed "inadequate".

This rectified our 483 & we actually did find a couple "issues" with CC'd items.

FWIW, FDA has very specific expectations regarding the "verification of certified properties". We received a 483 observation for "no independant verification of certified properties". Their *specific* expectation was that we implement a system to select at least one property from every item we receive on CC (could be any physical or mechanical property) and verify said property:
1. through our own, in-house testing/measurement facilities; or
2. Through a 3rd party if we lacked the verification capabilities.

Further, the expectation was part number (not supplier) specific. In response, we set up a "tickler" system to "randomnly" select one property from each P/N we received on CC only to perform - and document the verification. Oh yeah - this had to be an annual verification & the verified property had to change from year to year (unless there was only one property to choose from, in which case we would re-verify the same property every year). Our initial response that "we do First Article inspections on every new or revised item" was deemed "inadequate".

This rectified our 483 & we actually did find a couple "issues" with CC'd items.

Can you eloborate on the FDA's specific expectation, what regulation is this from?

Thank you,
Phil

Phil,

Ther reference was 21 CFR 820.80(b): "Each manufacturer shall establish and maintain procedures for acceptance of incoming product. Incoming product shall be inspected, tested or otherwise verified as conforming to specified requirements....".

Perpetually accepting CCs at face value with no periodic verification was deemed as "inadequate acceptance controls". :rolleyes:

Disclaimer: I am totally biased, and have my entire livelihood at stake, and invested, in the steel industry in the United States.

People are jumping on the band wagon of buying cheap steel from China. The reasons China can produce the steel so cheaply are many. The regulatory requirements needing to be met are near nonexistent compared to what we meet here. Safety is not necessarily a priority. Neither is the environment, just go look at one of the websites that show a huge plume of pollution initiating in China moving across the Pacific Ocean. Government subsidizes the operations so that steel can be sold at below cost rates in order to bring money into the economy. Sometimes you do get what you pay for.

if this is deemed to be too controversial, feel free to delete, but it is really time for people to think about the reasons why some things are so cheap.

Disclaimer: I am totally biased, and have my entire livelihood at stake, and invested, in the steel industry in the United States.

People are jumping on the band wagon of buying cheap steel from China. The reasons China can produce the steel so cheaply are many. The regulatory requirements needing to be met are near nonexistent compared to what we meet here. Safety is not necessarily a priority. Neither is the environment, just go look at one of the websites that show a huge plume of pollution initiating in China moving across the Pacific Ocean. Government subsidizes the operations so that steel can be sold at below cost rates in order to bring money into the economy. Sometimes you do get what you pay for.

if this is deemed to be too controversial, feel free to delete, but it is really time for people to think about the reasons why some things are so cheap.

SteelMaiden,

I don't think your post is controversial. I agree with it, and I am glad you brought this up again. :yes:

As I have stated a few times: "Cheap comes with a price."

Stijloor.

That having been said, in 9 out of 10 cases, the lowest possible initial price continues to be selected. Reason being: it's too difficult to justify higher prices based on "soft" issues. Balance sheets continue to reflect only "hard costs". Environmental & other "soft" costs are not in the equation. "Total Cost" or "True Cost" scenarios are more for discussion than implementation.:2cents:

Disclaimer: I am totally biased, and have my entire livelihood at stake, and invested, in the steel industry in the United States.

People are jumping on the band wagon of buying cheap steel from China. The reasons China can produce the steel so cheaply . . .What you say may or may not be accurate in every case. Some buyers are woefully ignorant of the points you make. Worse, though, in my opinion, is the fact many buyers and the organizations they represent ARE aware of the points you make and STILL they decide to buy from the questionable source.

Do they really let short term greed to buy a material or service cheaply overrule common sense in perpetuating a system of greed and exploitation of people and environment? If the answer is yes, have they taken a cold, hard look at the risks of loss of reputation and business if one of those substandard products produced by an exploited work force should injure a downstream customer?

My experience leads me to believe the overwhelming majority of buyers who buy such products and services are absolutely aware of the risks in purchasing from such a questionable source and dismiss the risk as low to nonexistent simply for the sake of the short term benefit to themselves or organizations.

How does the "good" supplier thrive or even survive in such a climate? My advice is to use FEAR to persuade the buyer to change the risk values he attaches to buying goods from suppliers who do exploit everything from employees to local environments. That fear has to strike the buyer on a personal level - how he will be blamed for a faulty shipment, how he will place his career in danger if folks think he erred in his risk assessment.

My experience leads me to believe the overwhelming majority of buyers who buy such products and services are absolutely aware of the risks in purchasing from such a questionable source and dismiss the risk as low to nonexistent simply for the sake of the short term benefit to themselves or organizations.

How does the "good" supplier thrive or even survive in such a climate? My advice is to use FEAR to persuade the buyer to change the risk values he attaches to buying goods from suppliers who do exploit everything from employees to local environments. That fear has to strike the buyer on a personal level - how he will be blamed for a faulty shipment, how he will place his career in danger if folks think he erred in his risk assessment.

I agree, mostly. The problem is in how management evaluates (or perceives) performance. If the expectation--explicit or tacit--is that a buyer will find the cheapest source, you have the makings of a self-fulfilling prophecy . Until top management assumes responsibility for their own requirements, nothing will change. Instilling fear at the local level (i.e., with the buyer) is unlikely to have the desired effect unless the fear is personal, and if it is, you probably don't need to scare him. If a buyer refuses to buy cheap for fear of the consequences to the organization, he'll be replaced with someone "fearless." If he anticipates personal consequences, he'll get the heck out if he's continually pressured to override his own trepidation. It's a management thing, pure and simple.

My experience leads me to believe the overwhelming majority of buyers who buy such products and services are absolutely aware of the risks in purchasing from such a questionable source and dismiss the risk as low to nonexistent simply for the sake of the short term benefit to themselves or organizations.

How does the "good" supplier thrive or even survive in such a climate? My advice is to use FEAR to persuade the buyer to change the risk values he attaches to buying goods from suppliers who do exploit everything from employees to local environments. That fear has to strike the buyer on a personal level - how he will be blamed for a faulty shipment, how he will place his career in danger if folks think he erred in his risk assessment.What fear can be instilled if the buyer was buying steel that the supplier had claimed was to spec? Should the buyer have been taking samples and having them analyzed?

This is a case where international law is of little help because the enforcement is weaker in places where material substitution is happening. The people doing substituting do not have reason to fear anything, or they might be behaving as though they were aware of taking a risk that actually exists.

If a supplier has been shown to be untrustworthy, it should be a management decision to disqualify them, not the buyer's responsibility unless he suspected and did nothing. :2cents:

What fear can be instilled if the buyer was buying steel that the supplier had claimed was to spec? Should the buyer have been taking samples and having them analyzed?

If there's reason to believe that something is too good to be true, it should be expected that some form of verification should take place before placing the order. If all of the stories in the news lately aren't enough to give a buyer second thoughts, there's something else at work.

I have two comments on this thread:

The way I heard it "If you want nice fresh oats, you must being willing to pay a fair price. If you are willing to settle for oats that have been cycled though the horse once, that comes a little cheaper."

Regarding CofCs: I have always wondered why a CofC was felt to mean anything at all. According to the Uniform Commercial Code (at least in the USA) the act of shipping material in response to a purchase order is a legal certification that the the material shipped meets the terms of the purchase order, unless the shipping paperwork ontains a specific disclaimer. So what additional protection does a Cof C give. The upplier legally has already certified the material.

Geoff Withnell

I have two comments on this thread:

The way I heard it "If you want nice fresh oats, you must being willing to pay a fair price. If you are willing to settle for oats that have been cycled though the horse once, that comes a little cheaper."

Regarding CofCs: I have always wondered why a CofC was felt to mean anything at all. According to the Uniform Commercial Code (at least in the USA) the act of shipping material in response to a purchase order is a legal certification that the the material shipped meets the terms of the purchase order, unless the shipping paperwork ontains a specific disclaimer. So what additional protection does a Cof C give. The upplier legally has already certified the material.

Geoff Withnell

You're absolutely correct with regard to the uselessness of most certificates of conformance and the UCC. A better alternative is an actual material test report, but the best strategy in dealing with any far away supplier is "Trust but verify."

People are jumping on the band wagon of buying cheap steel from China. The reasons China can produce the steel so cheaply are many. The regulatory requirements needing to be met are near nonexistent compared to what we meet here. Safety is not necessarily a priority. Neither is the environment, just go look at one of the websites that show a huge plume of pollution initiating in China moving across the Pacific Ocean. Government subsidizes the operations so that steel can be sold at below cost rates in order to bring money into the economy. Sometimes you do get what you pay for.Steel, your heartfelt post is nothing to apologize for. You, like most human beings, like to feel that we should compete under fair rules. Unfairness is intrinsically demoralizing and demotivating. The globalization of the supply chain, the blind drive for short term price cuts and the governmental de facto abdication of trade control to placate corporate supporters has and will create even more imbalance of the World Economy. The demolition/deterioration of our Industrial base will come back to hunt us. Badly. Unfortunately, we will be misguided, looking for blame. The enemy is not the countries we shipped our manufacturing base, technology and knowledge to, but our irresponsible governmental leadership that continuously cave in to corporate interests, as an outcome of political lobbying.

This outsourcing thing is one to demand its own set of controls and cost designs, as people are finding out. Clever looking bean counters who think it's easy to save money by simply buying supplies and services elsewhere are getting the big surprise after finding the results weren't as anticipated. Dell learned this and eventually moved its corporate customer service center back to the U.S. (Last I heard the private customers still end up talking with overseas help desk people, but that's another discussion.)

Smart managers will now realize that costs must be added into the plan: in this case, added inspections of materials and the methods to deal with unsatisfactory findings must be factored in. Not doing so means all sorts of problems, as toy companies and pet food manufacturers have shown us. Some enterprises have even stopped some of the overseas buying.

People on this forum could have foretold this kind of problem a mile away. We have calculators to add up the costs of such a tactic and its outcomes. It's a sad thing you are having to deal with this, and I hope in this case the problems can be resolved without the company going under.

I'm not quite sure how I feel - it's so rare to have a consensus of opinion agree with me/
To Jim: The FEAR has to be communicated all the way up the line to the top manager and owner. The job of marketing at the honest supplier is to identify and exploit the fear without looking like Chicken Little crying, "The sky is falling! The sky is falling!"

The risks have to be real and possible, even probable. If there is no real risk, the Cassandras are just piddling into the wind, having the smelly stuff blow back all over themselves.

Trust and verify is the same as counting the cards. In my own operation, the spread between the cost of material and the value-added we performed in our operation was so great, we really couldn't afford to have bad quality material foul up our manufacturing systems. We became obsessive in visiting and observing steel mills and distribution centers to assure our material was exactly what we ordered and even experimented to determine which mill consistently delivered the most uniform chemical analysis and physical properties on a particular grade of alloy from heat to heat [a heat is a batch of material from the same furnace melt.] We were gratified to learn such obsession resulted in more uniform wear of our tooling and tighter tolerances (Cpk) within a production run.

Frankly, I don't understand the mentality of a top manager who does not empower his subordinates to perform similar analyses on the material his organization buys compared with "cheapo" material from a scavenger or off shore source.

When Jennifer writes People on this forum could have foretold this kind of problem a mile away. We have calculators to add up the costs of such a tactic and its outcomes. It's a sad thing you are having to deal with this, and I hope in this case the problems can be resolved without the company going under. 2nd February 2008 12:38 PMshe also implies we (quality professionals) bear some of the responsibility because we have not "made our case" [apologies to ASQ for borrowing the motto] to top management on the very real need to factor in the risk hazards of dealing with suppliers who promote low cost over and above high quality. Worse, when some supplier claims "high quality," we rarely put his feet to the fire to determine the truth or falsity of the statement by requiring independent analysis of the material and almost never perform a Design of Experiments to compare the workability of material from one supplier versus material from another supplier.

The real question, as I see it, is how do we communicate the importance of material quality to the top management of our own organization without getting fired for being the bearer of bad news? Suggestions are earnestly sought!

Actually Sidney, I have no problem with competition from anywhere. My company can compete with anyone on a level playing field.

I do not blame my govt. for moving jobs overseas, anymore than I blame the Chinese for wanting to make money. Our govt didn't move the jobs overseas. We, the people did. :2cents: Don't read more into my statements than exist. If we continue to buy cheap, we will get what we get. If we accept products made by people whose life is not important to their govt., or whose govt. does not set any kind of standards for environmental protection, then we are responsible for what is happening.

I am proud of the accomplishments that have been made in the USA, and in Canada, in safety, health, environmental and quality issues. It is too bad that customers are willing to accept less.

btw, cannot help you with stainless, sorry.

If we continue to buy cheap, we will get what we get. If we accept products made by people whose life is not important to their govt., or whose govt. does not set any kind of standards for environmental protection, then we are responsible for what is happening.

It's called "Globalism" and it will not go away. Unfortunately, we (in the "developed" countries) are at the top of the world heap. There are 6+ billion folks on our planet. Maybe ~1 billion in the US & Western Europe - the two areas with arguably the very highest standards of living (excluding our Middle Eastern neighbors). That leaves ~4 billion folks who want the same things we do - and they want them more than we want to hang on to what we have. Given finite resources...somethings gotta' give - and it is our standard of living. The ONLY thing we can do is try to hang on to what we have as long as we can & THAT is exactly why "we" (collectively and individually) will continue to buy the lowest-priced (notice I didn't say cheap) Stainless Steel from China, the lowest-priced tomatoes from Chile, the lowest-priced flat-screen's from China via Costco.

I too have kids and grandkids who will continue in the world long after my departure. Unfornately, they're all white anglo-saxon protestants who are most being affected by rampant globalism. I'd like to be telling them "Look, be kind; pay attention to the environment; care about working conditions in 3rd world countries". Unfortunately, they didn't hear me - they were listening to their Chinese made iPod while texting on their Korean made iPhone about Britney's sister's interview on the E! channel.

Level playing field? A thing of the past. My best advice to anyone is to read Thomas Friedman's "The World is Flat". A great read that truly opened my eyes to the reality of our place in time. I bought it at Costco. :)

We just found out our China supplier is delivering parts using 304 SS opposed to the 316SS we require. Yes we did ask for and received C of C's containing NDT testing which were wrong (intentionally sent to use and our supplier from the raw material supplier). Of the suspect SS we also found the validated 316SS was conaminated with high %'s of base metals for example more chrome than allowable. The 304SS supplied was also contaminated so bad that it would not be acceptable as 304SS. We also found issues with our domestic suppliers in which their material was purchased abroad. Their is an X-Ray gun available to easly check the material this may be a wise investment for some.

This has caused our company lots of$$$$ and we will have a tough time trying to recoup costs from overseasLowest bidder, no doubt. You get what you pay for!

Well, it's not stainless steel this time, but instead ductile iron castings for a division of Parker. I'm not certain how the supplier was chosen, (the background I've been given indicates it was a joint decision between Parker and my employer),the selection was complete before I joined the company in January of 2008. The customer had been complaining regarding hardness of as received castings, so we looked fairly hard at this lot of 80 castings checking Brinell hardness on 31 of them. (Previously we spot-checked 5 castings.) The hardness specification for the castings is 187 BHN to 255 BHN. Our check showed 3 @ 187 BHN, 8 @ 179 BHN, 8 @ 170 BHN, and the balance all softer down to a low of 131 BHN.

We're currently reworking the castings by normalizing followed by an air quench to harden them. Then we'll have to shotblast them and 100% Brinell check. I'm also destructively testing 1 casting for tensile strength, chemistry, and microstucture in the as received state. I've also identified an additional casting as scrap - the riser broke off into the casting body and it won't clean up in machining. We'll be trying to back-charge for the additional costs. I'm not certain how well that will work.

This is an ongoing supply chain, with 80 of these castings currently scheduled for delivery every 2 weeks. We have a 2nd similar casting with the same delivery schedule. I'm not certain what we'll find when we look at the next shipment of those castings closely.

like evryone has stated, watch what you are buying.
1. We all have to go overseas and buy at the cheapest pricing.

2. We want to complete in the Global World Market and be conpedative.

3. I have been dewaling and going to China and India for the last 5 years.

4. The same problems as stated here in, but if you look at what you buy
and the requirements then you can achive what you started.

5. on Steel what ever is our call out Like 1020 get 1025 from them and it will
meet all requirements.

6. I have problems with stainless to, you have to have material tested.

7. Shanghai has (3) ISO/IEC Labs to use, Body cote, SGS, Intertek. The local
ISO/IEC labs that are certified can be bought off which is common in China.

8. Castings you have to be very careful what part of China you buy from, If
needed I can provide some aguidence.
9. I am attaching a excel file for people interested in steel material China verus US, for info.

10. The name of the game is to be complyant.

I work for a metal testing laboratory. A great many companies rely on us for their quality checks in regard to their suppliers and as such we see a great deal of materials from all over the world and many different companies in many different industries. We've seen no trends in testing that would lead me to believe Chinese supplied metal, in general, is of lower quality.

Quite often we will see materials for testing that fall under the category of Kevin's scenario, where a problem has already been identified and the company wants to verify the problem and determine the scope and cause. Quite often it is evident that a process failed, plating, heat treating, product design,etc. and had a negative impact on product quality. More rare is problems in the actual chemical composition of the metal/alloy.

Lately we've used broad strokes when painting China as the source of product quality issues. The truth is that metal supply issues such as the one that started this thread are common and equally common amongst worldwide suppliers, and usually are the result of process error rather than deciet. If anyone in general can be blamed, with a broad statement, it's the suppliers who are promising product or services at extraordinarily low prices by cutting corners, and the greed driven execs who decide to do business with them. As someone said earlier in the thread, you get what you pay for. ;)

:2cents: