Happy New Year everyone.

I have a question about delegation of verification.

In Sec 7.4.3 e) it states delegation of verification to the supplier, or supplier certification.
It then goes to say further down, Where the organization delegates verification activities to the supplier, the requirements for delegation shall be defined and a register of delegations maintained.

Can someone give me an example of how they satisfied this requirement?

Happy New Year everyone.

I have a question about delegation of verification.

In Sec 7.4.3 e) it states delegation of verification to the supplier, or supplier certification.
It then goes to say further down, Where the organization delegates verification activities to the supplier, the requirements for delegation shall be defined and a register of delegations maintained.

Can someone give me an example of how they satisfied this requirement?This is a process for accepting purchased material without inspecting it. It's sometimes called "Dock to Stock". You need to describe the requirements that a supplier must meet before qualifying. For example, 10 lots on-time delivery without rejection. Here is a more little more detailed procedure from a non aerospace company that I found through Google. (http://supplier.xrite.com/documents/Dock_To_Stock.pdf)

Delegation of verification is when a customer allows a DESIGNATED employee of the supplier to perform acceptance activities on it's behalf. It normally requires that individual to be qualified and competent to perform whatever acceptance activities are necessary. But, and as important, the designated individual must be a very trustworthy person, whom the customer believes it can rely on.

This would be equivalent to source inspection, with the primary difference that the inspection is done by a supplier's employee or third-party, instead of a customer representative.

I don't think that products accepted via delegation are necessarily treated as dock-to-stock, but it could be a component of a DTS system.

I'm still confused. The standard says, "the requirements for delegation shall be defined and a register of delegations maintained." I thought the requirements for delegation of verification such as, (gold plating thickness, hardness testing, passivation certification, etc.) can be defined on the Purchased Order. What we are doing now under ISO is adding a note to our P.O. that says, Gold Plating per Procedure xxx or Passivation per Procedure xxx, we then supply the procedure to the vendor. When we receive the finished part we have a CofC to check against. That, I think, will meet the requirement of delegation of verification, because I have now delegated the verification of this part to the supplier. I am uncertain on how to maintain a register of verifications. I don't know if I have to create a seperate procedure or register or I can incorporate it into exsisting documentation.
Thoughts?

Delegation of verification is when a customer allows a DESIGNATED employee of the supplier to perform acceptance activities on it's behalf. It normally requires that individual to be qualified and competent to perform whatever acceptance activities are necessary. But, and as important, the designated individual must be a very trustworthy person, whom the customer believes it can rely on.

This would be equivalent to source inspection, with the primary difference that the inspection is done by a supplier's employee or third-party, instead of a customer representative.

I don't think that products accepted via delegation are necessarily treated as dock-to-stock, but it could be a component of a DTS system.When I had a delegation, it was. :agree: But, you are correct that it doesn't necessarily have to.

I'm still confused. The standard says, "the requirements for delegation shall be defined and a register of delegations maintained." I thought the requirements for delegation of verification such as, (gold plating thickness, hardness testing, passivation certification, etc.) can be defined on the Purchased Order. What we are doing now under ISO is adding a note to our P.O. that says, Gold Plating per Procedure xxx or Passivation per Procedure xxx, we then supply the procedure to the vendor. When we receive the finished part we have a CofC to check against. That, I think, will meet the requirement of delegation of verification, because I have now delegated the verification of this part to the supplier. I am uncertain on how to maintain a register of verifications. I don't know if I have to create a seperate procedure or register or I can incorporate it into exsisting documentation.
Thoughts?Go with Sidney's explanation of Delegation of Inspection. What you are describing is addresed by:
Where the organization utilizes test reports to verify purchased product, the data in those reports shall be acceptable per applicable specifications. The organization shall periodically validate test reports for raw material.

You're correct. I am asking about verification of purchased product. I found this just now through Google. It is a from a companies AS9100 manual

http://www.malcams.com/qc/7.4.htm

Now my question is concerning this in particular;

e. delegation of verification to the supplier, or supplier certification.

Where MII delegates verification activities to the supplier, the requirements for delegation are defined and a register of delegations maintained.

Does anyone have examples of how they defined the requirements for delegation to their supplier and how they developed a register of delegations to their suppliers?

Does anyone have examples of how they defined the requirements for delegation to their supplier and how they developed a register of delegations to their suppliers?Google is our friend. I found this one that Electric Boat uses.

Hi Tomstwincam
The delegation is sometimes called 'Source Inspection' where an inspector or the QA Manager holds a delegated authority of 'Inspector' from the customer. This means, the customer doesn't need to inspect samples at the source prior to shipment as they are confident the parts have been manufactured appropriately and someone inside the supplier's organisation can sign as accepting on behalf of the customer.

The process whereby the delegation is awarded to the supplier's inspector is normally the same as the in-house inspector. The register of inspectors can then include names of suppliers inspectors that qualify for the company stamp in the same way in-house inspectors do.

Don't confuse defined requirements of the product with defined requirements of the source inspector delegation. The defined requirements should be the same as any other engineering authority granted within an organisation eg Competent the machine, Inspector competency or QA Auditor. It should be objective and based on education, training and demonstrated practical experience. Source Inspection delegations are never given out easily and it normally takes years of doing business with the customer without problems occurring before the delegation is awarded. When auditing this clause, I look for the objective evidence that is the basis of the delegation and monitor how often it is reviewed and reissued as they should not be automatically renewed even though this does occur.

I apologise if I have repeated some of the other posts but have done so to help clarify each of the points raised. I hope this helps.

Cheers

Note: Lockheed sometimes use the term Source Inspection to describe their own inspection at the customer's premises, normally at First Article stage. In most cases, however, source inspection is done by the source at their own location.

Delegation of verification is when a customer allows a DESIGNATED employee of the supplier to perform acceptance activities on it's behalf. It normally requires that individual to be qualified and competent to perform whatever acceptance activities are necessary. But, and as important, the designated individual must be a very trustworthy person, whom the customer believes it can rely on.

Could this be something as simple as the supplier's head quality representative (Quality Manager?) signing off on a C of C (if the C of C was the only acceptance activity required on the part)?

<snip>What you are describing is addressed by:

Where the organization utilizes test reports to verify purchased product, the data in those reports shall be acceptable per applicable specifications. The organization shall periodically validate test reports for raw material.

Which is disappearing with Revision C of AS9100.

Could this be something as simple as the supplier's head quality representative (Quality Manager?) signing off on a C of C (if the C of C was the only acceptance activity required on the part)?

As has been discussed here in the Cove before, a C of C isn't worth the paper it is written on, in my opinion.

Here is attached simple form I have used to demonstrate compliance to AS9100 Clause 7.4.3 e) Delegation of Verification requirements.

Here is attached simple form I have used to demonstrate compliance to AS9100 Clause 7.4.3 e) Delegation of Verification requirements.Your form does not specify who is the designated individual at the supplier with authority to inspect product on your behalf. Also, note that, according to AS9100, the requirements for delegation must be defined. Your form does not provide for that.

AS9100 Clause 7.4.3 e does not requires to name individuals performing verification. This is up to supplier (we are dealing only with AS9100 registered suppliers). You are thinking probably about source inspection or DQR aka SQR which is Delegated/Supplier Quality Rep used by the primes. And as far as delegations are concerned they are listed in the right colum under list of delegations (visual, x-ray etc). This form survived over dozens different AS9100 audits and never been revised.

AS9100 Clause 7.4.3 e does not requires to name individuals performing verification. This is up to supplier (we are dealing only with AS9100 registered suppliers). You are thinking probably about source inspection or DQR aka SQR which is Delegated/Supplier Quality Rep used by the primes. And as far as delegations are concerned they are listed in the right colum under list of delegations (visual, x-ray etc). This form survived over dozens different AS9100 audits and never been revised.The fact that it has "survived" a dozen audits does not mean it satisfies the (the intent of the) standard. In my opinion, a delegation process in aerospace most definitely requires the individual(s) granted authority to be identified.

Some of the Boeing requirements associated with this:


(3) Seller shall appoint personnel to act as Designated Supplier Representatives (DSRs) from its quality assurance department. A DSR is an individual with authority to administer the PSID process for Seller. DSRs shall have experience with Buyer's specifications, standards, and products to ensure that all requirements are met. Seller shall provide Buyer an up-to-date list of its DSRs on the Preferred Supplier Inspection Delegation Designated Supplier Representatives form ( MD-2119-02 Form).
(4) Only DSRs can accept goods on behalf of Buyer.
If you look at the Boeing form 2119-02, you will see that there is no question about the need to identify the individual(s).

The fact that it has "survived" a dozen audits does not mean it satisfies the (the intent of the) standard. In my opinion, a delegation process in aerospace most definitely requires the individual(s) granted authority to be identified.

Some of the Boeing requirements associated with this:
If you look at the Boeing form 2119-02, you will see that there is no question about the need to identify the individual(s).
[/LEFT]

I agree with Sidney. There are very similar requirements from UTC (Pratt & Whitney, besides the other entities of UTC). I was a DSQR for Pratt & Whitney.

Absolutely agree, if you think on the primes level you would have to interpret standard this way (flowdown of their SQR (SUPPLIER QUALITY REQUIREMENTS) but for small company dealing with small company is not mandatory, only "requirements for delegation shall be defined and a register of delegations maintained".

but for small company dealing with small company is not mandatory, only "requirements for delegation shall be defined and a register of delegations maintained".Supplier delegation for product verification is something that the large aero OEMs and primes do very carefully. It normally involves a whole set of envelope conditions, which normally include a high historical excellent performance by the supplier. For "small" organizations to delegate authority for product verification to another "small" supplier (albeit 9100 "compliant") without a whole set of conditions which would boost confidence in the adequacy and trustiworthiness of the verification activity is concerning, in my opinion.

Another example where you might be "in conformance" with the "cold text" of the standard, but people might question the adequacy of the arrangement, especially when one realizes the criticality of the products we are dealing with.

Totally agree. Considering "criticality of the products we are dealing with" you can add a lot more requirements (besides identity of delegated person) which are not in the body of the specification.