My customer does not like the rounded corners on parts manufactured from hex bar stock, but cannot provide specific rejection criteria.
I have 9/16" stainless hex bar to be used to make some standard parts. The corners are slightly rounded. This is how it was received from the mill.

The AN drawing does not provide a dimension from corner to corner. Only across the flats which are in tolerance. I cannot find any information in the raw material spec AMS-QQ-A-763 that addresses corner to corner.
I don't have a black and white answer that the part is non-conforming.

How do I convince the customer that the parts are acceptable?

What's it to be used for? Is there a fit & finish concern? Will the hex barstock be seen down the line at an end customer, or will this portion be removed?

We don't usually dictate to our customer what is acceptable, but we can negotiate options.

If you can't get it with sharp corners from your supplier, you could try:

1) Contacting a different supplier. If the price goes up, then the customer gets to elect to pay the higher price or stay with what is currently being used.

2) Cutting/grinding off the rounded portion, and charging for this finishing step. Of course the customer would need to approve this charge. Otherwise, if the customer is worth it, you could just include the extra step to make them happy.

<snip>How do I convince the customer that the parts are acceptable?

Acceptability is determined by the customer. However, have you discussed this issue prior to accepting the order? You used hexagon stock; the customer may have expected parts where the flats were actually milled. Did you accept the order based on a customer print that was provided to you?

More questions then answers....

Stijloor.

Acceptability is determined by the customer.

...and it is their responsibility to clearly communicate those requirements to the supplier.

Did you accept the order based on a customer print that was provided to you?

Good question, if it is not on the print, and not on the purchase order, what is their beef?

There is the old automotive weasel-out: it does not meet "good workmanship" - whatever that is...

The parts are std AN818 parts. The drawing requires SS 304 material per AMS QQ-A-763. The bar stock is extruded. The raw stock meets the raw material and procurement specs.
The customer is ordering Mil Std Parts, almost like off the shelf. He does not control design. Neither do I.
The drawing gives specific dimensional information. The parts have been inspected to the AN818 Drawing and appears to meet all called out dimensions.
Of course the Customer has the final say, but after contracting me to manufacture a std part, to a std drawing, I would think that he would understand that if he wanted something different, he would not have ordered a std part.
I sure appreciate you thoughts on acceptability. It either meets the drawing or it does not! I believe it does.

Yes, the customer is the one who gets to say what their requirements are, but in the steel business, there are many standards that product is ordered to. If the customer does not communicate any requirements above and beyond those requirements, he really does not have a claim. Of course, your company may decide to offer some sort of commercial consideration depending upon his importance to your organization. I cannot say what stainless requirements are, but I do know that when I worked at the cold draw plant, our hex edges were pretty sharp, rounded corners were a no-no and we tried to make sure that we changed out dies before the corners dulled. You are correct though that the dimensions are measured on the opposing flat sides.

Of course the Customer has the final say...

Hopefully they can be convinced to honor the purchase order without getting them too riled. You are starting to go down the slippery slope of marketing. Maybe there is a 'lessons learned' there on clarifying purchase order acceptance with wording that allows for these 'industry standard' conditions.

Just a thought...always like to have some wording to hang your hat on in such situations. No wording opens up the can of worms called "assumptions"!

The drawing for AN818 (http://www.dscc.dla.mil/Downloads/MilSpec/Docs/MIL-F-5509/an818.pdf) does specify the corner radius tolerances in the third line of "REQUIREMENTS".

Good luck!

Thanks for the clarification.
I do see the requirements call out for radii and edge break.
I appreciate your help.
J Allen

Acceptability is determined by the customer. However, have you discussed this issue prior to accepting the order? You used hexagon stock; the customer may have expected parts where the flats were actually milled. Did you accept the order based on a customer print that was provided to you?

More questions then answers....

Stijloor.

...and it is their responsibility to clearly communicate those requirements to the supplier.

Good question, if it is not on the print, and not on the purchase order, what is their beef?

There is the old automotive weasel-out: it does not meet "good workmanship" - whatever that is...

The parts are std AN818 parts. The drawing requires SS 304 material per AMS QQ-A-763. The bar stock is extruded. The raw stock meets the raw material and procurement specs.
The customer is ordering Mil Std Parts, almost like off the shelf. He does not control design. Neither do I.
The drawing gives specific dimensional information. The parts have been inspected to the AN818 Drawing and appears to meet all called out dimensions.
Of course the Customer has the final say, but after contracting me to manufacture a std part, to a std drawing, I would think that he would understand that if he wanted something different, he would not have ordered a std part.
I sure appreciate you thoughts on acceptability. It either meets the drawing or it does not! I believe it does.

Yes, the customer is the one who gets to say what their requirements are, but in the steel business, there are many standards that product is ordered to. If the customer does not communicate any requirements above and beyond those requirements, he really does not have a claim. Of course, your company may decide to offer some sort of commercial consideration depending upon his importance to your organization. I cannot say what stainless requirements are, but I do know that when I worked at the cold draw plant, our hex edges were pretty sharp, rounded corners were a no-no and we tried to make sure that we changed out dies before the corners dulled. You are correct though that the dimensions are measured on the opposing flat sides.

Thanks for the clarification.
I do see the requirements call out for radii and edge break.
I appreciate your help.
J AllenLots of interesting information in the above comments, but somewhere I seem to have missed the PPAP and First Article Inspection signoffs by the customer which should have been part of the Contract Review clauses which were important to both customer and supplier.

At the very least, the acceptance criteria should have been clearly spelled out in the contract. It seems apparent from the foregoing the acceptance criteria were NOT detailed enough.

If I were the executive in charge at the supplier, my considerations at this point would be all economic, not "moral" or "ethical" and "legal" would be way down at the bottom of my list.

If the supplier made thousands and thousands of these "standard" parts without getting an approval from the customer before committing labor and materials, he needs to assess how important this particular customer is to his business. If this is a regular customer, then negotiation might be in order to mitigate the economic loss to the supplier - perhaps resulting in a one-time waiver (see box below for difference between waiver and deviation.)

IF it was a one-time order and the customer is not deemed a prime prospect for future orders, it might be best to avoid the hassle and effort of negotiating with a customer who places the blame for his failure to be specific on a supplier who did not anticpate a vague, but persnickety customer.

If the order was relatively small and the parts are, indeed, "standard," then the supplier can mitigate his loss by selling the parts to a wholesaler who deals in such parts.

If the order was relatively large, it might make economic sense to approach OEMs who use such standard parts, offering samples and soliciting a purchase of the supplier's "overstock" (no mention need be made of the drop-out customer.) The fallout on such a ploy just might be a new customer for other, similar products.

Bottom line:
Fighting to get a customer to accept a part or pay for a part when the acceptance criteria were vague is a time-consuming process which might detract from obtaining other, profitable business. Don't believe ANYONE who says "it's not the money, it's the principle!" especially when his own lapses contributed to the SNAFU - that kind of attitude is what leads to a reputation as a "difficult" supplier. The only kind of supplier worse in a customer's eyes is a litigious supplier who takes every little hassle to court. Neither kind of supplier gets the kind of repeat business successful organizations need to thrive.


from this post (http://elsmar.com/Forums/showpost.php?p=256885&postcount=3)
In a typical situation, suppliers enter into contracts with their eyes wide open and familiar with the kind of pitfalls that can happen during the process of making and delivering the requirements.

Sometimes, during the course of acquiring machines and materials, glitches occur. Often the glitch has to do with material: the customer requirements may have been for one grade or even brand of material, but for some reason it is unavailable or has become too costly. The supplier then requests a deviation (in advance) to substitute other material or increase the price to use the original material. [this is a deviation I am most familiar with]

Other requests for deviations may arise because a PPAP was perfomed on one machine or in one location, but force majeure has made it necessary for the supplier to use a different machine in the same location or an identical machine in a different location. This situation arose often during Hurricane Katrina and will be occurring now after the effects of midwestern flooding.

A third [and infrequent] request for deviation may occur because the supplier has found a "better way" which may result in better quality or lower price, but needs a deviation from the original contract or specifications to proceed.

It is important to note deviation is requested and granted BEFORE production. Compare this with "waiver" which is requested AFTER production because the completed product does not meet the contract specifications.

To my knowledge, occasions for deviations do not occur frequently enough for a "form," but certainly the "format" is relatively straightforward:


State that the request is for a deviation from the original contract or specifications.
List the details of the deviation sought.
Explain WHY the deviation is sought - be very specific. If possible, list any advantage or benefit to the customer for granting the deviation (USUALLY a price concession or higher quality.)
State that if deviation is not granted, supplier will declare force majeure to be excused from the contract if the situation is based on availability or price of the original material (there is never a good reason to subsidize the customer by losing money on a contract until AFTER trying to get a deviation.) Obviously, if the deviation was to change a process to benefit the customer, the supplier would be OK with sticking to the original contract if it isn't going to lose money.

Note some folks may interchange the terms deviation and waiver, but as long as a distinction is made whether the change from original requirements is BEFORE or AFTER production, everyone should be happy with either term. The difference, of course, is the supplier can get burned if the waiver [my definition] is not granted, whereas the supplier can get out with a relatively whole skin if the deviation [my definition] is not granted.

Lots of interesting information in the above comments, but somewhere I seem to have missed the PPAP and First Article Inspection signoffs by the customer which should have been part of the Contract Review clauses which were important to both customer and supplier

I was dying to bring up PPAP, but this was not in the TS 16949 forum, so I could not assume it was required. A lot of people think PPAP is a waste of time, but this is one reason why I have always preferred to work in an industry that used them. Of course, they can be used against you, too: "This part did not look like the PPAP sample part!" Ouch!

Bottom line:
Fighting to get a customer to accept a part or pay for a part when the acceptance criteria were vague is a time-consuming process which might detract from obtaining other, profitable business. Don't believe ANYONE who says "it's not the money, it's the principle!" especially when his own lapses contributed to the SNAFU - that kind of attitude is what leads to a reputation as a "difficult" supplier. The only kind of supplier worse in a customer's eyes is a litigious supplier who takes every little hassle to court. Neither kind of supplier gets the kind of repeat business successful organizations need to thrive.

I agree - that was my point about leaping into the realm of 'marketing'. This is a good example of the difference between meeting the requirements (if in fact they had) and 'customer satisfaction". However, we know that if you let customers walk all over you in an attempt to keep them "satisfied", you can also scrap yourself right out of business.

I doubt if they are going to get a waiver if the customer already brought up that they did not like the part...

PPAP was not required. Sample parts and inspection reports were provided to the customer for "OK to run."
Turns out that the edge break measures at .011" on a small sample. Waiver has been granted.
Thanks for everyones' comments.
J Allen

Hex stock is pretty common for these types of parts. I am curious to know the root cause - raw material from mill, shipping, handling, etc?

Congrats on the waiver!

My customer does not like the rounded corners on parts manufactured from hex bar stock, but cannot provide specific rejection criteria.
I have 9/16" stainless hex bar to be used to make some standard parts. The corners are slightly rounded. This is how it was received from the mill.

The AN drawing does not provide a dimension from corner to corner. Only across the flats which are in tolerance. I cannot find any information in the raw material spec AMS-QQ-A-763 that addresses corner to corner.
I don't have a black and white answer that the part is non-conforming.

How do I convince the customer that the parts are acceptable?

This situation is problematic where a customer is vague on product requirements. Generally the customer will provide a specification at the time of quotation or wiil reference a requirement on their purchase order. Your remedy will depend on your relationship with this customer. Most will work with you to develop an agreed upon criteria. How the "discrepant"material is handled will be a matter of negotiation for replacement, credit, cost sharing, etc.

The occurrence of this situation can be minimized by having an effective Contract Review process. Aside from determining specified requirements, an effort should be made to learn from the customer the existence of any "unspecified requirements". I know, easier said than done. Sending an acknowledgment - before the customer cuts a P.O. - that includes a detailed description of the product or service you're providing will help draw out the type of feedback to keep both parties on the same page.
Good Luck.

This situation is problematic where a customer is vague on product requirements. Generally the customer will provide a specification at the time of quotation or will reference a requirement on their purchase order.

One lesson learned is that if you are going to rely on as received material conditions, you need to point it out on the print. If they need sharp corners, they need to know (via the quote) that it will have to be machined (milled, broached, etc.) and it will make a difference in the cost. You need to have a general callout in your tolerance block on machine products with radii for corners, minimum break edges, etc. to avoid these issues. Now you are stuck with the classic "general poor workmanship" customer rejection. Not good.


The occurrence of this situation can be minimized by having an effective Contract Review process. Aside from determining specified requirements, an effort should be made to learn from the customer the existence of any "unspecified requirements". I know, easier said than done. Sending an acknowledgment - before the customer cuts a P.O. - that includes a detailed description of the product or service you're providing will help draw out the type of feedback to keep both parties on the same page.


To be honest, you will never catch every little possible detail. Contract review is designed to catch as much as possible to make the rest of the process as painless as possible. But, you can't expect perfection.

That is the cool thing about automotive PPAP process is that approval process of the initial run gets everyone on the same page for real. Still...it's possible to miss something. Best effort, though...