Can I take exception to Clause 7.5.1.4 Post Delivery Support?

[Koala]

Sidney,
Thank you. I appreciate your time.

[nacnack]

Good day, I understand the concept of post delivery support as applied to organizations that warranty their products but what about organizations (Forging Houses) that do not warranty their products shipped but perform rework on RMA returns and send them back to the customer. They don't contract warranty work but they ship returned (RMA rejects) products though rework? they seem to be providing a post delivery support activity and parts of 7.5.1.4 are applicable. If they were taking the RMA's and remelting the product back in production and shipping a new product then I believe 7.5.1.4 would not be applicable. But the confusing part of non warranty items are those that are customer rejected, the organization reworked and returned back to the customer, this seems to me a post delivery support. I see 7.5.1.4 a, b & c as applicable ?

[Big Jim]

In Reply to Parent Post by nacnack

Good day, I understand the concept of post delivery support as applied to organizations that warranty their products but what about organizations (Forging Houses) that do not warranty their products shipped but perform rework on RMA returns and send them back to the customer. They don't contract warranty work but they ship returned (RMA rejects) products though rework? they seem to be providing a post delivery support activity and parts of 7.5.1.4 are applicable. If they were taking the RMA's and remelting the product back in production and shipping a new product then I believe 7.5.1.4 would not be applicable. But the confusing part of non warranty items are those that are customer rejected, the organization reworked and returned back to the customer, this seems to me a post delivery support. I see 7.5.1.4 a, b & c as applicable ?

In my opinion, that is warranty.

Remember that 7.5.1.4 is one of those "as applicable" requirements. It is applied "as applicable". That makes it one of those clauses that you could claim as exclusion to if you can properly justify it, but you don't have to. You have more flexibility if you don't exclude it.

[Sidney Vianna]

In Reply to Parent Post by nacnack

Good day, I understand the concept of post delivery support as applied to organizations that warranty their products but what about organizations (Forging Houses) that do not warranty their products shipped but perform rework on RMA returns and send them back to the customer. They don't contract warranty work but they ship returned (RMA rejects) products though rework? they seem to be providing a post delivery support activity and parts of 7.5.1.4 are applicable. If they were taking the RMA's and remelting the product back in production and shipping a new product then I believe 7.5.1.4 would not be applicable. But the confusing part of non warranty items are those that are customer rejected, the organization reworked and returned back to the customer, this seems to me a post delivery support. I see 7.5.1.4 a, b & c as applicable ?

In my opinion, that is not post delivery support. It is rework, plain and simple. And, if this type of rework is happening frequently, this organization has a significant problem, because, in the aviation, space & defense sector, shipment of non conforming products, also known as quality escapes, is a major no-no. I would be much more concerned with the reasons behind this supplier apparent inability to prevent the delivery of defective products.

In my opinion, it is irrelevant to determine if the "concept of warranty" applies or not. One could say that delivery only happens after CONFORMING products were shipped. If the customer was doing source inspection, rather than inspecting the parts at their site, the items would have not been delivered until the rework had been done.

By the way, forgings are not melted nor remelted; those are called castings.

[Big Jim]

In Reply to Parent Post by prototyper

IMO (Control of nonconforming product)- including after delivery, and handled as necessary, is implied warranty!

I concur. If that isn't a warranty, I wasted three semesters of business law in college.

[Sidney Vianna]

In Reply to Parent Post by Big Jim

I concur. If that isn't a warranty, I wasted three semesters of business law in college.

Despite the IAQG 9100:2009 clarification requirements document mention to warranty on this clause of the AS9100 standard, I still don't understand the relevance of this to the on-going discussion.

I believe each and every customer would expect the products being delivered to be in conformance with the procurement specifications. A supplier that fails to deliver on-spec products is obviously expected to rectify/correct the situation. To that effect, it is a generally implied expectation that "warranty" exists in every business transaction out there.

[Big Jim]

In Reply to Parent Post by Sidney Vianna

Despite the IAQG 9100:2009 clarification requirements document mention to warranty on this clause of the AS9100 standard, I still don't understand the relevance of this to the on-going discussion.

I believe each and every customer would expect the products being delivered to be in conformance with the procurement specifications. A supplier that fails to deliver on-spec products is obviously expected to rectify/correct the situation. To that effect, it is a generally implied expectation that "warranty" exists in every business transaction out there.

It pretty much does. Companies may try to limit their exposure with stipulated limits to their warranties, but there are still things that customers can and sometime do seek redress for that are outside of those stipulated warranties.

Besides, simply stating that we will make adjustments when something doesn't meet specs IS a warranty. Warranties don't start AFTER ACCEPTANCE.

[Sidney Vianna]

In Reply to Parent Post by Big Jim

Besides, simply stating that we will make adjustments when something doesn't meet specs IS a warranty. Warranties don't start AFTER ACCEPTANCE.

OK, Jim. So, please explain one thing: Based on what you just said above, "implied warranty" always exists. And, based on what I understood from you, if there is (implied or otherwise) warranty, then 7.5.1.4 MUST be applicable. However, you had previously said that

In Reply to Parent Post by Big Jim

Remember that 7.5.1.4 is one of those "as applicable" requirements. It is applied "as applicable". That makes it one of those clauses that you could claim as exclusion to if you can properly justify it, but you don't have to.

So, can you describe a scenario where 7.5.1.4 would be justifiably excluded from the QMS, vis a vis your take on "implied warranty"? I don't see how both positions can co-exist in a coherent manner.