Can a company refuse a Corrective Action Request from a Customer?

In the short version, if a company is issued a CAR by a customer that it feels is entirely unwarranted, how does it respond?
in the longer version - (Background):
Customer has company performing a cutting operation on its material. It then takes the material and assembles it into a product.
Customer has supplied the company with a dxf file to feed the cutting machine. There are no dimensions on the dxf file, only a part shape.
The parts are pieces of a larger structure made by a major manufacturer (the customers' customer. The final customer has prints with critical tolerances. Company cutting the parts does not have these prints.
Customer is now advising that pieces are out of tolerance and requires a CAR to send its end-user.
Company only quoted and cut based on supplied dxf files. If it accepts prints now, it is not what was quoted.
Company wishes to simply refuse CAR as inapplicable.
Any ideas? (and yes Jim, new quotes I assume will follow!)
 
K

KathySmith

If you?re the only supplier, I guess you can ignore it, but make sure all your bosses are driving this and on board. In automotive, many customers simply take an unauthorized credit, some don't even care if you complete their CAR. I would take the CAR, advise the customer you?re conducting a thorough root cause analysis, and bug the customer for all evidence and information. Then lay out your case in this CAR?s response. I sent back many "NA?s" on many customer CAR's we deemed not our fault and "we don't know what they did to cause their problems? CAR. I usually don't get into their business. It just creates more chances of them trapping you into responsibility. Maintain the moral high ground so if you get screwed this go around (they are the paying customer) you already prepped for the next time they call on this problem. Similar to RMA, just because you?ve given a customer an RMA it does not mean you are admitting fault, or completing their CAR, you are not admitting fault. It can be a customer service to get the scrap out of their plant or a chance to get the evidence back home while you are putting together the CAR response. In the CAR exercise, I?m sure you will uncover some ways your organization can help prevent quality issues for this customer.
 
Thanks Jim, that was my knee jerk reaction, but sometimes I need to cool down a bit and be more diplomatic. I wanted to float this to see what other people would do in that situation. It sounds like the customer wants to throw the company under the bus to maintain its standing with the end-user. I would want to mitigate that somewhat, but as you said, it depends on the relationship desired with the customer, and that is not something I am privy to.
 
D

db

Assuming there's no need for kid-glove diplomacy, you can give them a CA report that accurately describes the situation, just as you described it above. If they don't like that, ask for help from them in finding the root cause of a problem that they created.

This is slightly :topic:, but it has application. I had a client that kept getting CARs for late shipments. But the shipments were late because the customer kept getting on credit hold. My client sent back a CAR with a root cause of "Customer does not pay invoices in timely manner, resulting in Credit Hold". The customer did not send any additional CARs about late shipments.

As Jim pointed out, you might want to ask their assistance in finding a root cause. Getting snarky with customers (as my client did) might not be too fruitful.
 

Wes Bucey

Prophet of Profit
I agree the request for corrective action should be honored.
I also agree the root cause should be laid at the feet of the dxf file and that corrective action should consist of new contract at new price including dimensioned prints and an "admission" that hogheavenfarm's organization "may" have erred in not requesting more specific requirements for acceptance of product which would include the requirements of the applicable links in the downstream supply chain.

IN NO EVENT WOULD I ALLOW hogheaven's CUSTOMER TO CHARGE BACK FOR NONCONFORMING PRODUCT SINCE hogheavenfarm's ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA DID NOT INCLUDE DIMENSIONS.

The whole corrective action report should skew toward painting hogheavenfarm's organization as extremely concerned that its customer did not provide them with all pertinent data to help the customer satisfy its customer.
 
P

PEG123

Be diplomatic by answering the CAR with the information that you stated in your post. The person sending the CAR from the customer may not be privy to the information you have, they are just the messenger. You will probably be doing them a big favor by stating what you know so they can then follow the trail to the next level of root cause. You might also need to conference call over to them to make sure they understand your response after you send it to them.
 
Very true Peg, I will keep that in mind. This (new) QA director they have is doing his job as I am doing mine. I am sure I have much more info on this than he is aware of. This seems to be typical of projects that have been ongoing for many years and then someone or something changes and everyone scrambles to find out why it was never done correctly in the beginning.
I found it odd that there was never any customer FAI or even PSI at the start, but this was over a decade ago, and maybe that was not the norm. It is now.
Wes, the CAR will be tricky, as the customer has indicated they will be sending our response to the final customer, so I have to tread carefully here. If I say we did not have [any] dimensions on the dxf, it could call into question all product made for over a decade. It could impact our customer as well.
Obviously our customer did not flow down any requirements, and we proceeded to make product according to the stated PO terms (per the dxf), so we all know what happened, just not a good thing to say out loud.
The joys of being quality director!
Anyway, I have a tactful plan for the CAR, so we will see what happens. Thank you all for your thoughts, I value them.
 

Wes Bucey

Prophet of Profit
Very true Peg, I will keep that in mind. This (new) QA director they have is doing his job as I am doing mine. I am sure I have much more info on this than he is aware of. This seems to be typical of projects that have been ongoing for many years and then someone or something changes and everyone scrambles to find out why it was never done correctly in the beginning.
I found it odd that there was never any customer FAI or even PSI at the start, but this was over a decade ago, and maybe that was not the norm. It is now.
Wes, the CAR will be tricky, as the customer has indicated they will be sending our response to the final customer, so I have to tread carefully here. If I say we did not have [any] dimensions on the dxf, it could call into question all product made for over a decade. It could impact our customer as well.
Obviously our customer did not flow down any requirements, and we proceeded to make product according to the stated PO terms (per the dxf), so we all know what happened, just not a good thing to say out loud.
The joys of being quality director!
Anyway, I have a tactful plan for the CAR, so we will see what happens. Thank you all for your thoughts, I value them.
I agree the wording needs to be diplomatic.

KEEP IN MIND (when writing the report):
Factually and legally, the previous production lots were obviously conforming to fit and function, if not the exact dimensional form in the OEM print and were thus deemed "accepted" or "waived" since the finished products at the OEM had no reported failures traced back to the nonconforming part made by hogheavenfarm's organization. There should be no reason to declare previous production into question and recall.

May I suggest that you first have a frank verbal exchange with the new quality director at your customer and collaborate with him on how best to frame the language of the CAR to put the root cause in the language which will emphasize the fit and function acceptability of all previous production. After all, what you have told us so far is merely that the parts are out of tolerance, NOT that they don't fit. It could very well be the tolerances are tighter than necessary for fit and function of the part.
 
Top Bottom