PPAP requirements - Supplier's supplier's quality certificate and IMDS documentation

[TedCambron]

Has anyone ever heard of Ford, GM, or Chrysler requiring information about a supplier's supplier's (that's not a typo) quality certificate and IMDS documentation? If you are going to reply with a lame catch all phrase like "if it's a customer specific requirement..." don't bother. This is just another reason why we'll never be able to compete with countries like China.

[Jim Wynne]

Originally Posted by TedCambron

Has anyone ever heard of Ford, GM, or Chrysler requiring information about a supplier's supplier's (that's not a typo) quality certificate and IMDS documentation? If you are going to reply with a lame catch all phrase like "if it's a customer specific requirement..." don't bother. This is just another reason why we'll never be able to compete with countries like China.

I think I sense a bit of frustration. I feel your pain, but I'm not sure that it always makes good sense to expect the Big Three to make good sense. Aside from whether or not customer requirements make sense, the requirements are all a matter of contract review, and contract review entails negotiations, and in the end, whatever is agreed to is what you have to do.

As far as sub-tier certifications are concerned, 16949 says:

Unless otherwise specified by the customer, suppliers to the organization shall be third party registered to ISO 9001:2000 by an accredited third-party certification body.

.

With regard to IMDS requirements, if the idea is to be able to track vehicle content, it makes sense that all content would be considered, no matter how far down in the supply chain it comes from.

[TedCambron]

I think I sense a bit of frustration. I feel your pain, but I'm not sure that it always makes good sense to expect the Big Three to make good sense. Aside from whether or not customer requirements make sense, the requirements are all a matter of contract review, and contract review entails negotiations, and in the end, whatever is agreed to is what you have to do.

Did you just suggest to tell the customer to take a hike because it's not in the original contract?

As far as sub-tier certifications are concerned, 16949 says:
Unless otherwise specified by the customer, suppliers to the organization shall be third party registered to ISO 9001:2000 by an accredited third-party certification body.

That's only if the organization is located in the USA. I know for a fact that this doesn't matter in Mexico.

With regard to IMDS requirements, if the idea is to be able to track vehicle content, it makes sense that all content would be considered, no matter how far down in the supply chain it comes from.

In other words you haven't experienced this yet.
What gets me is companies located in countries outside the USA seem to be exempt from any quality standard and making a lot of money doing it. While people in the states spend time and money making sure they comply to a standard only to have the company move overseas where it's basically a free for all.

[Jim Wynne]

Originally Posted by TedCambron

Did you just suggest to tell the customer to take a hike because it's not in the original contract?

If there's something the customer wants to do that's going to cost more money and it wasn't addressed in the original contractual pricing, you're within your rights to reopen the negotiations. How you address that right is a matter of judgement; each case is different and no one here can give you direct advice as to how to handle it.

Originally Posted by TedCambron

That's only if the organization is located in the USA. I know for a fact that this doesn't matter in Mexico.

I think I must have missed the part that says the requirement applies only to US companies. ISO/TS 16949 is an international standard.

Originally Posted by TedCambron

In other words you haven't experienced this yet.
What gets me is companies located in countries outside the USA seem to be exempt from any quality standard and making a lot of money doing it. While people in the states spend time and money making sure they comply to a standard only to have the company move overseas where it's basically a free for all.

I have certainly experienced the phenomenon of a customer making demands that weren't part of the original agreement. I'm not familiar with the exemption you're referring to; all of the automotive suppliers my company uses are registered to either QS 9000 or 16949, regardless of nationality. We don't require it, but I don't know of any that aren't registered to one standard or the other.

[TedCambron]

If there's something the customer wants to do that's going to cost more money and it wasn't addressed in the original contractual pricing, you're within your rights to reopen the negotiations. How you address that right is a matter of judgement; each case is different and no one hear can give you direct advice as to how to handle it.

Let's talk about PPAP requirements in reality.

I think I must have missed the part that says the requirement applies only to US companies. ISO/TS 16949 is an international standard.

It's in the end, between the lines.

have certainly experienced the phenomenon of a customer making demands that weren't part of the original agreement. I'm not familiar with the exemption you're referring to; all of the automotive suppliers my company uses are registered to either QS 9000 or 16949, regardless of nationality. We don't require it, but I don't know of any that aren't registered to one standard or the other.

What?

[IEGeek]

To discuss PPAP requirements in reality is a difficult task to say the least.

We are a TS16949 registered company located in the US. 95% of our suppliers are in the US and they are certified to one standard or another.

For specific PPAP reqs. I am going to point you to the "AIAG Production Part Approval Process" booklet 3rd Edition. It outlines which specific Tier 1's require what. Ford is different from Chrysler which is different from GM. Here is another wrinkle:

Our Tier 1 has decided that our forms (straight from the book) are not good enough and want us to use theirs. Essentially it is the same, however theirs include a lot more space for their internal buy-off and signatories.

So no matter what you are trying to achieve, the customer will dictate what you are supposed to do.

TS16949 is an international standard and I would think you would be hard pressed to find a company anywhere that supplies to the "Big Boys" and does not meet a standard or have a plan for implementation of a standard.

[Howard Atkins]

Quote: I think I must have missed the part that says the requirement applies only to US companies. ISO/TS 16949 is an international standard.

Originally Posted by TedCambron

It's in the end, between the lines.

I am sorry that you are so frustrated but I work with many companies that are working with the automotive industry and are not US companies and all know that all suppliers MUST be ISO9001:2000 or have customer waivers. The registration audits also check this.The customers who waive are the US who allow QS9000 for those who have not implemented ISO9001:2000, a state which you will find does not exist in Europe.

Originally Posted by TedCambron

Has anyone ever heard of Ford, GM, or Chrysler requiring information about a supplier's supplier's (that's not a typo) quality certificate and IMDS documentation? If you are going to reply with a lame catch all phrase like "if it's a customer specific requirement..." don't bother. This is just another reason why we'll never be able to compete with countries like China.

To supply any IMDS, GMW3059 declaration etc the easiest way is to use your suppliers declaration

I am afraid that you are barking up the wrong tree

[TedCambron]

Durring a tour at a GM facility I noticed material that came from a place I had a connection. The material did not originated from a TS certified supplier and it did come from overseas. This was a year ago. Have things changed? Not. I only deal with the facts not what's supposed to be.