Customer requesting AS9102 Rev C inspection for lots previously accepted at Rev B

[greatwhitebuffalo]

I received an email from a customer stating that they are "rejecting" an FAI that was done on a recurring part number in 2021 because it was done to AS9102 Rev B. There has not been a lapse in manufacturing long enough to warrant a new FAI, nor any change in processes that should trigger one based on my understanding of the standard. This customer has hit me up in the past suggesting that we change all Rev B inspections that were previously done to the new Rev C format. I've always thought that the Rev change should be viewed as a "line in the sand" and working backwards seems like nothing more than a good way to waste resources. I've thought about requesting a new PO with the FAI line item added as we don't do these things for free, but I really was looking for advice or suggestions on how to handle this going forward. Some of these Rev B inspections (about 60 of them) are going to have part-rev changes, or lapses long enough in production to warrant a new FAI anyway (which will of course be to Rev C). What say the covers about working backwards?

 

[Kronos147]

I would say "we are happy to do that. Of course, our $500 FAIR fee applies to all updated FAIR's."

 

[Mike S.]

I'd say your customer is an @$$#*&% but as Kronos said, tell them you'll re-do them for a fee. If the customer thinks there is value in a stupid exercise like that they should be happy to pay for it.