Part Submission Warrant (PSW) dispute

G

gp7000

#11
Thanks for the advice again. Yes, we're trying to learn lessons from this case and understand the general principles.

Of course, right now the supplier is willing to bear half of the loss but our upper management doesn't agree. It wants the supplier to absorb all the loss because the failure is for sure due to supplier's nonconformance to the spec.

I agree with you that we should treat the supplier as an ally and jointly look for the root cause of the failure. However our upper management wants to enforce the general principles to the supplier so that they will learn a hard lesson as well. The supplier is offshore and quality control isn't as strictly enforced as in U.S. even it is certified by TUV and audited by our QA team.
If they continue to think their nonconformance to spec doesn't expose them any liability, they wouldn't take the lesson very seriously. As I mentioned earlier, if the loss is very big, our company will sue the supplier for sure.
Therefore if our supplier understands that by signing PSW it is liable for any nonconformance to spec, they would be very careful. Many people in our organization strongly believe that the supplier would lose the case had we taken it to the court. I believe too. Do you?
 
Elsmar Forum Sponsor

Wes Bucey

Quite Involved in Discussions
#12
gp7000 said:
Thanks for the advice again. Yes, we're trying to learn lessons from this case and understand the general principles.

Of course, right now the supplier is willing to bear half of the loss but our upper management doesn't agree. It wants the supplier to absorb all the loss because the failure is for sure due to supplier's nonconformance to the spec.

I agree with you that we should treat the supplier as an ally and jointly look for the root cause of the failure. However our upper management wants to enforce the general principles to the supplier so that they will learn a hard lesson as well. The supplier is offshore and quality control isn't as strictly enforced as in U.S. even it is certified by TUV and audited by our QA team.
If they continue to think their nonconformance to spec doesn't expose them any liability, they wouldn't take the lesson very seriously. As I mentioned earlier, if the loss is very big, our company will sue the supplier for sure.
Therefore if our supplier understands that by signing PSW it is liable for any nonconformance to spec, they would be very careful. Many people in our organization strongly believe that the supplier would lose the case had we taken it to the court. I believe too. Do you?
I guess it would depend on which venue the case is brought. If the supplier is offshore, are you going to be able to enforce any judgment?

I think your managers are being too myopic here. If they dealt with an off-shore supplier to save money, they sure didn't do much to protect themselves did they? If I were a stockholder, I'd be more interested in getting good product to sell rather than be distracted by a relatively minor issue like this. The only lesson a lawsuit will bring is for the supplier to dump you as a customer. Life is too short to deal with a litigious customer. Some surgeons subscribe to blacklists of known litigious patients and refuse to take them as new patients. Is that the kind of reputation your bosses want with off-shore suppliers?

Plainly, bluster and loud voices don't win trials. Saying a thing is true doesn't make it true. If it were my call, I would gladly accept the 50% offer, since both customer and supplier have blame. Why pay for a costly lawsuit to decide how much? The rule in civil cases is that if a judge or jury finds partial liability for each party, the judgment is split that way. Hence if a guy jaywalking across the street gets hit by a driver who was distracted because he was talking on a cell phone, a judge or jury might reasonably say each was liable to the same degree and require each party to pay half the cost.

We are starting to stray into the area where companies pay me big bucks for helping determine strategy and I will have to limit my answers from here on. I have been as forthcoming as I could under the circumstances.
 

Jim Wynne

Staff member
Admin
#13
gp7000 said:
Therefore if our supplier understands that by signing PSW it is liable for any nonconformance to spec, they would be very careful. Many people in our organization strongly believe that the supplier would lose the case had we taken it to the court. I believe too. Do you?
This seems to be open and shut insofar as the value of the parts themselves is concerned. You clearly specified plating that wasn't done. The supplier warranted that it was done. You accepted the supplier's warrant in good faith. No contest.

Now: liability for damage done that you might claim was due to the plating (or lack thereof) is another issue. As Wes suggested, you would need to be able to show that the supplier's failure to properly plate the parts was the cause, to the exclusion of other possible causes, which would be an expensive proposition. I will also agree with Wes when he tells you that litigation should be your last resort. Unless there is lots of money involved, it rarely does anything except leave everyone wishing they hadn't done it. Everyone except the lawyers.
 
G

gp7000

#14
After over 10 posts I'm still very confused.

Let's forget about litigation and let's forget about the difficulty of taking litigation against offshore supplier. We understand this very well. No brain there.

However, the tricky part is the conclusion of this case. Given the situation, I just want a clear statement of your position. I believe that the conclusion from this case would be helpful to many subscribers of this forum.

JSW05 in the very beginning told me that "the supplier should be responsible for the nonconforming parts".

Now the new message of "... No contest" confused me. Did you change your position now? Do you still think it's the supplier to blame?

As for Wes' replies, I can't understand exactly his position. From his last message, he seems to suggest both sides should be blamed. Why should we get blamed? Is it because we didn't request the plating certificate?

I think the clear-cut positions are one of the following:
1. supplier to blame;
2. customer to blame;
3. both to blame.

I take 1. What about you? Let's make it short and simple.
 

Wes Bucey

Quite Involved in Discussions
#15
gp7000 said:
After over 10 posts I'm still very confused.

Let's forget about litigation and let's forget about the difficulty of taking litigation against offshore supplier. We understand this very well. No brain there.

However, the tricky part is the conclusion of this case. Given the situation, I just want a clear statement of your position. I believe that the conclusion from this case would be helpful to many subscribers of this forum.

JSW05 in the very beginning told me that "the supplier should be responsible for the nonconforming parts".

Now the new message of "... No contest" confused me. Did you change your position now? Do you still think it's the supplier to blame?

As for Wes' replies, I can't understand exactly his position. From his last message, he seems to suggest both sides should be blamed. Why should we get blamed? Is it because we didn't request the plating certificate?

I think the clear-cut positions are one of the following:
1. supplier to blame;
2. customer to blame;
3. both to blame.

I take 1. What about you? Let's make it short and simple.
As I wrote - we are getting into the area where folks pay me big bucks to help them determine strategy.

Look at the situation from the supplier's point of view - he took it on faith from HIS supplier (as you did) that the plating was according to spec. He is shocked and dismayed to learn months after delivery that a problem has cropped up. There is no proof yet that the plating is to blame (lots of smoke - no proof for court, yet), but if it is, your supplier has been done dirty by the plating supplier. You are dealing in a foreign country. Problems in translation could occur anywhere along the line. As the customer, you should have anticipated such problems and put in failsafe measures to protect yourself against such errors. If you go to trial, the supplier may be able to successfully shift blame to plater who probably does not have deep pockets to defend at trial, let alone pay a judgment. Depending on what country the suppliers are in, they might just as easily close up shop under one name and reopen under a new name five minutes later, leaving plaintiff sucking gas.

I'm telling you the pragmatic approach. If some big exec in your company has his ego on the line for OKAYing the off shore outsource, he's really the guy who should be taking the heat for not :ca: for the customer in this deal in advance.

I'm giving you as straight and pragmatic advice as I would give for my normal fee. You may not be high enough on the totem pole to know all the egos on the line here, but I assure you the ostensible purpose of teaching the supplier a "lesson" is smoke blowing up someone's nether regions. The harshest lesson would be to take the sop of half the money and drop the supplier from the approved list. Anything else has no further benefit to the customer.
 

Jim Wynne

Staff member
Admin
#16
gp7000 said:
JSW05 in the very beginning told me that "the supplier should be responsible for the nonconforming parts".
I'm still saying that.

Now the new message of "... No contest" confused me. Did you change your position now? Do you still think it's the supplier to blame?
Who are you asking? I never said anything about "blame." Forget about blame. Blame is for losers.

As for Wes' replies, I can't understand exactly his position. From his last message, he seems to suggest both sides should be blamed. Why should we get blamed? Is it because we didn't request the plating certificate?
Wes has already responded, but I'll add that it appears that there is indeed some responsibility on both sides, and I'm not contradicting myself in saying that. Part of the risk involved in this sort of offshore purchase is inherent in the distances involved. The supplier knows exactly how far away he is, believe me. And he also knows that your company came to his in the beginning for one reason: price. And he also knows that people who are concerned primarily with price are often ignorant (or daring) when it comes to cost. He has you over a barrel at this point, I'm afraid, but someone should have seen it coming.

I think the clear-cut positions are one of the following:
1. supplier to blame;
2. customer to blame;
3. both to blame.

I take 1. What about you? Let's make it short and simple.
OK--short and simple.
1) The supplier is responsible for not making the parts to print, regardless of sub-tier screwups. This is unequivocal and undeniable, and I don't charge anyone big bucks for common knowledge.
2) Good luck collecting.
 
G

gp7000

#17
Thanks JSW05. You made yourself very clear and I like your style and also happen to agree with you.

Wes, you ducked my question again. I'm not sure if you're required not taking any firm position because you're hired by some folks.

I can assure you that the plating is to blame since our analysis shows no lead and copper in the plating. No contest here. Plus supplier agreed their wrong doing too. Or let me put it this way. Let's assume it's proved that the plating is to blame for the moment.

We don't need to translate the spec since the supplier isn't a small shop. Even if it shifted the blame to the plater, it still has to take the responsibility since we don't do business with the plater.

Also the case has nothing to do with ego. We're trying to clarify some general principle in the business world.

I do like you one last advice. We may need to drop the supplier. However, we have a few ongoing projects with this supplier, dropping it takes some time.

What we really try to achieve is to let the supplier understand that in principle it should take this responsibility and could lose in the court if it doesn't learn lesson from this case (assuming there is no cross border barrier for legal litigation). Of course we'll take extra steps in jointly working with offshore suppliers and continue to improve our QA procedure.
 

Wes Bucey

Quite Involved in Discussions
#18
JSW05 said:
2) Good luck collecting.
Absolutely the one thing Jim and I agree on!

I normally get hired by Boards of Directors or Creditor committees to look at mistakes made WITHIN the corporation which allowed the corporation to get into a mess. Then to give advice on how to get out of trouble with as whole a skin as possible. I won't take the job if there are any sacred cows who are "off limits." Everything you are telling me about the attitude of your managers suggests they think they are sacred cows and off limits. Would the Board of Directors or a stockholder's committee have the same blinders? Maybe, but I doubt it. You are caught in an untenable position and I sympathize with the stress and pressure you must face each day. You are not the first to be caught in the middle, nor will you be the last.

If I seem callous, it is because every issue you face could have been prevented by a strict Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (FMEA) at the beginning which included "what if the supplier misinterprets the requirements?"

Add to that a cross-functional team which could have done a very thorough Contract Review, which might have included requesting certificates of ANALYSIS, not just Certificates of Conformance, because many organizations merely consider a C of C as meaningless boilerplate without real consequences.

During engineering, FMEA, or Contract Review, certain critical characteristics necessary for fit or function should have been identified and made clear to all parties in the supply chain.

Note none of these items are my own creation. These activities have been prescribed in thousands of situations and formally incorporated in Military Standards from 60 years ago, upon which many current Quality Assessment procedures are based.

In another thread, I wrote about the idiocy of a foreign manufacturer who made a very functional stainless steel whistling teakettle I acquired. Imagine my consternation to discover the whistling cap had an unplated plain steel rivet which oxidized badly in the first weeks I had the kettle. My correction was to drill the offending rivet out and replace it with a proper stainless steel fastener. There was no corrective action or preventive action because I have no way of contacting the original manufacturer to offer a suggestion for CA/PA, having thrown the original carton out the first day. The carton clearly said "100% stainless steel" - the equivalent of a certificate of conformance. However, there were no certificates of analysis nor results of a salt spray test nor even a test with distilled water (from steam) which is more damaging than plain tap water in oxidizing plain steel.

If I were to follow the theory of your bosses, I would file suit against my brother-in-law, who was my supplier.
 
#19
gp7000 said:
I think the clear-cut positions are one of the following:
1. supplier to blame;
2. customer to blame;
3. both to blame.
I take 1. What about you? Let's make it short and simple.
I take 3.
The supplier provided you with parts not to print. You tested them and couldn't tell the difference and so approved them. 1 ball/1 strike
gp7000 said:
The reason could be oxidation.
Bingo! Tin oxide doesn't weld or solder as well as tin. Tin/lead alloy plating is not nearly as sensitive to improper storage (allow parts to oxidize = 2 strikes for you).
I also agree with Wes:
Wes Bucey said:
The harshest lesson would be to take the sop of half the money and drop the supplier from the approved list. Anything else has no further benefit to the customer.
You should both learn a lesson from this. Trust but verify! A discussion, up front, with the supplier about the Key Characteristics of this part would have saved you a lot of trouble. If you weren't clear, strike 3. In the end you are SOLELY responsible for sending good parts to YOUR customer.
 
B

Bigfoot

#20
Wes Bucey said:
Absolutely the one thing Jim and I agree on!

I normally get hired by Boards of Directors or Creditor committees to look at mistakes made WITHIN the corporation which allowed the corporation to get into a mess. Then to give advice on how to get out of trouble with as whole a skin as possible. I won't take the job if there are any sacred cows who are "off limits." Everything you are telling me about the attitude of your managers suggests they think they are sacred cows and off limits. Would the Board of Directors or a stockholder's committee have the same blinders? Maybe, but I doubt it. You are caught in an untenable position and I sympathize with the stress and pressure you must face each day. You are not the first to be caught in the middle, nor will you be the last.

If I seem callous, it is because every issue you face could have been prevented by a strict Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (FMEA) at the beginning which included "what if the supplier misinterprets the requirements?"

Add to that a cross-functional team which could have done a very thorough Contract Review, which might have included requesting certificates of ANALYSIS, not just Certificates of Conformance, because many organizations merely consider a C of C as meaningless boilerplate without real consequences.

During engineering, FMEA, or Contract Review, certain critical characteristics necessary for fit or function should have been identified and made clear to all parties in the supply chain.

Note none of these items are my own creation. These activities have been prescribed in thousands of situations and formally incorporated in Military Standards from 60 years ago, upon which many current Quality Assessment procedures are based.

In another thread, I wrote about the idiocy of a foreign manufacturer who made a very functional stainless steel whistling teakettle I acquired. Imagine my consternation to discover the whistling cap had an unplated plain steel rivet which oxidized badly in the first weeks I had the kettle. My correction was to drill the offending rivet out and replace it with a proper stainless steel fastener. There was no corrective action or preventive action because I have no way of contacting the original manufacturer to offer a suggestion for CA/PA, having thrown the original carton out the first day. The carton clearly said "100% stainless steel" - the equivalent of a certificate of conformance. However, there were no certificates of analysis nor results of a salt spray test nor even a test with distilled water (from steam) which is more damaging than plain tap water in oxidizing plain steel.

If I were to follow the theory of your bosses, I would file suit against my brother-in-law, who was my supplier.
Very well said Wes. The question of responsibility for the nonconforming parts is the supplier who submitted a PPAP which is a statement of conformance to all specifications. Depending on what was communicated to them during the APQP process in conjunction with the terms & conditions specified in the PO, their liability may be limited to only replacing the parts. We don't have enough information here to make a call on this.

gp7000 said:
As for Wes' replies, I can't understand exactly his position. From his last message, he seems to suggest both sides should be blamed. Why should we get blamed? Is it because we didn't request the plating certificate?

I think the clear-cut positions are one of the following:
1. supplier to blame;
2. customer to blame;
3. both to blame.
I pick #3 - IMHO - It appears that a lack of due diligence on the part of the Customer has contributed to this situation. :2cents:

As I stated earlier in this post the PPAP is a declaration of conformance to all specifications. :soap: Many companies look at the APQP & PPAP process as something that Quality guys have to do before they can ship parts, instead of their opportunity to identify potential issues and work to eliminate them. This is something that needs to be clearly understood by the management team. They have culpability for this because they are supplying the assembled part, along with having accepted the responsibility for the Quality Planning processes that are needed for their supply base when they selected the supplier.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
J Part submission warrant for Level 1 PPAP APQP and PPAP 1
J PSW (Part Submission Warrant) and Design Requirements APQP and PPAP 14
S Looking for a PPAP PSW, Part Submission Warrant, in Chinese APQP and PPAP 5
Moncia Part Submission Warrant - Customer Requirements for PSW Submission APQP and PPAP 7
D PSW (Part Submission Warrant) Question for Part Number Change APQP and PPAP 9
V Safety and/or Government Regulation question on a PSW (Part Submission Warrant) APQP and PPAP 6
V Is it OK to put 2 Part Numbers on 1 PSW (Part Submission Warrant)? APQP and PPAP 12
V What has more weight: Master Print or Part Submission Warrant? APQP and PPAP 4
A Does the PSW (Part Submission Warrant) need to be a controlled document? APQP and PPAP 7
automoto PPAP Forms - Part Submission (Warrant) form .xls Document Control Systems, Procedures, Forms and Templates 2
E PSW (Part Submission Warrant) for Service Parts APQP and PPAP 4
P PPAP Approval - Customer approval of PSW (part submission warrant) APQP and PPAP 5
S Material Supplier Part Submission Warrant (PSW) APQP and PPAP 2
I Confused on PPAP re-submission - Help on PSW (Part Submission Warrant) APQP and PPAP 3
M Spanish PSW (Part Submission Warrant) Needed APQP and PPAP 8
W Better Understanding of PSW (Part Submission Warrant) APQP and PPAP 7
B New PSW (Part Submission Warrant) - 4th Edition PPAP Manual APQP and PPAP 38
S Can anybody tell me what the legal status of the Part Submission warrant (PSW) is? APQP and PPAP 3
D Seeking CURRENT PPAP Part Submission Warrant APQP and PPAP 7
M Part Submission Warrant - Omitting Parts of APQP and PPAP 5
D Truck Industry Part Submission Warrant APQP and PPAP 6
G Gage R&R - Where am I going wrong? Part of a FAIR submission (Aerospace) Gage R&R (GR&R) and MSA (Measurement Systems Analysis) 2
JoCam Approving a Test House on a Medical Device as a part of a 510k Submission 21 CFR Part 820 - US FDA Quality System Regulations (QSR) 3
S Is a Quality Manual part of a 510k Submission? Other US Medical Device Regulations 1
C Who in the supplier organization has to sign the PSW (Part Submission Warranty)? APQP and PPAP 6
P Part Submission Form - Need to submit PSW only once? APQP and PPAP 5
T Who signs PSW's? (PPAP Part Submission Warrants) APQP and PPAP 1
shimonv Bench Testing as part of 510(k) Submission US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 1
B Salary Requirements as part of initial resume/CV submission Career and Occupation Discussions 13
B Quality Stand Down form - Part of a PPAP submission to Johnson Controls Document Control Systems, Procedures, Forms and Templates 12
C New PPAP submission required when changing part number? APQP and PPAP 11
J PPAP (Production Part Approval Process) Submission Level Differences - Forms attached APQP and PPAP 17
W PPAP (Production Part Approval Process) - Clarify When submission is required APQP and PPAP 10
S Clean room not part of my certification ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 0
A MDR ANNEX XI part A or Part B EU Medical Device Regulations 0
K How to handle GTINs for different configurations of one device with one part number? Other Medical Device Related Standards 0
A 60601-1 : Integrated Dry ECG Electrodes = 2 Patient connections inside 1 applied part? IEC 60601 - Medical Electrical Equipment Safety Standards Series 5
E Zero part to part variation - Gage R&R project Gage R&R (GR&R) and MSA (Measurement Systems Analysis) 15
0 To which part of 13485 does this refer? ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 3
D Separation of F-type applied part and remaining parts IEC 60601 - Medical Electrical Equipment Safety Standards Series 7
V Part selection for R&R studies Gage R&R (GR&R) and MSA (Measurement Systems Analysis) 1
S ISO 9001:2015 vs 21 CFR Part 211 matrix Pharmaceuticals (21 CFR Part 210, 21 CFR Part 211 and related Regulations) 0
D CFR Title 14: Aeronautics and Space PART 120—DRUG AND ALCOHOL TESTING PROGRAM Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Standards and Requirements 3
D Is PMCF really a continuous activity per Annex XIV,Part B? EU Medical Device Regulations 5
M 21 CFR 820 vs 21CFR820 vs 21 CFR Part 820 Document Control Systems, Procedures, Forms and Templates 3
N BF-type applied part MOPP vs secondary IEC 60601 - Medical Electrical Equipment Safety Standards Series 2
D Relabelling a component that will be sold as a spare part - Do I become legal manufacturer? EU Medical Device Regulations 2
T Single Fault Condition IEC 60601 Clause 8.7.1 shorting Cr/Cl in Patient Applied Part IEC 60601 - Medical Electrical Equipment Safety Standards Series 7
D Partial FAI - AS9102 - One single drawing has 10 part numbers AS9100, IAQG, NADCAP and Aerospace related Standards and Requirements 5
Anonymous16-2 21 CFR Part 11 - Steps to take if we want to validate an electronic system Pharmaceuticals (21 CFR Part 210, 21 CFR Part 211 and related Regulations) 2

Similar threads

Top Bottom