While this position of "buy back" sounds like "that's the way it should 
be", in the real world of process yields and missed communications this 
business position will ultimately result in supplier switching, higher 
pricing and poor supplier relationships.
     No one can run an on going business selling an item for $10 that has 
process yields of 78% to 98% and a "buy back" liability on each one of $100 
or more for any found "defective".  We aren't buying labels and hardware 
here.

     Norm Dill
     [log in to unmask]
 ----------
From: TechNet-request
To: MarkRos; quality; Technet
Subject: Re: Liability
Date: Thursday, June 27, 1996 2:28PM

        Reply to:   RE>>Liability

Mark, et. al:

I would offer both concurrence and further support for your company's 
policy.
If a PCB supplier has certified that the boards have been electrically 
tested
and passed, the PCB vendor is responsible for all costs related to the
components on the PCB, assembly and test costs, etc. associated with the
manufacture of a discrepant assembly based on the defective PCB.  Further, 
our
policy stipulates that once the PCB vendor "buys" the assembly using the
defective PCB, if it is repairable, in compliance to IPC-A-610, latest
revision, and will pass electrical test diagnostics at the board level, we
will "buy" the board back at that same cost (i.e., repair at the PCB 
vendor's
expense).  That way, external trace opens and/or shorts can be repaired and
the assembly will not have to be scrapped.  External jumper wires not
documented by Engineering Change Order are NOT allowed on finished 
assemblies.

This position ultimately causes the PCB vendor to:
   a) focus on the problems of electrical test "escapes"
   b) holds the supplier accountable for the work they directly perform, and
   c) causes them to actively pursue continuous quality improvement to
minimize their scrap costs.

It is a matter for all vendors to take ownership of quality defects at the
point they are identified.

Bill Fabry
Truevision, Inc.

 --------------------------------------
Date: 6/27/96 12:59 PM
To: Bill Fabry
From: [log in to unmask]

>Date:  Thu, 27 Jun 1996 01:48:56 -0700 (PDT)
>From:  "Quality Dept. - Eltek Ltd." <[log in to unmask]>
>Sender:        [log in to unmask]
>To:    [log in to unmask]
>Subject:       Liability
>
>It is not exactly a technical issue but I hope someone will assist me.
>
>I would like to know what is the common practice, for PCB manufaturer
>liability, if boards found bad by the customer.
>
>There are several options for liability like:
>1. Replacement of PCB
>2. Compensation for components and labor invested in  assembly of PCB
>3. Compensation for indirect losses (i.e. loss of contract)
>
> etc.
>
>
>Is there any written codes?
>
>Your assistance will be appreciated
>
>Avner Drory
>
>
Our company in contract negotiations with our pcb suppliers states that the
vendor shall be responisble regardless of when the defect shows up.  For
instance if we find the boards after they are received in by our q.a.
department but before being stuffed, the vendor shall pay for the time it
took q.a. and receiving to check the board in and qulaify it, plus pay for
the shipping to return the board, or disposal cost if the vendor does not
wish to have them back.

If the boards get stuffed, waved soldered, tested and then fail, the vendor
can end up owing us for ALL LABOR COSTS INCURRED, i.e. big bucks, in fact on 

the scale of millions.

But if you wish to do business with us, you MUST abide by our terms.  And
yes we do have a roost full of corporate vultures, er I meant lawyers that
will hunt you down, kill your first born and make your life a living hell on 

earth.



 ------------------ RFC822 Header Follows ------------------
Received: by rainbow.truevision.com with SMTP;27 Jun 1996 12:52:14 -0800
Received: from ipc.org by simon.ipc.org via SMTP 
(940816.SGI.8.6.9/940406.SGI)
         id OAA06428; Thu, 27 Jun 1996 14:32:40 -0700
Resent-Date: Thu, 27 Jun 1996 14:32:40 -0700
Received: by ipc.org (Smail3.1.28.1 #2)
        id m0uZMbf-0000DEC; Thu, 27 Jun 96 14:19 CDT
Resent-Sender: [log in to unmask]
Old-Return-Path: <[log in to unmask]>
Message-Id: <[log in to unmask]>
X-Mailer: GNNmessenger 1.3
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 1996 15:13:35
From: [log in to unmask] ()
To: [log in to unmask], [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Liability
Resent-Message-ID: <"uICjz.0.cs6.Pxjqn"@ipc>
Resent-From: [log in to unmask]
X-Mailing-List: <[log in to unmask]> archive/latest/4901
X-Loop: [log in to unmask]
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: [log in to unmask]