TECHNET Archives

November 2017

TechNet@IPC.ORG

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Sender:
X-To:
TechNet E-Mail Forum <[log in to unmask]>, Larry Dzaugis <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Wed, 8 Nov 2017 21:31:20 +0000
Reply-To:
TechNet E-Mail Forum <[log in to unmask]>, "Stadem, Richard D" <[log in to unmask]>
Message-ID:
Subject:
From:
"Stadem, Richard D" <[log in to unmask]>
MIME-Version:
1.0
In-Reply-To:
Content-Transfer-Encoding:
base64
Content-Type:
text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (1 lines)
If the customer specified the problem part, then bill them for the additional costs.

If you are the contract assembler, why is this your responsibility?



-----Original Message-----

From: TechNet [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Larry Dzaugis

Sent: Wednesday, November 08, 2017 2:21 PM

To: [log in to unmask]

Subject: Re: [TN] Moisture-Sensitive PTH LEDs



Choices are:

Wait for the mfg to re-package, no guarantee when that will happen.

This is the long term solution. Are you a big enough customer for them to care?

There may be a price increase due to the change.



Use as is and rework as necessary. The potential early mortality escapes are a concern.

There is a cost for the rework and you may or not be responsible for infant mortality based on contract.



Bake the parts.

Known cost (from your description non trivial) and known results.

It is a PIA.



Decline the contract to deliver additional units.

Hurts the relationship with the customer whether internal or external.



Any other alternatives?


ATOM RSS1 RSS2