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]