Unconfirmed Minutes s1

SUPPLIER SUPPORT COMMITTEE

OCTOBER 2010

UNCONFIRMED MINUTES

19 October 2010

Pittsburgh marriott city center hotel

pittsburgh, pa, usa

These minutes are not final until confirmed by the Group in writing or by vote at a subsequent meeting. Information herein does not constitute a communication or recommendation from the Group and shall not be considered as such by any agency.

TUESDAY, 19 OCTOBER 2010

1.0  INTRODUCTION & MEETING OVERVIEW

1.1 Call to Order/Quorum Check

Eric Jacklin, Supplier Support Committee Leadership Team (SSC LT) Chairperson, called the meeting to order and a quorum was established with the following representatives in attendance.

Supplier Support Committee Leadership Team (SSC LT) Members Present

Additional Suppliers Present

Subscriber Members Present

Performance Review Institute (PRI) Staff Present

1.2 Antitrust and Nadcap Personal Code of Ethics & Conflict of Interest

Eric Jacklin reviewed the Antitrust and Nadcap Personal Code of Ethics & Conflict of Interest statements in the Attendees Guide.

1.3 Introductions of Supplier Support Committee Leadership Team & Supplier Support Committee Task Group Representatives

Supplier Support Committee Leadership Team members and Task Group Representatives were introduced. Joe Pinto (PRI) was introduced and welcomed the participants to the Supplier Support Committee (SSC) meeting.

1.4 Introductions of First Time Nadcap Meeting Participants

First time meeting attendees were recognized.

1.5 Routing of Attendance List

The sign-in sheets were routed.

1.4 Approval of Minutes from Previous Meeting

The SSC minutes from the June 22, 2010 meeting in Singapore were approved as written. In addition, the SSC minutes from the February 23, 2010 meeting in Rome, Italy were approved as written.

2.0  SUPPLIER SUPPORT COMMITTEE MEETING PURPOSE & RULES

Stephane Chaumeil reviewed the purpose of the SSC meeting and the governing rules of conduct.

3.0  BREAK-OUT TOPICS

Eric Jacklin introduced the following four (4) break-out topics: Flow Down, Redundant Audits, Survey 2011-What questions do you want included & What should the SSC work on. He then instructed each participant to choose a topic (of which interested them) and to join the discussion in the applicable room.

Each group had 20 minutes to discuss their specific topic. They then reconvened and each group gave a report out (as per below).

3.1  Topic: Flow Down (Facilitators: Dave Michaud/Yoshiomi Sukesada; Note-Taker: William Rae)

William Rae gave a verbal report out on the following areas that were discussed:

·  Suppliers are asked to supply processors, but do not have access to the prime portals specifications. The purchase system relies on the prime specification portal which should be flowed down to the supplier. This is difficult to do if you can’t access the prime portal.

·  Suppliers are responsible for all revisions of specifications and must keep them up to date which includes revision control. If there is a doubt about the revision, then the suppliers must ask the Prime. The primes must give access to the person or company who needs the relevant specification.

·  Heat Treatment suppliers: They know who to ask, as far as their primes are concerned but, when they ask their direct customers who are Tier 1 or Tier 2 or Tier 3 suppliers and not conversant with technical queries or who to contact reference their customers, they don’t always know who to ask, so some training to suppliers to inform them how and who to ask for the information would be good. We need to get the Tier 1, Tier 2 and Tier 3 suppliers to work together.

·  Primes mandate that we must receive purchase order with the revision number. Normally it is generic. Some suppliers think this purchase order should quote revision number.

3.2  Topic: Redundant Audits (Facilitator: Jim Ringer; Note-Taker: Michael Brandt)

Jim Ringer reported the group discussed the definition of redundant audits, how many suppliers felt they had a redundant audit, which primes were conducting the audits & what recourse was available. See attached presentation for additional details.

3.3  Topic: Survey 2011-What questions do you want included? (Facilitator: Dave Jones; Note-Taker: Suzanna DeMoss)

Suzanna DeMoss gave a verbal report out on the following areas that were discussed:

·  Demographics: People discussed the value of being able to analyze responses based on factors such as: When was your last audit?, Are you on merit?, What is your commodity?, What is your sector?, Do you attend the Nadcap meetings?, How many years in Nadcap?

It is expected that the pattern of responses would vary based on the group. This could help us with education or training efforts as well as identify potential problem areas.

·  Style of questions: Some people felt that the questions were not designed to get at the "meat" of the problems because of their formal style -- they weren't written in the way that people talk or that would make them talk.

·  Actual questions: Some people suggested open-ended questions, like "What things were frustrating about your last audit?"; others wanted simple but frank questions like the following such as: "Do you feel that the checklists are asking questions that are not in specifications or Prime-driven?", "Do you feel audit findings are being written more for the Staff Engineer than the supplier?", "Do you feel that there is abuse by a Prime, Staff Engineer, or TG Chair?", "Do you feel that someone is pushing their own (or their company's) agenda at the expense of the group?"

3.4  Topic: What should the SSC work on? (Facilitator: Sarah Fuqua; Note-Taker: Stephane Chaumeil)

Stephane Chaumeil gave a verbal report out on the following areas that were discussed:

·  Improve SSC communication and visibility: people want to know what the SSC is doing.

·  Standardization seems to cause problems to suppliers that are involved in different commodities (i.e. NonDestructive Testing, Chemical Processing). It seems that rules are not the same (i.e. some handbooks are private, while others are public).

·  Document control on PRI. (i.e. Suppliers are not sure if they have the latest information and they would appreciate flow down on new documents).

·  Clarification of Nadcap Operating Procedures (NOP)/Nadcap Internal Procedures (NIP). Some people find the Nadcap procedures hard to understand and where they are located.

·  Satellite audits are still a problem, even if it's not for a big group; it seems that the problem is vivid. Rules are stringent and prevent development of some suppliers.

·  Auditors are a problem. Training in software, auditing skills is not verified/evaluated, evaluation just before the closing is ineffective. Unable to participate to auditor training and having access to the same information the auditors have.

·  Supplier representative on the Board.

·  Teleconference is requested for Nadcap meetings; even if payment is needed (i.e. concern with expenses of flying abroad).

·  Voting rules during Nadcap meetings are not clear. An accredited supplier should have an automatic voting clearance.

·  Paper certificates with expiration dates are requested. Some primes and/or sub tiers do not want/don't have access to eAuditNet to verify the certificate.