Recently an Advisory Notice received by MTI members from Nadcap was forwarded to the corporate offices for review.  Upon seeing the potential negative impact of the advisory notice on members, MTI leadership took time to research the notice, communicate the important issues to MTI Nadcap members, pull together member feedback and construct a letter asking Nadcap to address the concerns MTI felt needed to be addressed.  For anyone wanting to see the details of the discussion including the Advisory Notice and MTI letter, you can visit the MyMTI Nadcap Group.  The online group helped MTI grasp the key issues from members around North America to formulate a response quickly.  If you have any questions on the Nadcap issue, you may contact Tom Morrison at the MTI Offices at 904-249-0448 or This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it .

The following is the content of the letter sent this past week:

Recently I received a copy of an advisory notice released to Nadcap accredited Suppliers relating to Guidance of Auditors. After reviewing the document, I thought it was important to get a few clarifications for our members. With MTI representing a network of heat treaters in 40 states and 8 countries, Nadcap decisions have a dramatic impact on our companies as a whole so we want to make sure we understand issues as they are raised.  MTI members are heavily involved with Nadcap on committees and as voting members.  

I know over the past, there has been a lot of discussion over the “Flow Down” or the lack thereof.  In discussing this issue with our membership, they have indicated that the current directive as noted in the advisory overlooks a number of pertinent points which, if reconsidered, would improve the system for flowing proper information to approved special processors, not make them responsible for fixing the system.  According to members, the current operating procedure for flow down provides a great deal of inefficiency relating to proper information communication and adds a great deal of wasted time and cost in servicing the Primes.

MTI members are totally committed to the importance of contract review in delivering high quality work as required by Nadcap related standards and checklists related to the individual Task Groups.  All of our members want to work with Nadcap to ensure a workable system exists with an effective communication structure that strips out all waste, unnecessary costs and uncertainty.
With that said, MTI is requesting clarification on the recent advisory notice related to the following:

1) What was the process through which guidance and advisory notices are created and approved?  Why didn’t the advisory get sent through the Standardization Committee?  Something that has such a potential dramatic impact on an audit as with this past advisory notice seems to need more review, transparency and consideration with input from both Primes and Suppliers. This particular advisory seemed to catch many of the Suppliers off guard with the requirement they have some documentation from the Prime. It has been mentioned in open Nadcap meetings that the primes have difficult times getting clarification within their own organizations.  With this being said, how is a supplier, regardless of commodity, have the resources to obtain this information?  The question always is, “What if you don’t know who the Prime is or can’t get to the right person at the Prime to get any documentation?” How can you be held accountable for information you cannot get from a source you cannot find?  Suppliers would now be held accountable for something “out of their control.”  This model of communication flow where a supplier must spend time and resources trying to hunt down and obtain a spec from contacts they can’t find is not a solution, rather a misdirected corrective action, which overlooks the root cause of the problem. All of this drives up the cost and inefficiencies to the system.

2) Is there a consistent communication model for the specification information to ultimately come from the Primes, who require it, through each tier so that each tier understands the expectations of the project?

3) Has there been any discussions relating to using technology to allow people who can’t attend foreign meetings to participate?  There is technology that would allow people to participate that wouldn’t be very costly.

What I’m seeing here is an opportunity to enhance the communication structure between the supplier and Prime by enhancing flow down procedures and access to specifications, both which would drive up quality and drive down costs.

I am certain Primes and Nadcap would be in agreement with enhancements that can reach those two objectives.
We recognize this is a problem.  But without cooperation from Primes, Nadcap and the suppliers the issue will continue to be handled in a punitive manner.  Frankly, this gives an impression that the program is not industry managed but industry directed.  A chasm exists between these approaches.

I personally help associations build communication structures within the framework of my networking as an Association CEO. MTI can get a document to a furnace operator in any heat treat plant within seconds if he is required to receive it timely. Our group would be more than happy to volunteer to bring suggestions, ideas and technology that can enhance the current communication system between Prime and supplier.

The Metal Treating Institute looks forward to working closer with Nadcap to continue the innovation of systems that drive up quality and efficiencies up and costs down. Feel free to contact me to discuss this further. Otherwise I look forward to your response.