Structural steel material from unapproved manufacturer

[gafoorkti]

We have placed an order for the supply of structural steel(ASTM A36 plates, beam, column, flat bar, round bar, channel, angles) material to our local vendors.
Now, local vendor regretfully states that they are not able to supply some of this material from client approved manufacturer
list.

we now experience difficulties in material acceptance by our client with respect to unapproved manufacturers for structural steels etc.

Presently on case to case basis Client suggests us in carrying out Mechanical & Chemical Testing of the structural material which is procured from unapproved manufacturers; prior to acceptance. The cost of the testing is borne by us and moreover, it is delaying our project completion schedule.

In order to overcome this anomaly it is proposed to come to a consensus to form a guideline for material acceptance. Please advise your views regarding what points must be taken into consideration while accepting material from unapproved manufacturer.

Thanks in advance..

 

[MikeHalloran]

You have to balance the cost of testing material from unapproved manufacturers against the cost of shipping from a vendor who can supply approved material.

Note that the cost of testing unapproved material is unlimited; you may _never_ be able to find a lot of material that will pass a test that the manufacturer does not agree to meet, so you could buy and then discard an unlimited amount of material that you cannot use.

How cheap is it, then?




Mike Halloran
Pembroke Pines, FL, USA

 

[gafoorkti]

Thanks for your reply.

Apart from testing, what are other things can be taken into consideration while accepting the material from unapproved manufacturer (example: criticality...!)

Regards

 

[metengr]

gafoorkti;

In order to overcome this anomaly it is proposed to come to a consensus to form a guideline for material acceptance. Please advise your views regarding what points must be taken into consideration while accepting material from unapproved manufacturer.

You are missing one critical piece of information in your post to provide a recommendation - what is the application or use of the above material? Is it used in a structural application or making something that if it fails can result in injury to people or damage to property? If the answer is yes to the above, see below. If the answer is no to the above, you have to decide if you can accept the risk and consequences.

As a client why would I accept significant risk with incorrect material or material not being able to meet standard specification -> potential for failure or unacceptable performance in service -> liability and responsibility to make it compliant. This is why you have a quality program and approved vendors.

 

[mrfailure]

What would it take for the manufacturer to be an approved vendor? Would certs indicating the material you are buying is compliant with A36 requirements suffice? Or do you have to perform an audit of the manufacturer?

My perspective is A36 is a commodity material that should be acceptable from the free market provided your vendor supplies certifications showing the material is compliant with the standard.

Aaron Tanzer

http://www.lehightesting.com

 

[SJones]

It appears that 'vendor' = stockist. This is one of the pitfalls when approved vendor lists are based on the steel source and not the intermediary. However, the rules are clear, steel is to come from an approved manufacturer, and so another source of acceptable material should have been found rather than proceed down the unacceptable route. It is highly likely that the end user has expended substantial time and effort in establishing the approved vendor list. It is highly unlikely that the same time and effort will be available to retrospectively qualify the 'offending' steel mills.

Steve Jones
Materials & Corrosion Engineer

http://www.linkedin.com/pub/8/83b/b04