These findings make alarming reading and decry the claims made by Nadcap instigators that there would be a reduced requirement for regular audits from primes and upper tier suppliers and that Nadcap accreditation would make companies more effective, so reducing costs. In fact over 80% did not agree that attaining Nadcap accreditation resulted in less auditing of their companies by subscribing primes and their upper tier suppliers. Interestingly, this view is supported by a report recently written and published in America, by the Executive Vice President of the Metal Treating Institute.

Nadcap applies to "special processes" such as Heat Treating, Materials Testing, NDT, Use of Sealants, Welding, Coatings, Chemical Processing and Nonconventional Machining. It requires for each individual special process regular, rigorous auditing by the Performance Review Institute (PRI) initially on an annual basis. Failure of any audit can result in de-selection of a supplier by all subscribing primes. A company offering penetrant dye and magnetic particle NDT, plus cadmium plating, anodising and painting, would have a total audit cost of £8,000, for example.

The American report also believed Nadcap charges to be prohibitive, despite the fact that on average US sub-contractors achieve prices of 2 1/2 - 3 times that of UK companies.

(Metal Finishers Benchmarking Mission to USA 1998).

In the SEA survey, over 80% of respondents said that attaining Nadcap accreditation has not directly attracted more work from either existing or new customers. 38% considered different PRI auditors to be inconsistent in their expectations of suppliers with regard to how they meet the same checklist requirements. Only 23% felt Nadcap requirements accurately reflected those of the subscribing primes for whom they were approved.

The full statement of the SEA Standards Committee is available from www.sea.org.uk