A Supplier Capacity Questionnaire for Critical Parts

What is a supplier capacity questionnaire for critical parts?

In this guide, a supplier capacity questionnaire is the part of a sourcing event that asks each bidder how it would make the buyer's volume of one critical part: machines, shifts, cycle times, tools and losses. In this guide's view, it makes answers comparable and checkable; on-site verification and post-award escalation are separate steps that follow.

Which machine, shift and tooling facts should the questionnaire ask for?

Ask for the inputs, not only the result. In Schönsleben's ETH Zurich course on capacity management, theoretical capacity is determined by the number of shifts, the capacity available in each shift and the number of machines and workers, and rated capacity multiplies it by planned capacity utilization and work center efficiency. Collecting each input separately shows which assumption carries a bidder's figure.

Ask per operation rather than per plant. Under the capacity planning rule in Nemak's supplier quality manual, suppliers base capacity plans on surrogate OEE data from similar products or equipment in their facility, or on machine maker data for a new process, and account for load and unload time. The rule also asks for each operation's projected scrap rate, because scrap raises the capacity needed upstream.

State the operating pattern as days, shifts and net hours, and ask which pattern the price assumes. In a 2019 supply agreement between Medtronic and IntriCon, filed with the SEC, normal capacity meant manufacturing to forecast 5 days a week on 2 shifts at two plants and on 3 shifts at a third. In this guide's view, a baseline that already needs weekend work leaves less room for surge.

In a production scheduling vendor's guide to tooling bottlenecks, dedicated tooling belongs to one part number, shared tooling such as a fixture set serves several part families, perishable tooling such as cutting tools is limited by availability and lead time, and waiting for a shared tool does not appear in machine utilization reports. In this guide's view, ask for each tool's sharing, sets, owner, life and replacement lead time.

How do demonstrated, quoted maximum and surge capacity differ?

In this guide, demonstrated capacity is good output a supplier's records show on the stated pattern; quoted maximum is what the supplier says the process could make; surge capacity is extra volume a buyer contracts for at set notice and duration. In an automotive run-at-rate guide by a process quality lead, APW is the average planned weekly volume and MPW the maximum the customer may call.

In the ETH Zurich capacity management course, desired capacity utilization should generally be less than 100% to avoid long queue times, and load should be scheduled to rated capacity, not theoretical capacity. In this guide's view, ask bidders for the utilization behind any quoted maximum, and treat near-full loading as a ceiling, not a plan.

In Concentric's global supplier manual, the supplier's process must be able to produce 120% of the quoted volume with production tools and equipment, in the quoted work patterns, fixtures and tooling. In this guide's view, that makes the stated pattern and tooling part of the quote, so record them for any later check.

In the Medtronic and IntriCon agreement, surge capacity was an amount above regular capacity covering materials, resources and equipment in the same timeframe as the normal forecast, and the supplier was responsible for identifying the capital equipment needed to expand capacity. The public filing redacts the surge amount.

In this guide's view, ask how surge would be produced: added shifts, more machines or tool sets, a faster rate or a named subcontractor. A faster rate, or moving work to a subcontractor or another site, changes the approved process, so require the buyer's approval before either is used. Each route needs its own evidence, so ask for its notice period, maximum duration, people, equipment and price.

What evidence should each answer carry?

In this guide's view, every figure should name its source record and say whether it is measured or estimated; the table below lists a record for each field. In Nemak's supplier quality manual, required capacities reflect acceptable shippable product within a specified operating pattern, and planned ideal cycle times are the supplier's best estimate from similar processes or machine makers' quotes.

How should answers be normalized and scored across bidders?

Convert every answer to good parts per week on the buyer's operating pattern before comparing. In the automotive run-at-rate guide on QM Bench, the common mistakes include counting all parts instead of good parts, assuming the line runs 24 hours a day, every day, instead of its real working pattern, and forgetting that a shared machine gives only part of its time to the part.

According to an ISO 22400-2 reference page from MachineWise, two plants that define planned production time differently, one excluding planned maintenance and breaks and the other including them, can report OEE figures many points apart while both are internally correct. In a peer-reviewed case study of one plastics production line in Jordan, three months of 2020 data from six machines put speed losses at 58.1% and planned and unscheduled disruptions at 12.73% of all losses. In this guide's view, require the time base and all three OEE factors with every figure, and recompute on one basis.

In this guide's view, score each bidder at its bottleneck: count each operation's weekly output in finished good parts, after scrap at that operation and at every later one and after shared-machine allocation, and take the lowest. Record its margin over average and peak weekly demand. Rate the evidence separately, so a documented modest margin is not outscored by an unsupported large one.

Which answers should trigger verification?

In an OEE software vendor's article on how OEE gets manipulated, the tactics include excluding scheduled maintenance from the available time and labeling unplanned stoppages as scheduled downtime, and a performance score of 110% or more is called a sign of an artificially lowered speed baseline. In this guide's view, send an answer to verification when:

• It has no record, or the record is not comparable: a different process, equipment, material or operating pattern.
• Demonstrated output at the bottleneck is close to or below peak demand.
• An OEE figure has no time base, or performance is above 100%.
• Surge depends on hiring, new equipment, a faster rate or an unnamed subcontractor.
• Two answers contradict each other, such as a cycle time that cannot yield the stated output.

Site visits, a run at the quoted rate and capability evidence are separate, later steps. Set how deep they go by the part's criticality, using the tiers of a structured supplier risk assessment.

What should a critical-part capacity questionnaire contain?

The questionnaire below turns these decisions into fields a category team can issue with a request for quotation. It is an authored planning aid, not a standard.

Issue the form with the quotation stage of a structured sourcing workflow, so every bidder answers the same rows in the same units. Issue it under the request's confidentiality terms, let bidders redact other customers' data from shared-machine records, and say whether the answers will be written into the contract. Guides on verifying supplier capability and escalating capacity risk after award are listed in the Journal's guide library.

How do AI agents change supplier capacity questionnaires?