Accepting Other Comnpany's WPS's

[GregLamberson]

Guys

Under AWS D1.1, what are the issues with accepting WPS's that were done by your contractor for another company? This is assuming that all essential variables are the same.

Would you recommend it? And if so, why? Or why not?

Greg Lamberson, BS, MBA
Consultant - Upstream Energy
Website:

http://www.oil-gas-consulting.com

 

[HgTX]

If the contractor is the one doing the welding, I see no reason they should have to have new WPS for a new client unless the new client needs to witness the qualification testing themselves.

If you make them write new procedures, and all they're doing is printing out the old ones and changing the client name at the top, what are you accomplishing with this requirement?

Hg

Eng-Tips policies: faq731-376

 

[metengr]

What does AWS D1.1 have to say about it? I don't have a copy of it handy. I can tell you what ASME B&PV Code would say - NO.

 

[gtaw]

I'm not sure I understand the question.

Are you saying that company A wrote welding procedures for company B? Is Company A's name and logo on Company B's welding documents?

I write WPS' for clients everyday. My company logo appears in the upper left hand corner and the client's name, address, etc. appears in the heading.

I do the same for welding documents developed for military work, AWS, API, and ASME. I've never had a problem.

You specifically refered to AWS D1.1, so I have to ask; were the welding procedures "prequalified" or were they qualified by testing, e.g., did the WPS list a supporting PQR?



Best regards - Al

 

[GregLamberson]

Thanks for the input, let me expand. It's a bit complicated.

The company I am working for (Company A) has contracted Contractor 1 to fabricate some assembly's uder AWS D1.1. The WPS (and supporting PQR's) they submitted were done for Company B by Contractor 1's parent company - no issue there per AWS.

On one of the supporting PQR's there is a note regarding a modification of the 6GR posiiton, I don't know what that modification is or what the terms of the acceptance were. Also, on the PQR it lists classifications of material per Company B's internal classifications (it also lists the materials per codes, ASTM A106, ASTM 500, etc.). Obviously I don't have access to Company B's internal material classifications.

To throw another monkey in the wrench, the Contractor 1 was recently purchased by another company (not the parent company, ponly this operating unit). They are continuing to operate (by agreement) with the name of the former company. The WPS & PQR's were done by the parent company of the company that was purchased. If I read AWS correctly and apply it technically (see NOTE below), 1) had that company not been purchased, then they would be valid, but since they were purcahsed by another entity, they would not be allowed since the company was purchased by a separate 3rd party.

I don't want to split hairs, but at the same time I want to assure that what we are doing adheres to the code requirements and is auditable.

NOTE: (AWS D1.1 - 4.1.1.1, ....Properly documented
WPSs qualified under the provisions of this code by a
company that later has a name change due to voluntary
action or consolidation with a parent company may utilize
the new name on its WPS documents.)

Greg Lamberson, BS, MBA
Consultant - Upstream Energy
Website:

http://www.oil-gas-consulting.com

 

[gtaw]

Welding documents are intelectual property and ownership is transferred to the new owner. All that is required is an editorial change to the letterhead and usually a footnote listing the change and "why".

I do not believe it is permitted for one company to use the welding documents from an unaffilliated company or allow another entity to perform the actual welding of the test coupons used to qualify the welding procedure. It is permitted to have a third party prepare the coupons and perform the laboratory testing, and prepare the documentation, however, the actual depositing of weld must be performed by an employee of the company whose name appears on the letterhead.

Best regards - Al

 

[SJones]

It's all about quality assurance and quality control. How are the WPSs and PQRs being administered and controlled? Which company's quality assurance system is applicable to the work? What does that system say about accepting, using, and controlling 'free issued' documentation? If there isn't an ISO 9001 system certificate in sight, you have my utmost sympathy!

Steve Jones
Materials & Corrosion Engineer

http://www.pdo.co.om/pdo/

 

[GregLamberson]

I accept your sympathy SJones. I'm working as a consultant here and you know how that goes, I have little real control over things.

There is no Quality Plan to guide. I have an issue with accepting PQR's that have other company's material classifications listed and have notations of having accepted modifications to the code that I don't know anything about and there is no infromation available.

I'm just trying to provide the best advice I can, at the end of the day the client makes the decision.

I appreciate everyone's input.

Greg Lamberson, BS, MBA
Consultant - Upstream Energy
Website:

http://www.oil-gas-consulting.com

 

[SJones]

Greg,

If you can't verify that there is an an unbroken quality assurance chain associated with what is happening, then don't accept it.

Steve Jones
Materials & Corrosion Engineer

http://www.pdo.co.om/pdo/

 

[GregLamberson]

Sjones

Agreed. I have requested that if they (client) want to accept these documents that they provide a formal waiver with a copy kept on site. And that waiver is to address the "accepted" modification and the maerial classifications.

You run into all kinds of things out there. Someone on the forum, I forget who, has a signature line something like: It may be like that in theory and practice, but it's allot different in real life" or words to that effect.

Greg Lamberson, BS, MBA
Consultant - Upstream Energy
Website:

http://www.oil-gas-consulting.com