| Automotive quality system | Check whether the supplier’s quality system is appropriate for automotive production and whether its certification covers the actual manufacturing site and process. | Current IATF 16949 certification, supported by ISO 9001 where applicable; documented customer-specific requirements and internal audit records. | Expired or unverifiable certificates, unclear certification scope, or quality procedures that are not followed on the production floor. | 15% |
| Part and process capability | Review experience with comparable part size, wall sections, geometry, alloy, annual volume, and required production rate. | Relevant production examples, a documented feasibility review, and a machine-and-tooling plan matched to the part’s projected area, shot size, and cycle requirements. | Capacity claims based only on machine count, with no explanation of how the proposed equipment fits the part or forecast volume. | 12% |
| Alloy and material control | Confirm the proposed alloy meets the drawing and application requirements for strength, corrosion resistance, castability, and any heat-treatment needs. | Controlled material specifications, supplier approval records, certificates of analysis where required, and traceability from incoming metal to production lots. | Substitution of alloy without written approval or inability to link material records to finished-part batches. | 10% |
| Porosity and internal integrity | Determine how the supplier manages gas and shrinkage porosity, particularly in pressure-containing, structural, or subsequently machined features. | Documented process controls and an agreed validation plan using suitable methods such as X-ray inspection, sectioning, or leak testing when the part specification requires them. | General assurances that porosity is “not a problem” without part-specific acceptance criteria or inspection evidence. | 12% |
| Process control and capability | Review monitoring of critical casting parameters and measurement of special characteristics identified by the customer. | Approved control plans, process FMEAs, calibrated gauges, recorded parameter limits, and capability studies where required by the customer; Cpk targets should be agreed for the specified characteristics. | Capability figures presented without the measured characteristic, sample basis, or evidence that the process was stable. | 12% |
| Tooling design and ownership | Clarify die design responsibility, design-change approval, expected maintenance, spare inserts, and ownership or transfer terms. | Written tooling specifications, documented maintenance plans, clear ownership terms, and a defined process for tool repair, storage, and transfer. | Unclear ownership, undocumented tooling changes, or no agreed plan for tool-life monitoring and maintenance. | 10% |
| Machining and finishing | Check whether machining, deburring, surface treatment, and final assembly requirements can be completed under controlled conditions. | Clear operation routing, controlled datum strategy, in-process inspection, and verification of machined features against drawing tolerances. | Unapproved subcontracting or no defined inspection between casting and machining operations. | 8% |
| Validation and measurement | Agree how the part will be qualified before production approval, including dimensional, material, functional, and durability tests as applicable. | Inspection equipment suited to the drawing, a documented measurement plan, and customer-approved validation reports such as PPAP when required. | Incomplete reports, measurement methods that do not match the drawing, or testing conducted without agreed acceptance criteria. | 8% |
| Traceability and corrective action | Assess how nonconforming parts are contained, investigated, corrected, and linked to production records. | Lot-level traceability, documented nonconformance control, root-cause analysis, corrective-action follow-up, and a practical product-recall response process. | Mixed or unidentified lots, repeated issues without verified corrective action, or incomplete production records. | 7% |
| Capacity, delivery, and business continuity | Compare available capacity with the forecast, planned maintenance, lead-time assumptions, and contingency arrangements. | A capacity plan based on equipment and shift availability, realistic lead-time commitments, and documented backup arrangements for critical operations. | Promises unsupported by capacity data, dependence on a single unprotected production resource, or no escalation process for supply interruptions. | 4% |
| Cost transparency and total cost | Compare tooling, piece price, machining, inspection, packaging, logistics, and change-request assumptions on the same scope. | An itemized quotation with clear volume assumptions, exclusions, payment terms, and a process for approving engineering or specification changes. | A low initial price that omits required operations, inspection, packaging, or tooling maintenance costs. | 2% |