NOTE TO ALL : My response on the subject is based upon the assumption that NO contract stipulations other that D1.1 are required. I fully understand that various other company requirements, codes and standards may more clearly define this subject. Each project should be evaluated on its own and the conditions compared tio the documented" requirements.
I agree that there is no allowance for the contractor to not assure that the welder has welded within a process in a 6 month period. I didn't think that is what I implied.
If you cannot trust a contractor to verify the welders have been striking an arc every 6 mos, then the welder qualification paper that the original qualification is written on is of NO value. The method of verifying that the welder has welded within that 6 month window is left completely open. Continued employment in a shop in which a welder welds on a daily basis is sufficient for a contractor to meet the requiremnts of paragraph 4.1.3.1.
I too have perfromed quite a few audits. In most cases the project specifications were clear on many of the requirements for the contractors quality systems. In most cases, any customer of any size would conduct a pre award evaluation of a fabricator in which various aspects of the contractors system was reviewed. This would eliminate any of the areas that may not be easy to interpret using the code only.
I have answered and reviewed quite a few "surveys" in which this subject is explicitly addressed. In cases in which I was conducting a survey prior to award of a contract, I would have questioned how this was handled. If the fabricator indicated that based on continued employement, all welders have welded with a process within the past 6 mos, I woiuld have ABSOLUTELY no grounds to not accept that unless somewhere in the project requirements some sort of supporting documentation was required.
If you cant trust a "CUSTOMER" to clearly define any requirements outside the scope of the code, how can you trust them to not exceed those requirements and try to indicate that you as the supplier are not compying with the contract or code.
Though a contractor should be able to work within the quality requirements of the code, the lack of a document that is not required by the code does not indicate a problem with their quality. It may very well indicate a need for a "quality system" however that is a different subject.
Here is an example situation.
You are an inspector hired by company A to perform final inspections on product fabricated in accordance with AWS D1.1. Your contract with company A says you are to inspect final welding, verify qualification of welders, and review WPS's for suitability for the work being performed.
I am fabricator B. Company A sent me a contract saying "Fabricate all widgets in accordance with AWS D1.1".
Upon entering my shop you say you would 1st like to review welder qualification records. After reviewing them you indicate you would like to see the "continuity log". A term I have NEVER heard of. I ask what it does. You show me paragraph 4.1.3.1 . I sa "Ohhh !, All of our welders weld every day, as long as they are employed, they meet that requirement."
Where do the widgets stand ?
In the other scenario I respond with , "Oh I didn't know the code said that but All of our welders weld every day, as long as they are employed, they meet that requirement"
Does my lack of knowledge about a code requirement nullify the quality of the products ? If it does, does the lack of knowledge of a code requirement by an inspector instantly nullify all of the inspections that person has performed ?
Because something is not documented, and that something is not required by the code to be documented, is not in my opinion a sound basis to reject something. I would note it, send it to the company I am inspecting for and hopefully if that is an issue, in all future purchasing documents they would clearly identify any requirement for extra documentation by direct statement in some project related document.
Again I do not in my previous post indicate that the contractor is " is free to not adhere to this provision". I think there are differing opinions on what the provision is.
Again I am by no means an expert on reading the codes and have never attended a code committee meeting so the experts on this subject may have a different understanding of "THE INTENT" of this statement. I can only go by what it says or does not say.
Thanks of the comments Kip,
Gerald Austin
Iuka, Ms