Not logged inAmerican Welding Society Forum
Forum AWS Website Help Search Login
Up Topic American Welding Society Services / Technical Standards & Publications / D1.1:2006 PQR Signature
- - By rickc (**) Date 06-25-2007 20:46 Edited 06-25-2007 20:56
Our WPS' and PQR's are being reviewed by an outside contractor. He's approved about a dozen but, on the last one he complained that the PQR has to be "signed by a responsible manufacturer's representative" and would not approve it. However, none of the other PQR's he's approved are actually "signed" either- a name has been simply typed for the responsible party for clarity and ease considering the digital format and he's accepted them all until now.

It ain't a real big deal to sign a piece of paper, run down to kinko's to scan it and then to insert it into our document but, since he's bringing it up so late in the process I'm curious if an actual signature is really required. I can't find anything in the book.

Edit: The sample PQR in Annex N does have a place for a signature but, they have the name typed in as well.
Parent - By rickc (**) Date 06-25-2007 21:27
I found something!
Annex N, Specifically N1 Paragraph 2 on page 337, reads "The WPS and PQRs are to be signed by the authorized representative of the Manufacturer or Contractor." However, Annex N also reads, "This annex is NOT part of AWS D1.1/D1.1M:2006, Structural Welding Code - Steel, but is intended for informational purposes only." on the top of the page.

Does anybody know of anything in the actual code that requires a hand written signature on the PQR?
Parent - - By pax23 (**) Date 06-25-2007 21:40
If this is a D1.1 question....
I doubt you will find it. The code is pretty loose when it comes to the details on document requirements. Even the forms are only sample forms, they are not official forms.

This is about as detailed as the code gets: (1) it is the contractor's responsibility for qualification procedures, (2) qualification procedures shall be written and shall record all the requisite essential variables, (3) these documents shall be made available to any authorized personnel.

Wanting to see a signature on all procedures seems to be a sensible request since this would seem to show some type of control by the contractor on his procedures, but you will not find text in the code that addresses this one way or the other. If you could show some type of internal document control mechanism that substitutes for a signature then many inspectors would probably relent.
Parent - - By rickc (**) Date 06-25-2007 21:56
Thank you,
For ISO purposes we state that our controlled documents are stored electronically in our document control system or in a controlled traveler. Consequently, there's never an actual physical signature because as soon as we print it we aren't allowed to use it. It's annoying.

As for the signature, the PQR states that such-n-such is certifies that the above is true and performed in accordance with AWS D1.1.:2006. The revision shows three additional names for prepared by, checked and approved. So, yes, there's no actual signature but all three people had to approve the document electronically before it was released. I guess I don't see the point in an actual signature. What's the difference? and more to the point, why now? We've been doing it this way for at least a decade and this particular inspector, who we use regularly, has never mentioned it before.
Parent - - By js55 (*****) Date 06-26-2007 15:43
IMO there is little reason to sign a WPS. They should be rev'd and maintained in a control system. The signature is undue redundancy and essentially meaningless. However, a PQR should be signed since it is essentially testimony that indeed the paramaters as recorded were actually used in the generation of the document and wtinessed by the signee.
Parent - By js55 (*****) Date 06-26-2007 15:49
Having said this, I do beleive signatures have value for SWPS's and prequals. For obvious reasons.
Parent - - By jon20013 (*****) Date 06-26-2007 15:51
I agree with you js55.  Although I make a judicious attempt at signing all of the WPS' I generate there is no requirement that I'm personally aware of but as you say, the PQR is required to be signed by a Company Rep./
Parent - - By rickc (**) Date 06-26-2007 16:26
"the PQR is required to be signed by a Company Rep"

But where is that in the code? Do you have a page number, section, anything?
Parent - By js55 (*****) Date 06-26-2007 16:33
I don't know if the code specifically states it, I believe it does but I just can't remember. Someone may be able to help us out here. But the fact is, the PQR is essentially a statement of testimony, and therefore must be a signed witness account.
Parent - - By jwright650 (*****) Date 06-26-2007 16:34
Page 122 (bottom right) Paragraph 4.6 speaks of the WPS and PQR.
Parent - - By js55 (*****) Date 06-26-2007 17:03
IMO the requirement to "serve as written confirmation" cannot be fulfilled without signature. How do you verify confirmation without the signature of whoever is doing the confirming? Thin I know, and perhaps an interpretation for the olden days could clarify. And I think ASME is a more specific. But for me the signature is essential. PQR's as they say, last forever. How can they without testified witness.
Parent - - By rickc (**) Date 06-26-2007 17:46
I probably should have mentioned this in the first place but, this particular PQR is from one of our vendors and, based on their past performance, it will take weeks for them to revise it no matter how trivial the change is. So, I'd like to try to argue the point with our inspector to get it approved now and start work rather than try again in a few weeks.

...But, I can certainly see your point about having a signature and I would tend to agree in principal: Anyone could type anyone's name there so, a signature suggests that this person really did look at the piece of paper at some point (even if it was only long enough to find out where to sign it).

That also brings up the point of who should sign it: The person that witnessed the coupon being created? The person that prepared the PQR? The person that approved the PQR? Or, the person responsible for maintaining all of our WPS and PQR documents? And what if multiple people are/were involved in any of those steps? As you all have said, it's not really required by the code, it's just a feel-good thing to have (no argument there) so, there's no clear basis for choosing who signs it either or what their responsibilities might be before and afterward.

If you're looking at the PQR as a legal document that may be brought up during litigation with the signer having to take some personal financial responsibility for any consequences that any errors or omissions in the PQR eventually lead to who signs it then? Also, according the my legal dictionary, "The term signature is generally understood to mean the signing of a written document with one's own hand. However, it is not critical that a signature actually be written by hand for it to be legally valid. It may, for example, be typewritten, engraved, or stamped."
Parent - - By rickc (**) Date 06-28-2007 17:28
The inspector, upon review, agreed that an actual signature isn't required. Thanks for all your help!
Parent - By eekpod (****) Date 06-29-2007 15:50
I intrepreted the statement from Annex N   "The WPS's and PQRs are to be signed by the authorized representative of the Manufacture or Contractor"  to mean that they have to be signed.  It never occured to me until  you guys pointed it out now that Annex N isn't a part of the code. That makes things interesting.  Chris
Up Topic American Welding Society Services / Technical Standards & Publications / D1.1:2006 PQR Signature

Powered by mwForum 2.29.2 © 1999-2013 Markus Wichitill