Qualification WPSs/Welders subcontracting

Date 09-08-2013 23:42

No, the contractor that will be performing the work is responsible for qualifying the WPS.

A B2.1 lists several ways the WPS can be qualified. It can be prequalified if that is permitted by the applicable welding standard. The WPS can be a Standard WPS which is purchased from AWS (a despicable practice to say the least). The WPS may be qualified by slicing and dicing a mockup. That practice is common in the aerospace industry. And the last method is by welding a coupon and subjecting it to the tests prescribed by the applicable welding standard.

However, I know of no welding standards that allows the contractor to subcontract the actual of welding the test coupon. What the standards will permit is for the contractor to subcontract the NDT and destructive testing required by the welding standard. The actual welding of the test coupon must be performed by one of the contractor's employees.

Best regards - Al

By welderbrent (*****)

Date 09-08-2013 23:53

Jorge,

Before we take a look at the question, while this may be a better section to address your question, it only confuses things to post the same question in two sections of the forum.

Okay, now it should not be an issue within B2.1. But it is in D1.1 and D1.5. ASME is totally different in items that are allowed.

For the most part it is not advised in any way to share WPS's or other job specific information. It is not that it is totally forbidden by the codes involved. But there are obvious issues when you share information that you will then not be in control of the application of that information. Now, a pre-approved procedure may not be as complicated of an issue. But PQR's are very tricky.

As for Welders Performance, they really should be tested to the WPS's of who ever they are employed by. But, their previous qualifications, if a copy is in the new employer's possession, can be accepted by the Engineer of Record if they should so choose. The question becomes the variables for the process and the application to the job at hand.

Now, I am hoping that some other more eloquent members will chime in but hope I have started the ball rolling in the right direction.

Have a Great Day, Brent

By welderbrent (*****)

Date 09-09-2013 03:33

Was in a hurry before leaving for evening church services. I see Al beat me to it.

Have a Great Day, Brent

By TimGary (****)

Date 09-13-2013 12:45

See AWS B2.1:2009 - Section 4.3.16.

Tim

By Jorge Giraldo (**)

Date 09-18-2013 01:21

Hi Tim.
This is a clear clue!
In other words, AWS B2.1 doesn't allow qualification of WPSs by others.
Jorge

By Jorge Giraldo (**)

Date 09-17-2013 23:54

OK, so many ideas about it, and my language don't help me much. Now I think redirect and limite my question to the subject "Qualification of WPSs".

The case is this: I worked in welding consultancy and development of welding procedures. One of the services is "Qualification of WPSs" for several Companys in the field. This is a common practice in Colombia (not Columbia) is that a Constructor/Erector contract the services of a Welding or NDE company in order to designe procedures and conduct all the qualification process.

The PQRs are signed by me, as the qualifier, and accepted and signed by the contractor's representative. The WPSs resulting are signed by the qualifier, too, and approved for use by the manufacturer's authority taking, in that way, responsability for the welds of their organization.

ASME section IX allow this figure, as said in my first post. However, AWS's standards do not seem to be as specific as ASME.

Is possible contract an external Qualifier for conducting the qualification of WPSs?

In the AWS B2.1 "Qualifier" is defined as "The Employer, organization, or individual responsible for conducting and supervising qualification testing".

I'm in an ethical dilemma with this issue in spite of my belief that our process of designe and qualification of WPSs are very stricts and grounded.

Thanks again.

Jorge Giraldo

By ozniek

Date 09-23-2013 14:00

Hi Jorge

I can not answer your question with regards to AWS B2.1, but will answer from a more generalised perspective.

I think the way to look at your question is to ask: Who has technical control of the WPS qualification process? I believe that most codes require the organisation that will end up using the WPS to be in "technical control" of the qualification process. It is therefore possible for the WPS to be qualified in another organisation's workshops or even using another organisation's welder, but the technical input and control during the qualification process needs to be done by the organisation that will finally perform the welding. The idea being that often there is more to performing the weld than merely what is written on the WPS. As such, the organisation needs to prove that they can not only follow a procedure, but that they also have the necessary know how in terms of handling the materials, setting up purges, handling and deploying the welding equipment etc. In the case of some materials and welding processes, these issues are trivial, but in the case of other materials and processes, these peripheral issues are not trivial.

Some welding codes will allow the transference of a WPS from one organisation to another, as long as the second organisation meets certain requirements. Some codes do not allow any such transference process, so then the whole "technical control" thing needs to be shown.

Hope that helps.

Regards
Niekie

By welderbrent (*****)

Date 09-09-2013 15:41 Edited 09-11-2013 22:37

Jorge,

Just trying to streamline things with posts not in multiple places. The conversations can really get confusing as well as much duplication.

Note about welders certs: AWWA is very specific about welders being certified by the company they are currently employed by. It would really be nice if some of the other codes were that specific. But many leave much to interpretation and application.

The issue is a matter of application. If you have not personally overseen the test how can you 'certify' that it was indeed that employee who took the test, what code he took it to, what electrode was used, what welding parameters were used, that the test was indeed in the position stated on the papers, etc. The is quite a risk and means your liability is on the line. As well as your reputation.

See, often, we as CWI's are asked to witness a welding exam. But it is you as the company rep who must certify as to all that was done, how it was done, and that the person actually passed the qualification exam. So, why would you want to accept some other company's certs on a person? But, those papers do mean I have someone who may be easily qualified to my standards and applicable codes as they have been through it before. They are supposedly not a novice. And, once I have proven that the person is qualified to my specs, I will add all his papers to my files on him. If there is ever an issue on his work I have a string of documentation, a trackrecord, that they are normally not inclined to do bad work. And most people I know are going to make mistakes on occasion.

PQR's are even more specific as to your application and should not be shared with others. Again, it opens a liability can of worms and how do you know what the other company is doing or will do with them. There are too many variables to assume that someone else will need exactly the same thing you had.

Have a Great Day, Brent

By ssbn727 (*****)

Date 09-11-2013 20:13

Brent,

"So, why would you want to except some other company's certs on a person?"

You do mean accept as opposed to except correct?

Respectfully,
Henry

By welderbrent (*****)

Date 09-11-2013 22:37

So right Henry. Right spelling of the wrong word strikes again.

Have a Great Day, Brent

By ssbn727 (*****)

Date 09-11-2013 22:43

It's okay Brent...

If it's any consolation, I tend to forget to include all of the letters in some of the words when I type them in here. :eek:

Darn multi-tasking!!! :twisted:

Respectfully,
Henry

By ozniek

Date 09-14-2013 07:32

Hi Brent

Certainly some codes allow fabricators to use welder performance qualifications (WPQ) performed by other organisations, while some do not. I totally agree with your argument surrounding the liability issue when using WPQ's performed by other organisations, but this is a stance which is based on a number of assumptions which may not hold. The assumptions are:

1) You do not know the other organisation and therefore you have no basis for trusting their qualification process.
2) You do not have access to the welder's past performance history.
3) No independent third parties were involved in the qualification process.

If however you have WPQ's performed by organisations that you trust, with involvement of independent third parties and you have the welder's performance history available to you, then it becomes clear that "tried and tested" WPQ's (from other organisations, with a history of revalidation performance) should give you a much higher assurance of a welder's competency than a single test.

If there was a trusted system to register welders and their qualifications centrally, along with a mechanism to monitor and give feedback on their performance, then what need would there be to continually "re-test" welders when they move between employers? Keep in mind that even poor welders will pass coding tests, but not be able to perform consistently good welds, as well as good welders that occasionally fail coding tests. The only logical reason that the codes require re-qualification when a welder changes employment, is that the trusted system to communicate the necessary information between employers is not available.

For many years I had a consulting business that (amoung other things) helped fabricators to qualify their welders. (I know they are generally allowed to do this without third party involvement, but in many parts of the world this is a common practice.) In the case of "migrant welders" (agency welders that move from project to project) I often witnessed the same WPQ tests for the same welder a number of times a year. Even when the same welder returned to a fabricator that previously qualified him, but the 6 month "expiry period" had elapsed, he again went through the same coding tests. As an "outsider" in this process, it was clear to me that it was a waste of time, money and other resources. (I did however make money out of it, but clearly not adding much value in the process!) Because of this, I started to develop the idea of making an on-line system for administering WPQ's. While it is a simple concept, the actual market drivers are very complex, (Different parties want to protect their respective investments in different ways.) and therefore it took me almost a decade to come up with what I believe is a workable system. If you are interested, you can take a look at:

[url=]www.welderpassport.com[/url]

I have also made a "prezi" (Type of on-line presentation for those who have not come across this yet.) regarding this, which you can view here:

http://prezi.com/hpzr7jyu25ma/?utm_campaign=share&utm_medium=copy

I believe that as long as all the necessary privacy and data integrity issues can be dealt with, we need to take WPQ's into a world of greater efficiency by using the power of the internet. We are doing it with everything else, so why not something like WPQ's that are crying out for efficiency and quality improvements?

Regards
Niekie

By jarsanb (***)

Date 09-14-2013 12:51

Niekie,
You are absolutely correct in all that you say.
Waste of time...yep.
Waste of money...yep
Waste of resources...check
Waste of materials....also check
Adds to unnessessary total expense....in many cases, yep.

But who benifits from a program like this? Does the welder, Inspector or general workforce benifit from these reduced costs? Nope. Will there be a loss of jobs and income for the workforce mentioned due to work hours reduced from eliminating qualification process? Yes. Will the end user see the reduced expenses reflected in their cost? I highly doubt it. From my experiences the only people who would actually benefit are the people who are already grossly overpaid. A few people would get bigger bonuses. Long term maybe share holders get a little. But I don't see these reduced expenses helping anyone who matters.

Also, In the industry where I work, welder testing (including maintenance of qualification testing) is required every six months. Regardless of how much welding a person has done in the previous six months they must retest at approximately six months intervals (without going into time frame specifics). I'm pretty sure you run into the same requirements on some of the pipeline jobs you've been on. This repetative testing process definitely keeps the welders on their "A" game more so then in our power generation groups where the welders only need to have documentation of welding process within six months. The obversavable weld quality degradation from the qualification date is far to common in that arena in my opinion. I can't really disagree with your message though. And it's unfortunate that a process like this one wouldn't benefit all involved. I need a job.

By ozniek

Date 09-15-2013 14:52

Hi jarsanb

If the welder gets paid a full rate for the testing process, and the time he has to wait before getting on the job, then you may argue that he is losing, but that is not normally the case. In many cases the welder is not fully reimbursed for testing time, and almost never reimbursed for the day or two "down time" it can take until his results have been received and the necessary documentation processes followed to get him on the job, so it is a bonus for him to be able to walk off one job and onto another. (Keep in mind that we are talking about "agency" type welders here, not welders that may only move employers a few times in their lives.) Also, with a good history of performance captured on the database, he has grounds for asking a higher rate than the welder that is largely "unknown". Suddenly a welder is no longer a commodity. Instead he can differentiate himself through his database history. It also means that it is much easier for him to move to "non-traditional" off-shore markets, as his history on the database becomes a much better CV than anything an Agency can possibly come up with. In short, the best welders will be able to get the best jobs anywhere in the world, if that is what they want, rather than being the big fish in a little pond, as is often the case.

Welders that "throw repairs" due to motivational issues will start sticking out like sore thumbs, so the idea that such a system will result in welders not bringing their "A game" does not hold. It becomes a lot more important for welders to perform consistently well, rather than just bringing their A game when they do the coding tests. In short, good welders will have a distinct advantage, ensuring that they are rewarded for their higher skill and commitment levels.

The main benefit for the end user is generally felt as reduced downtime under unplanned shut-down situations, or reduced project deadlines. This benefit can under some situations run into millions of dollars, so we are not talking small change here! In addition, by having more information available, fabricators, project houses and end-users can consistently employ better quality "agency" welders that will result in reduced repair rates, once again resulting in huge cost savings.

We could argue that inspectors may have less work, but on a typical large project, the inspector time spent actually witnessing welder quals is quite low compared to the time he spends on ensuring quality on the job, so I do not see this as a huge reduction in work for them. In fact, as the system is based on "third party" involvement, there are some aspects of the qualification process where more CWI involvement may be seen than is traditionally the case. Also, to be able to analyse the welder information during the recruiting process, knowledgeable individuals will be required. These will typically be CWI or welding supervisory people, so the need for their services will not disappear.

The only group that may see a reduction in work may be NDT companies, but frankly I do not know any NDT company that makes a significant portion of their income through welder quals. Generally NDT of welder quals is a small potatoes income stream for them. In the whole welder qualification process, the "lab" costs are probably the least significant cost item.

As a general rule, when wastage is removed from the system, there does not necessarily have to be losers for there to be winners. The Welderpassport system has been purposely designed to utilise the current players in the welding game to make it work. It is based on the elimination of wastage through information sharing, rather than eliminating any part of the current process, so you will definitely still have a job, but it may just emphasise different skills than under the current system.

Regards
Niekie

By jarsanb (***)

Date 09-16-2013 18:27

Again, I can't really disagree with you without looking like an idiot nor do I disagree with most of what you've said. There are little niches in certain industries and/or for certain employers. For example, contract welders coming on to certain projects are allowed one to two days pay for welder qualification testing that I am involved with, sometimes including travel pay and perdiem for this testing. Another example, a competitor of ours employs two inspectors who's only responsibilities are those that revolve around welder qualification testing and maintenance of qualification testing. But this practice is a very small micron of what you are referring to industry wide. I probably should have kept silent.

By welderbrent (*****)

Date 09-16-2013 20:40 Edited 09-16-2013 20:42

Silence does not benefit anyone. Your points are well taken. So are Niekie's. Kinda busy on a job and studying for some additional certs to cover the next job coming up. Don't have time to go line by line but a few comments from my two tin pennies worth.

I agree with his original statements to me as to all the waste and duplication. It is a sad state of affairs in most situations. But, in many regards it is also well needed. It would really require a good amount of auditing, record keeping, documenting, oversight, etc to have a decent program in place that would replace the need to retest so often. And that is why it is not normally done. Some of the union halls have programs but even at that there are some employers who will still test new people sent in to work.

Just as any competent employer will have some sort of training, experience, skills, evaluation to make sure the person can do their work. It isn't always about certifications. Do they have the mindset and skills to do my job? Even when I need a certified welder I generally would love to have someone with a good work ethic, desire to accomplish a task, and skills that are variable and adaptable. Not every 'certified' welder has that.

As to work loads, that is also a mixed bag. Some jobs may require less inspections hours, some the same, some more.

Have a Great Day, Brent