The tooling was never the holder’s
A shop that built the tooling in-house sometimes treats it as its own asset. The transfer then stalls on a commercial argument that should have been settled years earlier.
Capabilities · tooling
Moving a part to a new source without losing the approval
A transfer is not a logistics exercise. It is a requalification, and the paperwork is what carries the approval across. Programmes that treat it as freight spend the next year explaining the first article.
Six stages, each with a document
Nothing moves to the next stage on a phone call. Every stage ends with something you can put in the programme file.
01 · Tooling audit
We inspect every tool, fixture and gauge before agreeing to take the part. Condition, provenance, and whether it was built to the current drawing revision are recorded in a report you receive.
02 · Ownership and data
Who owns the tooling is settled in writing before it moves. In most programmes the holder paid for it, so the holder owns it — including the right to take it away again.
03 · Transfer and refurbishment
Tools move under a packing and preservation plan. Worn features are restored to drawing, and every change is recorded against the tool number, not “fixed on the bench”.
04 · Requalification
A tool that made good parts at one shop is not automatically capable at another. Machine, spindle, fixture clamping and operator all change, so capability is re-established, not assumed.
05 · First article
A full first article in AS9102 format, from the transferred tooling, submitted for your approval. Production does not start on a verbal okay.
06 · Production and monitoring
The first three batches are monitored at a higher inspection frequency than steady state, and the data is kept with the programme file rather than discarded.
Where transfers actually slip
Four failure modes, seen often enough to be planned for rather than discovered.
The drawing revision moved and the tool did not
A tool built to revision C cannot produce revision E without change. Transfers that skip the revision check discover this at first article.
The process lived in one operator’s head
If the routing was never written down, the new shop inherits a tool and no process. Requalification then turns into process development, at somebody’s expense.
Nobody planned the gap
The old source stops before the new one is approved, and the operator runs out of parts. The buffer is a programme decision, and it belongs in the plan from week one.
Tooling ownership, in plain terms
Four positions. They go into the agreement, not into a conversation.
| Position | What it means |
|---|---|
| The holder owns the tooling it paid for | Marked as the holder’s property, listed in a schedule, and returnable at the end of the term. |
| Tooling is kept separable | Not welded into a machine, not blended into another customer’s fixture. Removable without destroying it. |
| Changes are recorded against the tool | Every repair or modification is dated, dimensioned and signed, so capability can be traced to a state of the tool. |
| No tooling is used for a third party | A holder’s tool does not produce parts for anyone else, ever, including under a different part number. |
What we ask the outgoing source for
The list is short, and the transfer is faster when all of it exists.
- Tool and fixture list, with drawings if they exist
- Last known condition and the date it was last verified
- The routing actually used, not the one in the quality manual
- Process capability data on the critical features
- Any open nonconformance or concession on the part
- Material and sub-tier sources, so the supply chain does not break at transfer
Is a source closing, or do you want a second one?
Send the part family and the tooling status. We will tell you what the transfer costs in time before anyone books freight.