A supplier change triggers a new FAI, or more commonly a partial FAI, when the change can affect the validity of the previous first article baseline. In practical terms, that includes a change in manufacturing source, sub-tier supplier, production location, special process provider, material source, tooling, CNC program, inspection method, or any supplier approval status that the customer or contract treats as controlled. A name change or purchasing-system update alone usually does not justify a new FAI, but the decision and evidence should still be documented.
What usually triggers it
Under AS9102-style FAI governance, the key question is not simply “did the supplier name change?” The key question is whether the change could affect fit, form, function, characteristics, process control, or traceability for the part.
A new or partial FAI is commonly required when:
- Production moves from one supplier to another.
- A supplier moves production to a different facility, cell, machine, or qualified manufacturing line.
- A sub-tier supplier changes for a controlled operation, such as heat treat, plating, welding, coating, NDT, chemical processing, or other special processes.
- The material source changes where the customer, specification, or internal risk assessment treats the source as significant.
- Tooling, fixtures, programs, inspection equipment, or inspection methods change in a way that may affect reported characteristics.
- The change is tied to a nonconformance, corrective action, escape, or process instability.
- The customer contract, purchase order, drawing note, quality clause, or approved supplier list requires FAI after the supplier change.
When it may not require a new FAI
A supplier change may not require a new FAI when it is purely administrative and does not change the manufacturing source, process, facility, equipment, inspection approach, material source, or controlled sub-tier path. Examples include a legal name change, ERP vendor-number cleanup, or supplier ownership change with no change to the approved production process.
That does not mean “do nothing.” In regulated aerospace and similar environments, the quality record should show why the prior FAI remains valid. The evidence may include supplier notifications, process continuity statements, approved supplier records, unchanged routing evidence, material certifications, or customer disposition where required.
Full FAI versus partial FAI
A full FAI is not always necessary. If the supplier change affects only certain operations or characteristics, a partial FAI is often the more appropriate control. The partial FAI should identify the affected characteristics, operations, documents, and prior FAI baseline. It should not become a paperwork exercise disconnected from the actual process change.
A full FAI is more likely when the part is being produced by a new manufacturing source, the prior baseline is no longer representative, the change affects many characteristics, or the customer requires a complete resubmission. Customer-specific requirements can be stricter than a company’s internal interpretation.
Where supplier changes fail in practice
The common failure mode is treating the supplier change as a procurement update instead of a controlled quality event. In brownfield environments, the supplier master in ERP may change while the MES routing, PLM-approved process plan, QMS supplier approval record, inspection plan, and FAI package remain unchanged. That creates traceability gaps and can make it difficult to prove why the old FAI is still valid.
Another failure mode is missing sub-tier changes. A prime supplier may remain the same while a special processor, material mill, or outsourced machining operation changes. If that sub-tier operation affects controlled characteristics or is customer-approved, the FAI impact still needs to be assessed.
What should be controlled
At minimum, the organization should have a documented decision path for supplier changes. That decision path should connect purchasing, supplier quality, engineering, manufacturing, inspection, and customer quality requirements. It should define when to require no FAI, partial FAI, full FAI, customer notification, or customer approval.
The decision depends on site-specific configuration, contract language, customer flowdowns, product risk, supplier maturity, and how well ERP, MES, PLM, and QMS records are integrated. Software can help route the review and preserve the evidence, but it does not remove the need for engineering and quality judgment.