logo_sm.gif (4042 bytes)
Your Source for Up-To-Date News and Research on the Collision Repair Industry 

Subscribe to INSIGHT Editor's Desk News Alerts
click here to subscribe to the FREE INSIGHT Editor's Desk News Alert Email

lftspace.GIF (57 bytes)
Today's News
INSIGHT This Month
INSIGHT Archives
Survey Center
Letter to the Editor
Business Tools
Subscription Information
CSI Reporting
Financial Analysis
IRS Audit Guide
Technical Info

Market Watch Rates
INSIGHT Inside this month's issue...
Letter to the Editor
cntspace.GIF (53 bytes)
Tuesday February 26

MQVP Responds to CAPA: CAPA Report Misses The Point

MQVP has responded to CAPA's recently released comparative study. The following is the press release.

Troy, MI. -- A recent report by Jack Gillis compares CAPA to the Manufacturers' Qualification and Validation Program (MQVP). However, nowhere in this 9-page report is the core issue ever identified.

MQVP requires manufacturers to follow the "science of quality" required of all OEM suppliers. Conversely, CAPA requires manufacturers to meet a customized standard written by CAPA. The applicability of these standards is the core issue in the comparison of these programs.

The only quality standard defensible in today's marketplace is that embraced by the OEM's. Any other standard (such as CAPA) is, by definition, a "customized" standard. In fact, Mr. Gillis has repeatedly stated that CAPA's standards are "not like OEM". When a manufacturer begins with a standard that is "not like OEM", the finished product will be "not like OEM". Insurance companies, distributors and manufacturers will struggle to defend CAPA parts as having the same quality as OEM when challenged in the next class action lawsuit. Use of parts, certified by CAPA to be "not like OEM", can only accumulate liabilities for those parties involved. MQVP endorses only OEM quality standards and requires the manufacturer to demonstrate, document and warrant its achievement.

No organization can write a single standard to address the engineering issues of the twelve major car companies. The quality requirements for a Ford Escort fender have little to do with a Honda or Chrysler fender. In addition, OEM standards change with every new model, revision or engineering change. This is precisely why MQVP does not write quality standards and endorses only the OEM's standard of quality.

In the world of OE supply it is widely known that quality cannot be inspected into a product. That is why QS-9000, TS 16949 and other quality system standards are critical to OE supply chain management. It is also why MQVP requires design responsible QS-9000 registration, Statistical Process Control and Advanced Product Quality Planning as well as part inspections and vehicle test fits.

During a recent presentation of this report at the Hershey, Pennsylvania ABPA convention, prominent members of the Association publicly warned Mr. Gillis of inaccuracies in the report. Regardless, he continues to repeat himself, such as:

  • The report inaccurately claims MQVP) approved parts include fenders and hoods that have been "decertified" by CAPA. These part categories are not today, and have never been, approved by MQVP.
  • The report inaccurately claims MQVP is involved in pricing, marketing and distributing MQVP parts. MQVP is not involved in these practices and has no influence on the selling price of parts among the manufacturer, distributor or body shop.
  • The report issued by Mr. Gillis comparing MQVP and CAPA completely missed the most fundamental point of comparison: MQVP embraces OEM standards while CAPA writes their own customized standards. The most profound statement in this CAPA report is that "its accuracy with regard to the MQVP program cannot be guaranteed."

©2002 Collision Repair Industry INSIGHT
All Rights Reserved


Get Free Email News Alerts

PPG Automotive Refinish

Akzo Nobel

DuPont Automotive Refinish

Sherwin-Williams Automotive Finishes

Spies-Hecker Automotive Refinish

INSIGHT Supports the NABC!
Do You?

National Auto Body Council