Treat the transfer as a defined change review. Identify which processes and stock will move, what evidence will remain applicable and what the new site must demonstrate. A common company name or unchanged drawing does not by itself establish that the production transfer needs no review.
Identify the processes, equipment and subcontractors moving
Ask for the current and proposed site identities, the processes moving and any subcontractor changes. Distinguish a move of packaging from a move of material processing, assembly or inspection. Record whether tooling, equipment, personnel or controlled instructions are also changing, where relevant to the supplied product.
Identify the first affected order, lot and planned date. The quality-agreement guide covers general change responsibilities; this review needs a concrete transfer boundary. Avoid a broad approval of “other facilities” that could later be read as permission for unrelated production moves.
Request updated qualification, traceability and representative acceptance evidence
Have the technical and quality owners compare the transfer with the existing qualification basis. Ask which requirements need representative evidence from the new site and how material and process records will connect to the delivered goods. A certificate for one location should not be assumed to describe another location’s scope.
Request an appropriate plan for first production, inspection and any required verification. The extent depends on the processes and risks involved; do not prescribe a universal audit or sample quantity. If prior evidence is reused, document why it remains applicable and which changes it does not cover.
Consider continuity during the transition. If old-site and new-site stock will overlap, require clear identification and separate evidence where needed. Ask who will answer technical questions and retain records for each population. This prevents an investigation from reaching two sites that each believe the other holds the relevant history.
Agree affected lots and release authority before treating the transfer as invisible
Approve, reject or condition the transfer through the authorized change process before treating new-site production as released. The decision should identify the scope, verification milestones and affected quantities. Do not interpret a supplier’s notification as the buyer’s acceptance when review is still pending.
For the snow-plow blade programme, update the active order and quality records with the approved site scope. Carry any conditions into shipment release, and retain the previous site history for older stock. If the move changes lead time or other commercial terms, resolve those separately and explicitly.
Close the transfer review when the agreed evidence has been accepted and the first affected deliveries can be traced accurately. The goal is not to require identical factories or forbid legitimate supply changes. It is to make the basis for approval and the production boundary clear enough that future receiving and claims work remain reliable.
