A batch failed inspection, a shipment arrived late twice, or the supplier stopped answering. Switching is already decided or close to it. What is not decided is how to avoid finding the same weakness again. This page takes up one question: how the incident becomes screening criteria. Matching what the incumbent supplies is a different question, covered under the service page on replacing a supplier.
A generic search repeats the process that chose the first supplier. A failure-led one rewrites the brief from the incident: what exactly went wrong, at which step, and which observable attributes would have signalled it in advance. Candidates are then screened on those attributes, with the incumbent kept in the table so the comparison is honest.
The report states what is visible in sources. It does not tell you whether the old supplier was at fault or whether your specification contributed.
If a dispute is open with the incumbent, that is a matter for you and your advisers; this work does not touch it.
Four steps; the first is done with your own records, not search engines.
Quality example: tolerance drift across batches becomes a requirement to see process-control evidence. Delivery example: repeated delay becomes a requirement to see capacity stated against your volume.
The current supplier's stated attributes sit in the first row of the matrix. Every candidate is compared with it on the same lines, including where it was fine.
Production footprint, subcontracting statements, customer sectors, stated capacity and stated certificates are read for each candidate and tied to the failure mode.
The shortlist closes with the list of what could not be established for each candidate. Planning the changeover is yours.
The same incident can read differently depending on what failed.
Weight goes to process evidence and standards the candidate states, and to whether it makes the part or buys it in.
Weight goes to stated capacity, stated order mix and what the candidate states about where it sources the critical input.
Research reports what can be established from public and provided sources. It is not a guarantee about a counterparty's future conduct and not legal advice.
No. The work looks at candidates, not at the incident or the contract.
That is a sourcing decision for you. The shortlist can be read either way.
No obligation. We read your request and reply with a straight answer.
Tell us what you need to find out and by when. We confirm scope before any work starts.
Request research