# Supplier process certificates

How batch process declarations differ from process qualification, accreditation, test results and management-system certification.

Reviewed: 2026-11-02

Tags: sourcing, process-certification, special-processes, supplier-evidence

## Meaning depends on the certificate's subject

A supplier process certificate can cover a specific job, process qualification or a management system. Leonardo Lasertel’s QAP 3B is a contractual example for completed work. It identifies the processor, process revision, type, class and certification number. [Leonardo, Quality Assurance Provisions 90-0138, QAP 3B](https://www.leonardo.us/hubfs/Resource%20Documents/90-0138-QUALITYASSURANCEPROVISIONS_QAPs_2-2026.pdf?hsLang=en)

For a shipment, look for a declaration that identifies the actual job and parts. Process approval and accreditation describe the scope of a processor’s assessed capability.

## Original bounded example: coating evidence and dimensions

Assume a fictional order for **80 shafts**, with coating thickness **20–30 µm per surface**, under an invented process specification P-7 revision B. A declaration identifies job J14 and **60 shafts**. A separate report gives three thickness readings: **22, 24 and 28 µm**. No sampling or acceptance rule is assumed.

The declaration covers **60/80 = 75% by shaft count**. The coating treatment and conformity of the remaining 20 shafts require separate evidence of job identity.

The three displayed readings lie within the assumed limits. Their mean is `(22 + 24 + 28)/3 = 24.67 µm`. That mean does not establish minimum local thickness over every coated surface, nor demonstrate that all 60 shafts were measured. A process declaration, a sampled reading and a full surface-thickness map represent different evidence.

Now assume a pre-coating diameter of exactly **20.000 mm** and uniform coating on opposite sides. The possible coated diameters would be:

`20.000 + 2 × 0.020 = 20.040 mm`

through

`20.000 + 2 × 0.030 = 20.060 mm`.

If the separate finished-diameter requirement were **20.050 ±0.005 mm**, its allowed interval would be **20.045–20.055 mm**. Meeting the assumed thickness interval would not alone guarantee meeting that diameter interval: the two calculated extremes differ from its limits by **0.005 mm**. Real thickness variation, initial diameter variation and measurement uncertainty are excluded from this idealized calculation.

## Why special processes need more than a final appearance check

Leonardo Helicopters defines special processes in its own supplier requirements as processes whose product results cannot be completely verified through measurements or objective checks, with discrepancies capable of affecting service performance. Its qualification framework addresses materials, equipment, personnel, procedures and software as applicable. This explains the importance of controlled processing evidence alongside final inspection; the definition is presented here within that named aerospace framework. [Leonardo Helicopters, QRS-104 Issue 04, §§4.2–5.1](https://www.leonardo.com/documents/15646808/0/QRS-104%2BSpecial%2BProcesses_Issue%2B04.pdf/86a37247-10bb-8464-18f4-4b26e2be4ad8?t=1740734906042)

The same framework distinguishes customer process approval from Nadcap accreditation. Its approval scope identifies processes and specifications; current Nadcap coverage may reduce specified customer qualification activities, rather than making those two approvals identical. These are Leonardo Helicopters' arrangements, not general rules for every purchaser. [QRS-104, §§5.2 and 5.6](https://www.leonardo.com/documents/15646808/0/QRS-104%2BSpecial%2BProcesses_Issue%2B04.pdf/86a37247-10bb-8464-18f4-4b26e2be4ad8?t=1740734906042)

## Four different kinds of evidence

| Evidence | Subject of the statement |
| --- | --- |
| Job or batch process declaration | Compliance claimed for the identified processing work |
| Process qualification or customer approval | A defined process capability within an approval scope |
| Process accreditation | Assessment against the accreditation program's requirements |
| Management-system certificate | The organization's management system within its stated scope |

This table is explanatory synthesis of the named examples, not a standardized classification or ranking. An individual test report adds another kind of evidence: observations under its stated test conditions. It can support a process declaration without becoming the same document.

PRI describes Nadcap as an industry-managed program using collaboratively developed audit criteria and process-focused audits. Suppliers earning accreditation enter its **Qualified Manufacturers List**. That establishes a program-specific accreditation context; the listing is not itself a certificate describing the treatment of a particular shipment. The latter distinction follows from the different subjects of the documents. [PRI, Participate in Nadcap](https://www.p-r-i.org/nadcap/participate)

ISO's **2016** supply-chain booklet explains that conformity to ISO 9001 concerns a quality management system and does not substitute for a declaration of product or service conformity. The booklet discusses the 2015 edition; it is used here for that conceptual distinction, not as evidence of the current ISO 9001 edition or a particular supplier's certification status. [ISO, What does ISO 9001 mean in the supply chain?](https://www.iso.org/files/live/sites/isoorg/files/store/en/PUB100304.pdf)

Formal third-party certification also has its own framework. **ISO/IEC 17065:2012** addresses bodies certifying products, processes and services. Its title does not make every processor-issued declaration an accredited third-party process certification. The distinction between the issuer's declaration and a certification body's assurance depends on the actual scheme and scope. [ISO/IEC 17065:2012, official record](https://www.iso.org/standard/46568.html)

## Process specification versus supporting controls

**AMS2750H**, revised **15 July 2024**, concerns pyrometry for thermal processing of metallic materials: sensors, instrumentation, equipment, correction factors/offsets, system accuracy tests and temperature-uniformity surveys. SAE's scope connects these controls to heat treatment under applicable specifications. A statement about pyrometry therefore does not alone define an alloy's complete heat-treatment cycle, hardness limits or final acceptance. [SAE, AMS2750H public scope](https://saemobilus.sae.org/standards/ams2750h-pyrometry)

Similarly, Leonardo's Lasertel provisions distinguish a general shipment certificate from the special-process certificate and associated certifications. The stated requirements apply when invoked through that business unit's purchasing documents. A customer-specific process class or revision has meaning in its own specification context, rather than through the certificate heading alone. [Leonardo 90-0138, introduction and QAPs 3–3B](https://www.leonardo.us/hubfs/Resource%20Documents/90-0138-QUALITYASSURANCEPROVISIONS_QAPs_2-2026.pdf?hsLang=en)

## Source versions and coverage

Reviewed **2026-11-02 PST**. QRS-104's printed cover identifies **Issue 04, February 2025**. The Lasertel PDF's revision history ends with **Revision I, 31 March 2023**, despite `2-2026` in its filename; the filename is not treated as an issue date. ISO's booklet footer states **©2016**. ISO/IEC 17065's record identifies **September 2012**, confirmed **2024**, with revision underway; this is not an assertion that a successor is already published. PRI's live page has no separately verified technical issue date here.

These sources describe particular frameworks and evidence limitations. They do not establish a supplier's current approval, the acceptance of an actual batch or universal process-certificate validity periods.

Related: [Material test reports](material-test-reports.md), [calibration certificates](calibration-certificates.md), and [Supplier documents and evidence](index.md).