40+ Year Quality Expert Daryl Guberman Exposes Boeing's 22-Year Supplier Auditing Loophole

BRIDGEPORT, Conn. - Nov. 27, 2024 - PRLog -- Daryl Guberman, a veteran quality management expert with over four decades of experience, has revealed a troubling gap in Boeing's supplier oversight practices. For 22 years, Boeing has relied on third-party certification schemes rather than direct, on-site audits of suppliers. This revelation raises serious questions about the aerospace giant's commitment to quality and safety.

The issue began in 2001, when Boeing announced massive layoffs of 20,000–30,000 employees following the downturn in the aviation industry after 9/11 (https://money.cnn.com/2001/09/19/europe/boeing/index.htm ). By 2002, Boeing implemented new supplier policies aimed at cutting costs, including reliance on third-party certifications through organizations like the Performance Review Institute (PRI). Together, PRI and Boeing established NADCAP (National Aerospace and Defense Contractors Accreditation Program), allowing suppliers to submit certifications and parts instead of undergoing Boeing's direct audits. In this document what does this mean? -need arises (https://www.boeingsuppliers.com/nadcap/nadcapletter.pdf )

The shift didn't end there. In July 2002, Boeing issued a supplier bulletin mandating compliance with the AS9100 standard, but only if certifications were accredited by ANSI-ANAB or their international equivalents. This policy meant that suppliers who obtained ANSI-ANAB-approved certifications could bypass direct Boeing audits.  (https://www.boeingsuppliers.com/supplier/BQMS_Bulletin-BQMS_CRB_and_Survey-July_2002.pdf  Boeing's direct audits. In this document what does this mean? - if need be

The reasoning behind this reliance is clear: outsourcing supplier oversight to ANSI-ANAB saves Boeing time and money. However, as Guberman points out, ANSI-ANAB's credibility is undermined by conflicts of interest. Boeing itself holds a seat on ANSI-ANAB's management committee, giving it significant influence over the accreditation process. This creates a circular system where Boeing can effectively grant, suspend, or withdraw supplier certifications, raising serious concerns about impartiality.

Adding to the problem, ANSI-ANAB acts as the underwriter for the International Accreditation Forum (IAF), a Delaware-based organization tied to ANSI-ANAB and its sister entity, the International Laboratory Accreditation Cooperation (ILAC) in Australia. Guberman has called attention to this global accreditation network, exposing its lack of transparency and its influence over industries like aerospace, pharmaceuticals, and defense.

In response to Guberman's revelations, ANSI-ANAB has removed certain web pages that once illustrated Boeings ties to ANSI-ANAB, a move that Guberman argues is an attempt to evade accountability. He has also uncovered indications that ANSI-ANAB and its affiliates may rebrand under the name GLOBAC to deflect scrutiny.

For two decades, Boeing's reliance on outsourced certifications has allowed it to reduce costs but at the potential expense of quality. Guberman's exposé raises a critical question: Can the aerospace industry afford to prioritize profit over rigorous oversight in a sector where lives are on the line?

Guberman's findings call for a renewed commitment to direct auditing and independent, unbiased quality assurance to ensure safety and trust in Boeing's global supply chain. It is apparent only Daryl Guberman will be the only one to  right the sinking ship.