# Aerospace Supplier Scorecard and Risk Rating > Source: https://netray.co/tools/aerospace-supplier-scorecard > Publisher: Netray (netray.co), AI and integration engineering for ERP and manufacturing systems. > Section: Free Tools ## Short answer Rate a supplier across 10 criteria - OTD, quality escapes, AS9100 status, FAI performance, CAPA responsiveness, compliance flowdown, and financial health - for an instant risk rating. ## Category aerospace-defense ## Tool **Kind:** assessment **Questions:** #### What is this supplier's on-time delivery (OTD) performance over the last 12 months? **Help:** Measure against the original promise date, not renegotiated dates. Aerospace primes typically expect 95%+ OTD. **Options:** ##### Below 80%, or not measured **Score:** 0 ##### 80-89% **Score:** 1 ##### 90-94% **Score:** 2 ##### 95% or better **Score:** 3 #### What is the supplier's quality performance (defect rate / PPM or lot rejection rate)? **Options:** ##### Frequent rejections, above 10,000 PPM, or not tracked **Score:** 0 ##### Occasional rejections; roughly 2,500-10,000 PPM **Score:** 1 ##### Rare rejections; roughly 500-2,500 PPM **Score:** 2 ##### Consistently below 500 PPM with stable trend **Score:** 3 #### Has this supplier caused any quality escapes that reached you or your customer? **Options:** ##### Multiple escapes in the last 12 months, or a customer-notified escape **Score:** 0 ##### One escape in the last 12 months **Score:** 1 ##### No escapes in 12 months; at least one in 24 **Score:** 2 ##### No escapes in 24+ months **Score:** 3 #### What is the supplier's certification status? **Options:** ##### No quality certification **Score:** 0 ##### ISO 9001 only **Score:** 1 ##### AS9100 (or AS9120/Nadcap as applicable), recently certified or with recent majors **Score:** 2 ##### AS9100/Nadcap as applicable, certified 3+ years with clean surveillance history **Score:** 3 #### How does the supplier perform on first article inspections (AS9102) for new and changed parts? **Options:** ##### FAIs frequently rejected or not submitted without chasing **Score:** 0 ##### FAIs often need multiple resubmissions **Score:** 1 ##### FAIs mostly accepted first pass; occasional documentation gaps **Score:** 2 ##### FAIs consistently complete and accepted first pass, including delta FAIs triggered proactively **Score:** 3 #### How responsive is the supplier to corrective action requests (SCARs)? **Help:** Look at both closure speed and quality: real root cause versus 'operator retrained' answers. **Options:** ##### SCARs ignored or closed with boilerplate answers **Score:** 0 ##### Responses arrive late; root cause is shallow **Score:** 1 ##### On-time responses with credible root cause; effectiveness sometimes unverified **Score:** 2 ##### Fast, rigorous 8D-style responses with verified effectiveness and recurrence prevention **Score:** 3 #### How would you rate the supplier's financial stability and business continuity risk? **Options:** ##### Known distress: late on payables, losing staff, or single-customer dependent **Score:** 0 ##### Unknown - never assessed **Score:** 1 ##### Appears stable; informal assessment only **Score:** 2 ##### Verified stable (credit reports or financials) with succession and continuity plans **Score:** 3 #### Does the supplier have capacity and lead-time headroom for your demand, including surge? **Options:** ##### Already constrained - lead times slipping, expedites routine **Score:** 0 ##### Meets current demand with no visible surge capacity **Score:** 1 ##### Adequate capacity; surge ability discussed but unverified **Score:** 2 ##### Demonstrated capacity headroom with capacity data shared and surge plans agreed **Score:** 3 #### Does the supplier meet your compliance flowdowns (ITAR/EAR handling, DFARS/CMMC cybersecurity, counterfeit prevention, raw material traceability)? **Options:** ##### Flowdowns unacknowledged or known gaps exist **Score:** 0 ##### Flowdowns accepted on paper; never verified **Score:** 1 ##### Key flowdowns verified by certification or questionnaire **Score:** 2 ##### Verified by audit or evidence (SPRS score, ITAR registration, test records) on a defined cycle **Score:** 3 #### How proactive is the supplier's communication and continuous improvement? **Options:** ##### Problems surface only when parts are late or rejected **Score:** 0 ##### Responsive when asked; never proactive **Score:** 1 ##### Flags risks early; participates in reviews when scheduled **Score:** 2 ##### Proactively communicates risk, brings cost/quality improvement ideas, engages in joint planning **Score:** 3 **Bands:** #### High Risk - Contain and Plan Exit **Min:** 0 **Max:** 39 **Verdict:** This supplier represents active risk to your delivery commitments, quality system, and compliance obligations. In aerospace, a supplier at this level can trigger customer escapes and audit findings that damage your own scorecard with primes. **Recommendations:** - Place the supplier on formal probation with a documented improvement plan and 90-day milestones - Increase receiving inspection to 100% and require objective quality evidence with every lot - Qualify an alternate source now - exiting without one converts supplier risk into your own delivery failure - Verify compliance flowdowns immediately; their gaps (cyber, ITAR, counterfeit) are legally your gaps - Escalate to executive level on both sides - improvement at this level requires ownership commitment, not buyer pressure #### Conditional - Monitor and Develop **Min:** 40 **Max:** 69 **Verdict:** A workable supplier with specific weaknesses that need active management rather than hope. Most suppliers in a typical aerospace supply base sit in this band, and the differentiator is whether you manage them with data or with anecdotes. **Recommendations:** - Share the scorecard with the supplier quarterly - measured suppliers improve, unmeasured ones drift - Target the two lowest-scoring criteria with joint improvement actions and dates - Verify, do not assume, compliance flowdowns: collect SPRS scores, ITAR registration, and traceability evidence - Tie future awards explicitly to score improvement so development has commercial teeth - Reassess quarterly and watch for trend direction - a stable 60% is different from a falling one #### Preferred - Protect and Grow **Min:** 70 **Max:** 100 **Verdict:** This supplier performs at or above aerospace industry expectations and is an asset worth protecting. The strategic risks at this level are concentration - depending too heavily on one strong source - and complacency in monitoring. **Recommendations:** - Consider consolidating more spend here, balanced against single-source concentration risk on critical parts - Move to lighter-touch monitoring (dock-to-stock where data supports it) and redirect SQE effort to weaker suppliers - Engage them early in new product development - strong suppliers add the most value before drawings freeze - Maintain annual compliance verification even at this level; certifications and SPRS scores go stale - Protect the relationship commercially: pay on time and forecast honestly, because preferred customers get priority in allocation crunches ## Content **Intro:** This free aerospace supplier scorecard lets buyers, supplier quality engineers, and supply chain managers rate any supplier across ten weighted criteria in about five minutes: on-time delivery, PPM quality, escapes, AS9100 and Nadcap status, FAI performance, SCAR responsiveness, financial stability, capacity, compliance flowdown verification, and communication. The result is a risk band - high risk, conditional, or preferred - with concrete management actions for each. It mirrors how primes score you, so it doubles as a lens on your own performance. Use it to standardize approved supplier list reviews, prepare for source selection decisions, or bring structure to a supplier that is trending the wrong way. **Sections:** #### How the scoring model works **Body:** Each criterion is scored 0-3 against thresholds drawn from aerospace industry norms rather than generic supplier management practice: 95% OTD and sub-500 PPM as the top band because that is what primes expect of their own suppliers, escapes weighted by recency because escape history is the strongest predictor of future escapes, and certification scored by tenure and surveillance history because a fresh certificate tells you less than three clean cycles. The model deliberately mixes lagging indicators (OTD, PPM, escapes) with leading ones (SCAR quality, capacity headroom, proactive communication, financial health), since lagging metrics tell you what happened while leading metrics tell you what is about to. #### Aerospace benchmarks to score against **Body:** When a criterion asks for a judgment call, anchor it to these industry reference points: **Bullets:** - OTD: 95%+ is the standard prime expectation; sustained performance below 90% typically triggers probation or resourcing at major aerospace customers - Quality: world-class machining and electronics suppliers run below 500 PPM; above 10,000 PPM (1% defective) is generally disqualifying for flight hardware - SCAR closure: 30 days is the common contractual expectation for full root-cause response, with containment inside 48 hours - Compliance: primes increasingly require subcontractor SPRS scores and counterfeit-prevention evidence at onboarding, not just certificates #### Using results across your supply base **Body:** The scorecard becomes most valuable when applied consistently rather than once. Score your critical and sole-source suppliers first - risk concentrated there is unmitigable on short notice - then work outward by spend. Re-score quarterly and manage the trend, not the snapshot: a supplier falling from 80% to 65% deserves more attention than one stable at 60%, because trajectory predicts escapes and delivery failures better than level does. Share scores with suppliers openly; in practice, suppliers who see their scorecard improve measurably faster than those managed through expedites and complaints. Finally, calibrate scorers - have two people score the same supplier independently once a year and reconcile differences, or your data quietly becomes opinion. #### How Netray automates supplier performance management **Body:** Manual scorecards die of data collection - OTD lives in the ERP, PPM in the quality system, SCARs in email, and financial checks nowhere. Netray builds live supplier scorecards on top of Infor SyteLine, LN, and Baan, pulling receipt-versus-promise dates, inspection results, and nonconformance data automatically so scores update continuously instead of quarterly. We implement supplier portals for FAI and SCAR workflows, approved-source enforcement at PO entry, and on-prem AI that flags deteriorating trends - slipping receipts, rising rejections, slowing SCAR responses - before they become escapes. Your supplier reviews shift from assembling data to acting on it. **Cta:** Score your highest-risk supplier now and see whether your gut feeling survives contact with a structured rating. **Faq:** #### How often should we formally score our suppliers? **Answer:** Quarterly for critical, sole-source, and probationary suppliers; at least annually for the rest of the approved supplier list, plus event-driven rescoring after any escape, major finding, ownership change, or key personnel departure. AS9100 requires performance monitoring of external providers, and auditors increasingly ask to see the data and the actions taken from it - a scorecard with no linked decisions is a finding waiting to happen. Automating data collection from your ERP is what makes a quarterly cadence sustainable. #### What OTD and PPM targets should we set for aerospace suppliers? **Answer:** The common aerospace baseline is 95% on-time delivery measured against original promise date and under 2,500 PPM for machined and fabricated parts, with preferred-supplier status typically requiring 98% OTD and under 500 PPM. Electronics assembly often carries tighter PPM expectations. Set targets by commodity risk rather than uniformly: a sole-source flight-critical forging house warrants tighter thresholds and more frequent review than a bracket supplier with three qualified alternates. #### A key supplier scores in the high-risk band but we cannot replace them. What now? **Answer:** Treat it as risk management, not scoring. Immediately: increase inspection, buffer inventory on their parts, and put a documented improvement plan in place with executive sponsorship on both sides. In parallel, start qualifying an alternate even if qualification takes a year - the option itself changes the supplier's behavior and your negotiating position. Sole-source dependence on a failing supplier is one of the few problems that only gets more expensive with time, so start the clock now. ## Search terms aerospace supplier scorecard, supplier evaluation criteria aerospace, supplier risk assessment manufacturing, as9100 supplier monitoring, supplier otd ppm benchmarks, approved supplier list management, supplier performance rating template --- Talk to an engineer: https://netray.co/contact?intent=erp_ai | Machine catalog: https://netray.co/agent/catalog.json