Document type: Guide Practice area: Commercial — Supply Chain Jurisdiction: United States (federal and state) Last reviewed: 5 September 2026

Who this is for

The person negotiating a manufacturing agreement for a hardware company — general counsel, head of operations, or outside counsel brought in late. It assumes the customer is the party with the design and the brand.

Our example is Fenwick Instruments, a 260-person company in Rochester making laboratory automation equipment. Its vice president of operations is Idris Vantongeren-Marchetti; its general counsel is Solene Achebe-Kowalski.

The one thing to carry through the whole guide: you are negotiating from your position of maximum leverage, which is now, and you will be executing the agreement from your position of minimum leverage, which is later. Spend your capital on the provisions that matter when the relationship is bad, not on the ones that matter when it is good.

Step 1 — Diligence the manufacturer, not the proposal

Visit the plant. The actual plant, the actual line, not the corporate office. Look at how nonconforming material is segregated, whether work instructions are at the stations, whether the operators know what they are building, and whether the place is orderly. An experienced operations person learns more in two hours on a floor than in fifty pages of a response to a request for proposal.

Meet the people who will run your program. Not the business development team selling the deal. The program manager, the quality lead, the process engineer.

Ask about their other customers. Who else runs on this line, at what volume, and where would you sit in an allocation? A manufacturer whose largest customer is twenty times your size will allocate to that customer, and knowing it now is better than discovering it in a shortage.

Ask about their failures. What was your worst quality escape in the last three years, what caused it, and what changed? A manufacturer that cannot answer specifically either has not had one — unlikely — or does not learn from them.

Diligence the financials. Audited statements if available, credit reports, payment behavior with sub-tiers, customer concentration, and debt. This is the diligence customers skip and then regret. A manufacturer with one customer at 60% of revenue is a manufacturer whose survival depends on someone else's decisions.

Map the sub-tier chain. Where do the components come from, at least two tiers down? Which are single-sourced? Which come from regions with forced labor exposure under 19 U.S.C. § 1307? This map is a prerequisite to the compliance obligations you will be carrying.

Check regulatory and certification status — registrations, certifications, and inspection history for the plant, in your product's regulatory category.

Then reference-check with two of their current customers, chosen by you rather than supplied by them where possible.

Step 2 — Write a term sheet before anyone drafts

Settle the commercial architecture before a lawyer produces sixty pages, and settle it on the terms that will matter later.

The five that deserve your negotiating capital:

  1. Tooling ownership and unconditional removal rights.
  2. Exit: notice period, and transition assistance that survives termination for any reason.
  3. Capacity commitment and allocation in a shortage.
  4. Change control, including manufacturer-initiated changes and plant relocation.
  5. Epidemic failure remedy, carved out of the liability cap.

The ones that consume time and matter less: the general limitation of liability number, the confidentiality clause, the governing law, and the boilerplate indemnities. Negotiate them, do not fight over them.

Also settle in the term sheet: pricing structure and cost transparency, payment terms, forecast zones and cancellation liability, minimum volume commitments in both directions, warranty period, and term.

Fenwick's term sheet was three pages and took two weeks of arguing. The contract that followed took four weeks and was largely uncontentious, because the disputes had already happened.

Step 3 — Fix the contract architecture

Before the substance, make sure the document you negotiate is the document that governs.

State that the master agreement controls, and that purchase orders, order acknowledgments, invoices, packing documents, and portal click-throughs are administrative only. Expressly reject any additional or different terms in those documents, regardless of conduct. Without this, the battle of the forms under Article 2 of the Uniform Commercial Code can replace your negotiated limitation of liability with the Code's defaults.

Then look at the operating documents. Pull your own purchase order template, the manufacturer's acknowledgment form, and the supplier portal terms your buyers accept weekly. Procurement systems generate contract documents that nobody in legal has read, and a portal that requires acceptance of supplier terms to place an order is a contract formation event happening every week.

Set the order of precedence among the master agreement, the quality agreement, the statements of work, and the schedules. These documents will contradict each other; decide now which wins.

Define the parties correctly. Which legal entity manufactures, which contracts, which invoices, and which has assets. A contract with a holding company whose operating subsidiary in Malaysia does the work is a contract with a counterparty you cannot enforce against where the tooling sits.

Step 4 — Tooling: get the schedule and the release right

Build a tooling schedule as an exhibit: each item, its description, its cost, who paid, and its physical location. Maintain it — the agreement should require updating within a set period after any tooling is acquired or moved.

Title vests on payment, stated expressly.

Marking and segregation. Customer-owned tooling physically identified as such, segregated where practical, with inspection rights.

And the clause that matters: unconditional release. The customer may remove its tooling on notice, at any time, without regard to any dispute, and the manufacturer waives any lien, setoff, retention, or possessory right it might otherwise assert, including for unpaid amounts. A customer with title and no unconditional removal right has a lawsuit, not a supply chain.

Perfect it. File a UCC financing statement covering the tooling and any customer-owned or consigned inventory. It is inexpensive and it is what stands between you and the manufacturer's secured lender or trustee.

Handle foreign-located tooling separately. Title and removal in Malaysia are governed by Malaysian law, not by your New York choice-of-law clause. Get local counsel to confirm the arrangement works where the tooling actually is, and identify the export authorizations needed to move it.

Step 5 — Capacity, forecasts, and allocation

Reserve capacity in units per period, with a commitment that the manufacturer holds it available and a stated consequence for failure to supply — a liquidated amount, a cover right with the difference recoverable, or an escalating price adjustment. Not "commercially reasonable efforts," which is a promise to try.

Define the forecast zones explicitly, with dates and cancellation liability at each:

  • Firm zone — binding, cancellable only with defined liability.
  • Committed zone — manufacturer procures long-lead materials; customer liable for those materials on cancellation, at a defined valuation.
  • Planning zone — non-binding.

Every forecast dispute is a dispute about which zone an order was in. Draw the zones.

Address allocation in a shortage. Pro rata based on trailing purchases is a fair default and far better than silence. A guaranteed minimum allocation is better, and a customer with meaningful volume can often get it.

Address component shortages and obsolescence. Who procures long-lead components, who holds the inventory risk, whether the customer may buy directly and consign, end-of-life notice periods, and last-time-buy rights.

And commit in the other direction. Minimum purchase obligations and material liability are the manufacturer's real exposure. A customer that wants a firm capacity reservation and gives no volume commitment is asking the manufacturer to carry the risk of the customer's business plan, and will pay for it in the unit price.

Step 6 — Write the quality agreement with the commercial one

In regulated industries the quality agreement allocates regulatory responsibility. It is usually drafted by quality organizations and never read by lawyers, which is how it ends up contradicting the commercial agreement.

Cover, at minimum:

  • Who holds the specifications and controls changes to them.
  • Incoming inspection, in-process controls, and final release criteria, with acceptance test protocols identified by document number.
  • First article inspection and the qualification protocol.
  • Who may release product, and on what evidence.
  • Nonconforming material: identification, segregation, and who has disposition authority for use-as-is, rework, or scrap.
  • Corrective and preventive action obligations, with timelines.
  • Record retention by category, with periods and access rights.
  • Audit rights — routine, for-cause, and unannounced — extending to sub-tier suppliers.
  • Regulatory inspection cooperation and notification: if a regulator inspects the plant and observes something about your product, when do you find out?
  • Complaint and adverse event information flow.
  • Sub-tier supplier control and your approval rights over changes.
  • Traceability: lot and serial control sufficient to reconstruct what went into any unit.

Then align the two documents. Have one lawyer read both. They will contain different definitions of nonconformity, different notice periods, and different audit rights. Add an express order of precedence and fix the substantive conflicts rather than papering them.

Step 7 — Change control, and the plant relocation clause

Customer-initiated changes need a process: notice, cost and schedule impact, approval, effectivity date, and disposition of in-process and finished inventory built to the old configuration. And the customer should expect to bear the cost of its own changes.

Manufacturer-initiated changes are the dangerous ones. Require prior written approval for any change to the design, materials, process, sub-tier suppliers, manufacturing location, test methods, or packaging — with a defined notice period, the data required to support the change, and a requalification obligation where you require one.

Name plant relocation explicitly. Moving production between the manufacturer's own plants is treated internally as an operational decision requiring no customer involvement. For a regulated product it can require requalification, regulatory notification, and a new registration. If it is not named, it will happen and you will learn about it afterwards.

Build a configuration audit into the annual cadence. Compare the current build to the qualified configuration once a year. Companies that do this find changes nobody told them about — and finding them in an audit is much better than finding them in a field failure investigation.

Step 8 — Pricing, and the audit that keeps it honest

Choose the structure deliberately. Cost-plus gives visibility and protects the manufacturer against component inflation, but requires you to audit the cost base — and if you never do, "cost" becomes whatever their system says. Fixed price gives certainty and transfers component risk at a margin you cannot see.

Either way, address:

  • Component pass-through: which components, how cost is evidenced, and what happens when prices fall as well as rise. Pass-through clauses drafted during a shortage are asymmetric and stay that way.
  • Productivity commitment: an annual reduction on conversion cost reflecting learning-curve improvement. Standard in automotive; worth asking for elsewhere.
  • Volume tiers with true-up mechanics, and what happens if actual volume falls below the assumed tier.
  • Currency: which currency, who bears movement, and whether a band triggers renegotiation.
  • Tariffs and duties: express allocation. This is now a material term.
  • Payment terms, which are a working capital negotiation dressed as an administrative one.
  • Cost audit rights where pricing is cost-based, with cost-shifting on a material overstatement.

Then reconcile annually. Compare actual invoiced pricing to the contractual mechanism. In long relationships, prices drift through informal adjustments between a purchasing manager and a sales manager, and the resulting arrangement bears no relation to the agreement. Companies that reconcile routinely find leakage in the low single digits of spend, which on a hardware program is real money.

Step 9 — Warranty, epidemic failure, and the liability architecture

The ordinary warranty — conformance to specification, free from defects in material and workmanship, for a defined period — does not solve the systemic defect, which is where the money is.

Negotiate an epidemic failure clause with four parts:

A trigger — a defect rate above a defined threshold, measured over a defined population and window, attributable to a common root cause within the manufacturer's responsibility. Define the measurement precisely; this is where the disputes live.

Enhanced remedies — the costs of the field action: logistics, labor, replacement units, customer notification, and a contribution to recall administration.

A carve-out from the liability cap, or a separate and higher cap. Enhanced remedies subject to a cap equal to three months of fees are not remedies.

A root cause process — who investigates, on what timeline, with what access, and how attribution disputes are resolved. Most epidemic failure fights are attribution fights: design defect (yours) versus workmanship defect (theirs). Agree a neutral technical expert mechanism in advance; it resolves in weeks what litigation resolves in years.

On the general limitation of liability, the standard mutual exclusion of consequential damages with a fees-based cap is a poor fit for hardware, because your realistic exposure — recall, field action, lost sales — is exactly what "consequential" excludes. Carve out: epidemic failure, indemnification, confidentiality breach, intellectual property breach, and gross negligence or willful misconduct. Consider a super-cap for product-related liability.

And align the indemnity and insurance with product liability defense. Both parties are in the chain of distribution. Decide who controls the defense, who has settlement authority, and who is named as an additional insured on whose policy.

Step 10 — Intellectual property and documentation you actually hold

State the easy part: the customer owns its designs, specifications, and product intellectual property; the manufacturer owns its general manufacturing know-how.

Then draw the hard line. Process improvements, fixtures, test methods, and yield techniques developed while making your product. The workable split is product-specific process technology — owned by or perpetually licensed to the customer, with the right to sublicense to a replacement manufacturer — versus general manufacturing know-how, retained by the manufacturer. Give examples in the agreement, because the line is hard to draw abstractly.

Strike the improvement clauses in manufacturer templates that claim rights in improvements to your product. They appear more often than you would expect.

And make documentation an ongoing deliverable, not a termination obligation. Quarterly delivery to you of: the device master record or equivalent, process instructions, test protocols and limits, tooling drawings, the qualified sub-tier supplier list with part numbers and specifications, and the bill of materials with approved manufacturer part numbers.

Why quarterly and not on termination: a documentation obligation triggered by termination is performed by an unhappy counterparty during a dispute, badly and slowly. Fenwick's agreement requires quarterly delivery into a repository Fenwick controls, and the deliverable is a condition of the quarterly payment.

Step 11 — Take on the supply chain compliance obligations deliberately

The manufacturer runs the supply chain; the importer of record and the brand on the box carry the exposure.

Forced labor. 19 U.S.C. § 1307 prohibits importing goods made wholly or in part with forced labor, and the statutory presumption applicable to certain regions places the burden on the importer to rebut with clear and convincing evidence. Contractually: a labor practices representation through the sub-tier chain; an obligation to provide supply chain mapping and traceability documentation within a short defined period on request; audit rights reaching sub-tiers; a right to reject a sub-tier supplier; and an indemnity for detention and seizure costs. Practically: build the map before a detention, because assembling it afterwards from an unmotivated manufacturer is how shipments sit for months.

Country of origin. 19 U.S.C. § 1304 requires marking. Origin is a legal determination — substantial transformation or the applicable rules of origin — not a statement of where final assembly occurred. Section 1592 supplies penalties for entries made by fraud, gross negligence, or negligence. Allocate the determination obligation, the documentation obligation, and the indemnity.

Product safety. For consumer products, 15 U.S.C. § 2064 requires prompt reporting of information reasonably supporting the conclusion that a product contains a defect that could create a substantial product hazard. The manufacturer holds much of the triggering information, so require prompt escalation of field failure data, complaint data, and its own quality findings — and build an internal process to act on them within the reporting timeline.

Also cover: restricted substances, conflict minerals diligence, sanctions screening of the supply chain, and export classification of the product itself.

Step 12 — Monitor the manufacturer's health

Supplier insolvency turns a supply problem into an existential one, and the warning signs are visible.

Watch for: slowing payments to sub-tiers, extended lead times without explanation, quality drift, key personnel departures, requests for accelerated payment or deposits, and — the reliable signal — a sub-tier supplier calling you directly about payment.

Protect in advance:

  • Title, marking, schedule, and a UCC filing on tooling and customer-owned or consigned inventory. On a filing, 11 U.S.C. § 362 stays acts to obtain property of the estate, and your tooling will be characterized as estate property unless you can prove otherwise.
  • Documentation held by you, per Step 10, so the process does not live only in the debtor's plant.
  • A qualified alternate for anything critical, even at zero volume.
  • Safety stock sized to the requalification timeline at that alternate, not to the ordinary lead time.
  • Direct relationships with critical sub-tier suppliers, so you can buy from them if the prime fails.
  • A named restructuring counsel you can call the day of a filing, because 11 U.S.C. § 365 lets the debtor assume or reject, and the first two weeks determine which.

Step 13 — Run the relationship

Quarterly business reviews with a real agenda: quality metrics, on-time delivery, cost against the mechanism, forecast accuracy, open corrective actions, capacity outlook, and sub-tier risk.

A supplier scorecard with numbers, shared with the manufacturer. Quality escapes, first-pass yield, on-time delivery, responsiveness, and change control compliance.

Annual audits — quality, configuration against the qualified build, cost where pricing is cost-based, and supply chain documentation.

Track the contract, not just the relationship. Renewal and notice dates, insurance certificates, documentation deliveries, tooling schedule updates, and price reconciliation.

Escalate in writing when performance slips, using the contractual escalation ladder. And remember the tool nobody uses: where you have reasonable grounds for insecurity about the manufacturer's performance, you may demand adequate assurance of due performance in writing and suspend your own performance pending it, with failure to provide assurance operating as a repudiation. Put it in the escalation playbook.

Step 8A — New product introduction, which is a different negotiation

Moving a product from engineering into volume production is its own project, and the agreement should treat it as one rather than assuming production terms apply from day one.

Separate the phases and price them separately. Engineering builds, prototypes, and pilot runs are development services, not production. They carry different pricing (often time and materials or cost-plus), different acceptance criteria, different yields, and different expectations about scrap. A manufacturer quoting a unit price for a product that has never been built is quoting a guess, and the customer that holds them to it gets a guess with a large contingency in it.

Define the qualification gate explicitly. What constitutes first article acceptance, who performs it, against which drawing revision, and what happens if the article fails. In regulated products this gate has regulatory consequences and its documentation becomes part of your file.

Agree the yield ramp. Early production yields will be poor and will improve. Who bears the cost of scrap and rework during the ramp, and against what curve? A clause that puts all early scrap on the customer removes the manufacturer's incentive to improve; a clause that puts all of it on the manufacturer prices the risk into the unit cost. A shared curve with a defined convergence point is the workable answer.

Design for manufacturability feedback should be an obligation, not a favor. Require the manufacturer to review the design and identify manufacturability issues within a defined period, and decide in advance who owns the resulting changes and who pays for them.

Tooling milestones and payment. Tooling is usually paid in tranches. Tie the tranches to demonstrated capability rather than to calendar dates, and make final payment contingent on first article acceptance.

And set the transition to production terms — the date or the milestone at which pilot pricing ends and production pricing, warranty, and capacity commitments begin. Programs that never make this transition explicitly end up running for years on pilot terms nobody reviewed, which is how a company discovers it has no capacity commitment on a product shipping at volume.

Step 9A — Force majeure, drafted for the disruptions that actually happen

The standard clause fails on the modern cases. It excuses events "beyond reasonable control," lists acts of God and war, and says nothing about a component shortage two tiers down, a port closure, a public health measure, an export restriction, a cyber incident at a supplier, or a fire at a single-source fab.

Enumerate the events that matter, including epidemics and public health measures, government action including export and import restrictions and tariff changes, cyber incidents, utility and infrastructure failure, and sub-tier supplier failure where that failure would itself qualify — because the standard clause usually excludes supplier problems, which is where the disruptions originate.

Distinguish inability from unprofitability. Increased cost is not force majeure. A clause that permits suspension when performance becomes uneconomic is a price renegotiation clause wearing a disguise, and it should be rejected explicitly.

Require notice, information, and mitigation, within a defined period and in enough detail for the other party to plan.

Address allocation during the event. If the manufacturer can supply some customers and not all, how is the shortfall allocated? Silence means the loudest relationship manager wins. The Code's default requires a fair and reasonable allocation among customers with notice to buyers, which is a floor rather than a plan; write the plan.

Give the customer a right to source elsewhere during the event, free of exclusivity and minimum purchase obligations, and to use the tooling — which is why the tooling clause in Step 4 is load-bearing here too.

Set a termination right if the event continues beyond a defined period, so force majeure does not become an indefinite suspension in which the customer is bound and receiving nothing.

Know the doctrinal backdrop. The Code excuses delay or non-delivery where performance is made impracticable by a contingency the non-occurrence of which was a basic assumption of the contract, or by good-faith compliance with a governmental regulation or order. Courts apply that narrowly — substantial increased cost is generally not enough. A well-drafted clause is doing real work against that default, in both directions, which is why both parties should read it before signing rather than after the port closes.

Step 10A — Disputes without stopping the line

The distinguishing feature of a supply dispute is that both parties must keep performing while it runs. A litigation posture that halts shipments destroys the customer faster than any judgment repairs it.

Build the escalation ladder into the agreement. Operational contact, program management, then a named executive on each side, with defined periods at each level. Most disputes resolve at level two and should never reach counsel.

Require continued performance. An express obligation on both parties to keep supplying and to keep paying undisputed amounts during a dispute, with disputed amounts reserved or escrowed rather than withheld. Without this clause, a payment dispute becomes a supply stoppage inside a week — and the customer loses that exchange every time.

Choose the forum for what you need. Arbitration under 9 U.S.C. § 2 and the international enforcement framework offers confidentiality, a technically capable decision-maker, and enforceability where a foreign counterparty's assets sit. It is poor at emergency relief and at multi-party disputes involving sub-tiers. Carve out injunctive relief for tooling recovery, confidentiality, and intellectual property, and permit either party to seek interim measures from a court.

Provide for technical determination of attribution. Design defect or workmanship defect is an engineering question that lawyers and adjudicators decide badly and slowly. A neutral technical expert, appointed on an agreed timeline under an agreed protocol, resolves in weeks what litigation resolves in years. Name the appointing body in the contract.

Preserve evidence on day one. Failed units, retained samples, process data, test records, and the traceability connecting them. In an epidemic failure dispute the physical evidence decides the outcome, and the party that scrapped the units loses regardless of the merits.

And be realistic about leverage on both sides. The customer whose product runs on one line has less leverage than the contract suggests; the manufacturer that depends on that customer for a third of its plant loading has less than it thinks. Both are usually true at once, which is why these disputes settle — and why the parties who preserved the option to leave settle on better terms.

Step 11A — Understanding what the manufacturer needs

A deal that ignores the manufacturer's genuine risks does not hold. Concede the right things and you will get the provisions you actually need.

Volume certainty is their central concern. They commit line capacity, hire operators, and procure long-lead materials on your forecast. If you want a firm capacity reservation, expect to give a firm purchase commitment. A customer that will not commit volume is asking the manufacturer to carry the risk of the customer's business plan — and will pay for it in the unit price, invisibly.

Material liability is their recurring loss. Components bought on a forecast that did not materialize sit in a warehouse. Give a clear take-or-pay obligation for materials procured inside the committed window, with a defined valuation and disposition process. Resisting this is a false economy.

Cancellation and reschedule charges should be a formula, tied to proximity to the delivery date, with defined charges for finished goods, work in process, and raw materials. Negotiating each instance is worse for both sides.

Design responsibility belongs to you. They build to your design and should not carry design defect liability. Give a design warranty and an indemnity for claims arising from the design as supplied, symmetrical with their workmanship warranty — and rely on the neutral technical attribution process to sort the hard cases.

Specification stability has a price. Every engineering change costs them money and disrupts the line. If you want approval rights over their changes, accept the cost and schedule impact of your own.

Payment, and a suspension right. Prompt payment, interest on late payment, and a right to suspend for material non-payment after notice. Give it — a manufacturer with no remedy for non-payment is a manufacturer pricing that risk into your unit cost.

Exclusivity should be paid for. A volume commitment, a price premium, or a term long enough to justify turning away other work.

And give them a reasonable exit too. A mutual convenience termination with a long notice period serves both parties better than a one-sided clause that gets litigated when your volume falls to a fraction of the forecast on a dedicated line.

The general point to carry into the room. Load everything onto the manufacturer and you get one of two outcomes: a refusal to sign, or a signature accompanied by a quiet risk premium in the price and, in a bad quarter, a counterparty looking hard for the exit you did not give it.

Step 12A — Dual sourcing, and the honest arithmetic

Everyone agrees dual sourcing is prudent. Almost nobody does it, because the arithmetic looks bad on a spreadsheet and good only in a scenario nobody wants to model.

What it costs. Tooling duplicated. Qualification at a second site — months of engineering time, first article inspection, process validation, and in regulated products a regulatory submission. Volume split, which loses tier pricing at both suppliers. Two relationships to manage. Two sets of audits. Two configurations to keep aligned.

What it buys. Not just supply continuity. It buys price discipline, because a manufacturer that knows the line can move quotes differently. It buys negotiating credibility, which is what makes the exit clause meaningful. And it buys the option to move quickly, which is the difference between a five-week gap and a nine-month one.

The pragmatic middle positions, in rough order of cost:

Qualified-not-active. A second manufacturer fully qualified, holding tooling or able to receive it, running a periodic token build to keep the process alive. Costs a fraction of a real dual source and preserves most of the option value.

Split by component rather than by assembly. Dual-source the single-sourced critical components — the ones with long lead times and no drop-in alternative — and single-source the assembly. Often the highest return per dollar.

Geographic split. Two plants of the same manufacturer, in different countries. Cheaper than two suppliers and addresses tariff, port, and regional disruption risk, but not supplier insolvency.

Design for alternates. Specify components with multiple approved manufacturer part numbers wherever the design allows, so a shortage is a purchasing problem rather than an engineering project. This is a design decision made years before the shortage, and it is the cheapest resilience available.

Make the decision explicitly, at the program level, and record it. A company that has consciously accepted single-source risk with safety stock sized to a requalification timeline is in a defensible position. A company that is single-sourced because nobody ever raised it is one supplier failure from an existential event, and the board will ask when the decision was made.

Step 13A — Handling deterioration before it becomes a transfer

Most relationships that end badly gave eighteen months of warning. Read them.

The signals, in rough order of seriousness. Missed delivery dates that are explained rather than fixed. Rising first-pass failure. Corrective actions closed without evidence. Turnover in the program team. Requests to change payment terms. Quality data arriving late or in a different format. A change made without approval, discovered incidentally. Reduced willingness to accept audits.

Escalate on the contractual ladder, in writing, early. Operational contact, then program management, then the named executives. The written record matters twice: it produces action, and it becomes the notice history if you later terminate for cause.

Convert observations into a corrective action plan with owners, dates, and measurable acceptance criteria. "Improve quality" is not a plan. "First-pass yield above 96% for three consecutive weeks, verified by our on-site engineer" is.

Increase your own presence. A source inspector or resident engineer at the plant is expensive and is cheaper than a field failure. It also produces information you will not otherwise get.

Start the alternate in parallel, quietly. Qualification at a second manufacturer takes months whether you decide to move or not, and a qualified alternate is the only real leverage in a deteriorating relationship. Fenwick began qualifying an alternate four months before it decided to transfer, which is why the transfer took eleven months rather than twenty.

Build safety stock deliberately, sized to the requalification timeline rather than the ordinary lead time.

Demand adequate assurance where the grounds are real, in writing, per the Code.

And decide whether you are fixing or leaving, explicitly, at a defined checkpoint. The worst outcome is eighteen months of remediation that neither fixes the relationship nor advances the exit, which is what happens when nobody makes the call.

Step 14 — Execute a transfer, if it comes to that

Decide before you tell them. Site selected, qualification plan built, safety stock accumulated, documentation confirmed complete in your own repository, and a schedule. A customer that announces a transfer before it is ready has given up its remaining leverage.

Then serve the notice and invoke the transition obligations. Continued supply at current price during the transition period, documentation transfer, personnel availability, requalification support, and sub-tier supplier introductions and consents.

Recover the tooling. Under the unconditional release clause, notwithstanding any dispute. Physically inspect it before it moves; tooling that has been running for three years is not in the condition the schedule describes.

Value the inventory early. Finished goods, work in process, and raw materials, at a formula defined in the agreement — because the manufacturer will value it optimistically and you will pay for the delay in arguing.

Requalify honestly. A new plant, new operators, and a new sub-tier chain will produce different results than the qualified process. Budget the time and expect a yield dip.

And manage the supply gap, which is the cost nobody models. Fenwick's transfer three years into its Rochester program took eleven months, cost about $2.6 million, and produced a five-week gap — a good outcome, achieved because the agreement had a tooling schedule, a quarterly documentation obligation, and a transition clause that survived. Vantongeren-Marchetti's assessment: "We paid for the exit clause in the first negotiation and collected on it three years later. It was the best-priced thing in the contract."

Related documents

This guide is general information, not legal advice, and does not create an attorney-client relationship.