Material Certificate Issue Change from EN10204-2.2 to EN10204-2.1

Well, I'm not gonna look it up.

Maybe your vendor can explain the difference, and why their choice (supposedly) suffices.

This is from Google.

Inspection documents drawn up from inspection and tests carried out by personnel authorized by the manufacturer and who maybe involved in the manufacturing department
Certificate of compliance with the order EN 10204 / 2.1
Document in which the manufacturer certifies that the products supplied are in compliance with the requirements of the order, without mention of any test results.
The certificate of compliance with the order is a document drawn up on the basis of non-specific inspection and testing.Test report EN 10204 / 2.2
Document in which the manufacturer certifies that the products supplied are in compliance with the requirements of the order and inwhich he supplies test results based on non-specific inspection and testing.
Specific test report EN 10204 / 2.3
Document in which the manufacturer certifies that the products supplied are in compliance with the specifications of the order and in which he supplies test results based on specific inspection and testing.
(The specific test report is only used by a manufacturer who does not have an authorized quality control department operatingindependently of the manufacturing department).

Pure gobbledygook.

What you mean by "Pure gobbledygook" are You appreciating or joking?

I think he appreciated it. Anyway thank you sir for the information.

When you are replacing 2.2 with 2.1 certification, the acceptance conditions become less stringent. But before you do this, better check your contract documents for the actual requirement and the priority precedence in case of a discrepancy.

If this is your client requirement, better get it in writing before you order the material because at the last minute, they might ask you to provide backup for the deviation from the original documentation.

As per project requirement all non-wetted parts shall have 2.2 certificate, this was already agreed with the vendor during clarification. But during vendor's doc review they requesting to change it to 2.1, the reasons are only the base plate and motor support are the major non-wetted parts and on CS. As per their usual procedure 2.1 is used. And they have statement that they overlooked it during clarification.

You are right that I indeed need documented report about this. But my main concern now, is this acceptable technically?

For base plates and motor supports, the 2.1 level probably should be considered technically acceptable. However, it might not be bureaucratically acceptable.

It can be difficult to back out of over-specified nonsense, if one has accidentally agreed to it, and some anal twit insists on enforcing it.

EN 10204:2004

Summary of documentation requirements for EN 10204:2004

The above was taken from http://www.pmfirst.com/en10204.php.

But our Project requires EN10204-2.2, are there any issue regarding this? Is it acceptable to replace 2.2 to 2.1? Well that depends, why did you ask for 2.2 certificates in the first place?

Thank you for the information.

2.2 was the project requirement long before I was loaded to the project. As per my understanding, our client is a little bit conservative with regards to the contamination, you see the facility is for manufacturing of baby product.

I think as we go form 2.1 to 3.2 we making the certificate more Conservative. ???

Thank you sir, I think I just let the higher authority handle this, and consider this as experience to me what ever outcome they decide.

Given the application I would suggest that the material certificates be at least 3.1. You want to be sure that the materials you have specified are actually delivered. Be sure to check for heat numbers.