PART #2: AQAP 2110 vs. ISO 9001. Key Differences and What They Mean for Foundries

For decades, ISO 9001 has been the gold standard for quality management in manufacturing. Most managers and auditors are intimately familiar with its language: process approach, customer focus, continuous improvement. It is the backbone of quality in countless industries. Yet the moment a company ventures into defence contracts, it discovers that ISO is only the starting point. NATO’s AQAP 2110 raises the bar – and in ways that fundamentally reshape how a foundry must operate.

AQAP: An Extension, Not a Replacement

AQAP 2110 is often described as a “layer” built on top of ISO 9001. The basic principles remain: risk-based thinking, the PDCA cycle, a structured process approach. But AQAP introduces additional requirements that reflect the defence sector’s uncompromising need for reliability. For foundries, this means adopting practices that go far beyond the familiar ISO framework.

1. The Quality Plan (QP)

ISO 9001 requires organizations to define and follow quality processes. AQAP demands something stricter: a contract-specific Quality Plan. For every defense project, the supplier must prepare a document outlining exactly how requirements will be met, which resources will be used, what inspections will be conducted, and how traceability will be ensured.

For a foundry, this means detailing the entire workflow – from melting and molding to heat treatment and non-destructive testing. The plan must be reviewed and approved by the customer. It is not a formality: if the plan is insufficient, the project cannot move forward.

2. Configuration Management

ISO allows companies to manage documents and revisions with relative flexibility. AQAP requires a formal configuration management system. Every change to drawings, specifications, or processes must be formally evaluated, documented, and approved.

In practice, this prevents a common industrial risk: a foreman working from an outdated version of a technical specification. In defense contracts, such a slip is unacceptable. With AQAP, each change passes through a controlled workflow, ensuring the entire organization works with the same baseline.

3. Working with the Government Quality Assurance Representative (GQAR)

Perhaps the most visible difference is the presence of the GQAR – a government-appointed quality assurance officer who represents the customer. This role has no equivalent in ISO 9001.

The GQAR has broad authority: they may inspect production, observe key processes such as casting or radiographic testing, and even conduct audits at subcontractors facilities. The supplier must notify them of critical milestones and provide unrestricted access to records and facilities.

For a foundry, this transforms the customer relationship. Quality becomes a joint, ongoing effort rather than an internal matter.

4. Traceability

ISO 9001 requires basic product identification and batch-level traceability. AQAP pushes this requirement much further. In defense production, every component must be traceable down to its raw material batch, heat number, furnace program, inspection records, and even the operator responsible.

Imagine a casting supplied under a NATO contract. Years later, if a failure occurs, investigators must be able to reconstruct its full history: which alloy batch was used, who performed the melting, which testing was conducted, and with what results. This level of traceability demands robust recordkeeping systems and disciplined execution.

5. Supplier Control

ISO encourages organizations to evaluate and monitor suppliers. AQAP turns this into a far more stringent requirement. All AQAP obligations must be “flowed down” to subcontractors. If a foundry outsources heat treatment or non-destructive testing, those partners must operate under AQAP-compatible standards.

Moreover, the GQAR has the right to inspect these subcontractors directly. This means contracts must include clauses granting access for government quality assurance. For foundries, this requires a new level of supplier management – choosing partners who are not only competent but also willing to comply with defence oversight.

6. Documentation and Notifications

ISO allows companies to handle many issues internally. AQAP requires transparency with the customer. Any significant change, nonconformance, or organizational shift must be formally reported. Even the replacement of a chief engineer or the installation of new equipment may require notification.

Nonconforming products cannot simply be reworked or scrapped without disclosure. If a foundry discovers defects in a batch of castings, it must inform the GQAR and agree on corrective actions. Requests for concessions – permission to ship items that deviate from requirements – must be approved by the customer before delivery.

What These Differences Mean for Foundries

Transitioning from ISO to AQAP is not a matter of adding a few documents. It reshapes how a foundry operates:

• Planning: Every project begins with a tailored Quality Plan.
• Discipline: Configuration management ensures no uncontrolled changes slip through.
• Transparency: Continuous interaction with the GQAR becomes part of daily work.
• Accountability: Every casting is traceable to its origin, processes, and inspections.
• Supply chain rigor: Subcontractors must be selected and managed under AQAP rules.
• Openness: Problems cannot be hidden; they must be reported and resolved jointly with the customer.

A Practical Example

On a civilian project, a foundry may discover cracks in a batch of castings. The typical response: scrap or re-melt the defective pieces, adjust the process, and move on. Customers may never learn of the issue.

Under AQAP, this is impossible. The defect must be recorded as a non-conformance, reported to the GQAR, and addressed through an agreed corrective action. If the supplier proposes to accept or repair the parts, a formal concession request must be submitted and approved. This process ensures absolute transparency – and, more importantly, gives the customer confidence that no hidden risks are shipped into service.

The Bottom Line

The distinction between ISO 9001 and AQAP 2110 is not about “more paperwork.” It is about elevating control and accountability to a level demanded by defence applications. ISO builds a foundation; AQAP adds a superstructure of rigor and oversight.

For foundries, embracing AQAP means moving from “we follow the rules” to “we operate under constant, verifiable control.” It is a cultural shift as much as a procedural one. And while it may appear burdensome at first, it ultimately positions the company as a trusted partner in one of the world’s most demanding markets.

Read the previous part – PART #1: ISO 9001 Is in Place. Why Bother with AQAP 2110?

Read the continuation – PART #3: How to Implement AQAP 2110 Without Chaos. A Step-by-Step Guide for Foundries