Should I keep or replace my Chinese supplier?

Turn the review into a decision brief

Define the decision for the affected product and production site, rather than giving the whole supplier a blanket verdict. Record unresolved failures, their consequences, current containment and the evidence still missing. Separate supplier causes from unclear specifications, buyer changes and unrealistic delivery requests. Use the supplier scorecard guide for performance measures; this decision concerns what to do with the findings.

The UK government's supply-chain resilience guidance emphasises data and visibility as a basis for decisions. Apply that principle by naming the evidence owner for each finding. Treat missing evidence as uncertainty, rather than assuming either satisfactory performance or failure.

Choose a route with explicit conditions

Use the routes below as conditional decisions. A favourable overall score should not cancel an unresolved safety concern, falsified records or an unapproved material change. Pause affected order or shipment approvals while investigating such concerns; continuity planning can continue separately.

Developing the incumbent and qualifying an alternative can run alongside each other. Record what would justify continued purchasing, what would trigger restricted orders and what would trigger replacement. Do not let the expense of switching turn a temporary exception into indefinite acceptance.

Judge improvement by production evidence

Ask what changed in the process, who implemented it and whether subsequent production confirms the result. Compare equivalent products and operating conditions. Cleaner inspection results achieved through extra sorting may protect shipments without fixing the process. Check whether the improvement survives normal staffing, workload and material variation.

Agree a review date, evidence required, support from the buyer and consequences if progress stalls. Keep containment separate from proof that the cause has been removed. The corrective-action closure guide explains closure evidence; use it to decide whether development deserves further commitment.

Compare future costs and usable supply dates

Compare retaining, developing and replacing over the same future purchasing period and specification. For the incumbent, include extra inspection, sorting, rework, expediting, claims handling and buyer support. For switching, include factory checks, samples, testing, tooling, pilot production, freight, staff time, overlapping stock and obsolete stock. Separate costs already incurred from future spending that the decision can still change.

Build a dependency calendar from candidate assessment through tooling, samples, testing, pilot approval and arrival of usable stock. Ask which steps can overlap and which depend on prior approval. Compare this with incumbent recovery dates and available stock. Follow the replacement supplier qualification guide for approval gates rather than treating a quotation as a ready alternative.

Test the comparison against delayed recovery, an unsuccessful candidate pilot and a demand increase. Describe the likely operational effects where reliable estimates are unavailable. Identify what changes the decision: a customer interruption, inaccessible tooling or continued sorting costs may matter more than a lower factory price.

Approve the decision and control the handover

Write down the selected route, reasons, unresolved risks, spending authority, order restrictions and next review trigger. Name the people approving technical quality, purchasing and stock continuity. If you retain or develop, specify when restrictions can be lifted. If you replace, specify what evidence releases orders to the new supplier.

Before reducing incumbent orders, reconcile unfinished goods, materials, tooling access, spare parts, outstanding payments and customer commitments against agreed terms. Define the last acceptable incumbent shipment and the replacement release condition. Cambridge China Bridge's staff in China can support factory evidence gathering and transition coordination; the buyer retains the approval decision. For worker exploitation concerns, see what to do about suspected supplier exploitation.