Renewed debate on aftermarket parts puts focus back on quality checking

Jan. 1, 2020
Driven in part by the worries over the quality of some non-OEM products, developments in the certification arena could eventually determine where and how repairers source structural and many other aftermarket parts.
Sramcik ABRN auto body repair collision repair OEM parts aftermarket parts parts certification When industry trainer and activist Toby Chess takes the stage at a Collision Industry Conference (CIC) session, attendees know they'll come away entertained and informed. In January 2010, attendees and the rest of the industry came away with a full blown, raging controversy on their hands after a Chess demonstration cast serious doubt on the safety and functionality of non-OEM structural parts.
Use of aftermarket parts has presented a longstanding, bitter debate for repairers. The latest controversy featured an interesting twist as former combatants – repairers, insurers, aftermarket members and OEMs – at times took the same side, with each sorting out the best way to guarantee the use of functioning structural parts. Another twist, the debate put a fresh spotlight on a frequently overlooked part of the aftermarket argument – certification.

Certification now looks to be the larger story. Driven in part by renewed worries over the quality of some non-OEM products, developments in the certification arena could eventually determine where and how repairers source structural and many other aftermarket parts.

2010: A tumultuous year

While the fallout from Chess's examination of structural parts is well documented, revisiting the events of 2010 is necessary to tie them to and frame what's happing with certification.

Following Chess's January 2010 CIC demonstration, insurers, distributors and industry groups quickly re-evaluated positions on non-OEM structural parts and adopted policies they hoped would protect customers. Insurance carriers GEICO, Esurance and MetLife Home & Auto said they would no longer specify use of aftermarket bumper reinforcements, energy absorbers and brackets.

Keystone Automotive, a subsidiary of LKQ Corp. and the largest supplier of non-OEM parts in the United States, stated it would only sell aftermarket bumper reinforcement bars that qualified under the company's quality assurance program or were approved through third-party testing. The Auto Body Parts Association (ABPA) recommended the suspension of the production and sale of aftermarket structural parts and that notification be given immediately for the removal of the parts from estimating system databases. The Taiwan Auto Body Parts Association (TABPA) advised members to stop selling and manufacturing non-certified structural parts.

In April, a third demonstration on structural parts at CIC was cancelled after LKQ threatened Chess with a lawsuit, inflating the controversy and creating ill will between the company and some repairers. LKQ argued that it repeated some of Chess's tests but with far different results.

Ford entered the fray in July at CIC with a report on its testing of non-OEM structural parts. Ford engineers delivered details on five aftermarket structural parts the company tested against Ford OEM parts. After examining metal gauge thickness, weight, raw materials and structural integrity and performing simulated crash testing, Ford found all five aftermarket parts fell short of OEM quality standards.

The automaker took its findings to the general public in October with a video it posted on YouTube. In November, Ford returned to CIC with results of vehicle crash tests comparing the energy absorbing capabilities of aftermarket parts versus OEM. Once again, Ford reported the aftermarket parts did not compare favorably to OEM. At the end of the month, Ford issued a press release of its findings.

During this period, Honda and Toyota issued position statements recommending only their OEM parts be used for repairs – with Toyota singling out collision repair parts.

Ford's actions, along with the timing of Honda's and Toyota's statements had some industry members crying foul and accusing automakers of using the storm surrounding non-OEM structural parts to push the sale of their own products.

Honda spokesperson Chris Martin calls the allegations untrue, saying the structural parts controversy played no part in Honda's statement. Instead, Martin said the release was part of a regular campaign by the company to reach out to Honda owners and supply them with information on the best way to maintain their vehicles. Martin said Honda can only support the use of its OEM parts because "we can't verify the quality of other parts out there. We can only verify our own." Honda was in no way taking a swipe at the quality of alternate parts, he added.

Brian R. Lyons, safety and quality communications manager for Toyota, said the controversy did prompt his company's statement.

"The CIC testing raised some potential safety and quality issues that are important for consumers to consider when making parts choices," Lyons says. "As questions began to arise, we felt it was appropriate to restate our position regarding the use of genuine Toyota parts to help consumers make an informed choice regarding their vehicle repairs."

While OEM parts were taking center stage in the debate, members of the aftermarket were taking steps to restore confidence in their products – specifically through recall tracking and certification.

In February 2010, the Alliance of Automotive Service Providers (AASP) called for a certification and recall process for structural replacement parts. Months later, in September, CARSTAR called for the creation of a nationwide recall system for all aftermarket parts.

LKQ countered that its Assured Quality Replacement Parts (AQRP) program traces recalled parts, something the company said the OEMs are unable to do. LKQ said OEMs can recall production parts on new vehicles but are unable to track service parts sold to independent installers and repairers. LKQ said more than 75 percent of its parts are available in an AQRP version.

In early 2010, third-party certification programs, which had been in the planning stages before Chess's demonstrations, began taking shape. While much of the industry was backing away from non-OEM products in February 2010, NSF International launched its Automotive Parts Certification Program to verify the quality and performance of aftermarket steel bumpers, absorbers, brackets and reinforcement bars.

Also that month, the Certified Automotive Parts Association (CAPA) announced work was underway on a bumper certification program that would include structural parts and crash testing of these parts by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. CAPA Executive Director Jack Gillis said his organization had begun looking into the program after being approached by several companies interested in structural certification.

As 2010 played out, the new certification programs began cementing a place in the industry. In July, NSF certified its first structural parts (for Diamond Standard Parts). In November, CAPA's technical committee approved the 501 Standard for the certification of aftermarket bumper parts, which it began working on in April 2009.

The aftermarket had two highly publicized, readily available tools to back the use of non-OEM structural parts. Just when the debate over structural parts could have been cooling down, the controversy took a new turn as CAPA, NSF and ABPA become embroiled in a new battle.

Sparring parties

At the core of this brouhaha was a breakdown in the once close relationship between CAPA and the ABPA. CAPA traces its roots to 1987 when it grew out of a parts certification program created by the ABPA. The two worked closely together over the next two decades but began sparring in July after ABPA announced it would support NSF's structural certification program. (For more on this story, see "ABPA, CAPA spar over parts certifications" and "NSF International files suit against CAPA" on www.SearchAutoParts.com.)

ABPA Executive Director Stan Rodman says his organization's decision to look into another certification provider, which occurred over a year ago, rose out of longstanding issues with CAPA. "Dealing with CAPA is very frustrating," he says, "Their certifying processes are convoluted."

The tipping point for turning to NSF was CAPA's inability to bring certified parts to the market, he said.

"Only seven percent of the available parts are certified by CAPA. Obviously they're not being effective," Rodman says.

He believes manufacturers and distributors are turned off by the costs and time involved with CAPA certification. Rodman says NSF's program is more attractive because it reduces both. For example, it allows Asian manufacturers (who make the bulk of aftermarket parts) to test their products at certified local labs instead of having them shipped to the United States for these services as CAPA demands.

CAPA said it has had approved labs in Taiwan for 15 years so manufacturers don't have to ship parts to the United States for material testing.

NSF doesn't require manufacturers to paste a certification label on each part as CAPA does. "CAPA charges a fee for each of these labels. NSF doesn't use or charge for labels. Instead, a certification mark can be placed on a part at no cost while it's being stamped," Rodman says.

Gillis said he's surprised at the criticism because he had never heard any of it previously and the parties making it are the same ones responsible for the shape of CAPA's certification programs. "These people sit on CAPA's technical committee and set up our processes," he says.

Gillis acknowledges the percentage of parts certified by CAPA is small but blames it on a lack of interest in certification from the repair community. "Today, four out of five parts shops use are not CAPA-certified. The market isn't demanding them," he says. "We found years ago that 80 percent of the aftermarket lights did not meet FMVSS standards. That hasn't changed. Shops still overwhelming order these."

Rodman ties repairers' lack of interest to cost. He says the situation can be remedied with less expensive, more efficient certification. "If you're a shop looking at costs and you're given the choice between a certified and non-certified part around the same price, there's a good chance you'll go with certified. That just makes sense. It's the direction we should be going," he says.

Gillis said there is a cost to certifying and a certified part will cost more to make. He believes interest in certified parts can be driven by educating shops on the differences between certified and non-certified products and the benefits of the former. CAPA intends to roll out a campaign this year aimed at selling these points to repairers.

Rodman said that repairer demand for certified products ultimately will drive manufacturers and distributors to certification. Gillis said distributors and insurers will drive it. Chris Northup, a former vice president for Keystone Automotive and current co-chairman of CIC's parts committee, said the demand will be influenced far more by shops than insurers.

"Shops actually make the great majority of buying decisions," Northup says. "There are some strict DRPs that will say specifically where a shop purchases parts, but within most insurance programs, shops get some latitude to choose who they buy from."

Appealing to repairers

Many shops, however, may not be ready to choose a certified part, despite CAPA and NSF's best efforts.

Certification is a hard sell for many repairers who see little value in it, often because they don't fully understand what certification entails or because they're suspicious of its relationship to the aftermarket and insurers. Speaking anonymously to ABRN, several repairers dismissed CAPA as an arm of the insurance industry. NSF, arguably, can expect the same reception.

Other repairers say certification simply hasn't proved its worth.

Douglas Trulock, president of South Broadway Collision Center, an ABRN 2010 Top Shop, said his business regularly sends back 50 percent of the aftermarket parts it receives due to quality concerns. "It's the same rate with those that are CAPA-certified. We see no difference," he says.

Jimmy Lefler, CEO of Lefler Collision & Glass Repair, ABRN's 2010 Top Shop winner, said CAPA certification is not a factor in the aftermarket parts it uses. "We work very closely with our vendors to select the parts that work best. They can tell us things like if a particular part has problems or high return rates. That's what we go by," he says.

Certification does have its supporters. Cindy Tuttle, an estimator with Bonfe's Auto Service and Body Repair in St. Paul, Minn., notes, "If we use an aftermarket part, we first look for CAPA certification."

Fuzzy future

That's good news and something to build on for certifiers and for aftermarket companies like Diamond Standard Parts, which emphasizes parts certification. The U.S.-based manufacturer of parts such as high-strength steel reinforcements, front steel bumpers, high density foam energy absorbers and bumper brackets, touts its products as full OEM equivalents due to performance testing.

Company President Michael O'Neal said Diamond Standard adopted this course in 2007 to push back against auto manufacturers who he says frequently attacked the entire aftermarket over quality. Moving into 2011, the company intends to have all its products certified by both CAPA and NSF. O'Neal said the strategy will allow his company to better market itself to insurers who may opt for one certifying body over another.

As tough a sell as certification and the process has been for shops, large insurers may need even more convincing to buy in to the certification of structural parts.

Both Allstate and State Farm specify the use of CAPA-certified parts where non-OEM parts can be used in a repair. Both state they will not use non-OEM structural parts, even if certified by a third party. State Farm spokesperson George Avery says of the parts certified under CAPA's 501 program, State Farm will source only steel chrome bumpers.

While these facts may give some aftermarket parts producers a reason to pause before pursuing certification, O'Neal said there is still plenty of market for his products. "There are hundreds of insurers out there. There are plenty of insurers and shops looking for affordable, quality parts," he says. "Diamond Standard will make it."

Less certain is how views on parts certification within the repair community and aftermarket will change if they do at all. Both industries may not want to support one certifier, much less two. This part of the story is just beginning.

Regardless of how events shake out, the current controversy and renewed focus on quality is beneficial, says Northup. It might even serve as a cautionary tale for some members of the aftermarket.

According to Northup, the fight over structural parts is the product of the aftermarket failing to police itself. He said the market spent so much of the past several years focusing on business survival or large issues like consolidation it lost sight of quality. Add to that the enormous pressure to produce more affordable replacement parts.

"If it's 2005, we aren't having this discussion," says Northup. "These issues don't exist."

That may be little consolation for a collision industry weary over one controversy after another.

Sponsored Recommendations

Best Body Shop and the 360-Degree-Concept

Spanesi ‘360-Degree-Concept’ Enables Kansas Body Shop to Complete High-Quality Repairs

ADAS Applications: What They Are & What They Do

Learn how ADAS utilizes sensors such as radar, sonar, lidar and cameras to perceive the world around the vehicle, and either provide critical information to the driver or take...

Banking on Bigger Profits with a Heavy-Duty Truck Paint Booth

The addition of a heavy-duty paint booth for oversized trucks & vehicles can open the door to new or expanded service opportunities.

Boosting Your Shop's Bottom Line with an Extended Height Paint Booths

Discover how the investment in an extended-height paint booth is a game-changer for most collision shops with this Free Guide.