The MRB and MDR: building the project dossier properly

The MRB (manufacturing record book) or MDR (manufacturing data report) is the final dossier of a fabrication project: the bundled evidence that the product was built and inspected in line with the contract, the standards and the approved procedures. The client, the notified body and later the owner of the plant must still be able to work with it years after handover.

In practice the dossier is often thrown together under pressure in the final week, with missing certificates, unsigned reports and tracing work as a result. That is avoidable. This article describes what belongs in an MRB or MDR, in what order, and how to build the dossier digitally during the project so that handover becomes a formality.

1. MRB, MDR and final dossier: the terms

The terms are used interchangeably and mean essentially the same: the coherent package of records from a fabrication project. MRB is common in oil, gas and process industry, MDR stems from the ASME world, where the data report forms are part of the package. Other names include handover dossier, fabrication dossier or documentation package.

What goes in is set by the contract together with the application standard. For pressure equipment under PED 2014/68/EU the directive prescribes which technical documentation the manufacturer must be able to produce. For steel structures under EN 1090-2 the quality records underpin the declaration of performance. The table of contents should therefore always be project specific and agreed with the client before fabrication starts.

2. The standard content of an MRB or MDR

Depending on scope, a complete dossier contains at least these blocks:

• General: table of contents, project details, order or contract reference, non conformity register and certificate of conformity.
• Design and specifications: as built drawings, calculations where required, applied standards with revision.
• Material: material certificates (usually type 3.1 to EN 10204) and traceability lists linking certificate to component.
• Welding: WPS register, procedure qualifications to EN ISO 15614-1 or ASME IX, welder qualifications to ISO 9606-1, weld map and weld log.
• Inspection and testing: the signed off ITP, VT reports, NDT reports with personnel qualifications to ISO 9712, pressure or load test reports, dimensional checks.
• Post treatment and coating: heat treatment charts, coating reports.
• Non conformities: all reports with disposition and close out.

3. Order and structure: the reader decides

Build the dossier in the order a reviewer thinks, not in the order documents happened to arrive. Common and logical: first the general part with the declaration of conformity and the non conformity register, then design, then material, then fabrication and welding, then inspection and testing, and finally coating and appendices.

Give each section a tab or digital folder with fixed numbering and let the table of contents reference document numbers, not page numbers. The crucial part is the golden thread: from any component it must be possible to follow the chain from drawing to material certificate, to weld, to welder, to WPS, to inspection report. That chain stands or falls with a well kept weld map and weld log.

4. Build it digitally during the project, not afterwards

The biggest improvement for most manufacturers is the moment of compilation. Whoever assembles the dossier after the last weld discovers only then that a certificate is missing, a report is unsigned or a welder worked outside his qualification range. At that point repair is expensive and delays handover.

The solution is simple: set up the digital dossier structure at project start, linked to the table of contents and to the lines of the ITP. Every document is filed in the right place on the day it is created, with a document register tracking the status of each expected item: expected, received, approved. A weekly glance then shows exactly what is missing, while correction is still cheap. Record these arrangements in the ITP and the quality plan.

5. Common defects in dossiers

Dossier reviews keep turning up the same shortcomings:

• Material certificates that cannot be linked to a component because the traceability list is missing or heat numbers were not transferred.
• NDT reports without the examiner's qualification or without reference to the applied procedure.
• Reports without a signature, or dated in a way that does not fit the project timeline.
• Non conformity reports that were opened but never formally closed.
• A table of contents that does not match the actual content, or duplicate revisions of the same document.

Have the dossier checked before submission by someone other than the compiler, preferably someone used to reviewing dossiers the way a client or notified body does.

6. Who compiles the dossier

Formally the manufacturer is responsible; in practice compilation is a discipline of its own that demands rigour and knowledge of the standards. On larger projects a dedicated document controller or QA and QC officer pays off, keeping the register, checking documents on receipt and chasing subcontractor dossiers.

If that capacity is not available in house, an independent party can manage the dossier from set up at the start to the final check before submission. DEHAAS provides this as part of its QA and QC support, hands on, across Europe and North America. The dossier then becomes a by product of good project control rather than a final sprint.