I did not know where to generate this thread. Reasoned that I ran into this situation during the follow-up of a Nonconformance Report (NCR) - a kind of spot audit. There were a number of issues dealing with our procurement, engineering, and inspection processes, but the Materials Manager and Purchasing Manager think that I am not being reasonable with the procurement issues. [In reality all the managers think that I am unreasonable concerning this procurement and inspection activity!] The PO was to a particular supplier (Name - Address in Dallas, TX) , it had multiple line items, and "Certs Required" at the end of the PO. The packing slip was headed with the Conglomerate (Name - Address in Victoria BC) and a source (Name - Address in Rogers, AR). The packing list indicated that a Certification of Inspection would be with the product, and a Certification of Compliance for Material. We only received a Material Certification with the product and it had a different name than that on the PO or Packing Slip in Rogers, AR. To top it off - the product Name/Number and Description is not the same on all three documents.

My points are:
1) just stating "Certs Required" is not specific enough - as evidenced by the packing list listing two types - but only received a Material Certification.
2) Who is the Supplier of the product - The Conglomerate or the entity where the PO goes, or the entity where the product comes from, or the entity where the Material Certification comes from (ALL Different Names and addresses)?

How would an ISO-9001 registration auditor handle this confusion?

Thanks,
Doug

My points are:
1) just stating "Certs Required" is not specific enough - as evidenced by the packing list listing two types - but only received a Material Certification.
2) Who is the Supplier of the product - The Conglomerate or the entity where the PO goes, or the entity where the product comes from, or the entity where the Material Certification comes from (ALL Different Names and addresses)?

How would an ISO-9001 registration auditor handle this confusion?

Thanks,
Doug
I understand your concern, and I don't understand why other people don't understand it, even after it's been explained in infinite bloody detail. You should be specific about the type of documentation you expect to receive. You're right--"Certs required" is functionally meaningless. The solution would be to put together a document (a standard, or procedure--call it what you want) that explains your specific requirements, control the document in your system, make sure that suppliers get controlled copies, then reference the document in all applicable POs.

This can be a confusing situation, but it doesn't have to result in a hissy fit among your own people.

There is a simple adjustment you can make to your purchase orders to clear up ALL ambiguity and be seen as a great "compromiser" rather than an "obstructionist."

Add a text box to your Purchase Order which describes what you expect in the way of a material cert and make this one modification by adding:
"For traceability purposes, please show the chain of custody from the original producer supplying the material certification."

If a supplier asks "What does that mean?" (You hope he does ask, because that means he is engaging in Contract Review!), you can then respond,
"We simply want to know how much material was in the original batch covered by the cert and how much of the batch we receive. If our receipt is MORE than the original batch, it means there is high probability of "mixing." Above all, we want to be sure the certs are for the material on our dock and not some material on someone else's dock. If the material started out as 5X tons, but goes through 3 separate storage facilities, are the 5X tons we receive the same 5X tons or did they get mixed? What documentation is available to show no mixing?"

:topic: I hope this never applies to any of you, but I was witness in the early 90's to a supplier who Xeroxed a 4 year old material cert time after time and shipped it as documentation with EVERY batch of 12L14 steel he sent out, regardless of where he had obtained the 12L14 stock he used for the order. When I questioned the practice, he replied, "Hey, man! 12L14 is 12L14 and those jerks in receiving only look to see there is a cert. So what if I used an Inland Steel cert when the actual steel came from a broker who got it as an overstock from a Brazilian mill?"

There is a simple adjustment you can make to your purchase orders to clear up ALL ambiguity...
Which is reference to a controlled document.

If a supplier asks "What does that mean?" (You hope he does ask, because that means he is engaging in Contract Review!)
I hope he doesn't have to ask, which would mean that I had given him clear specifications to begin with. If he was given an opportunity to review the specifications and accepted them, then his fulfillment of them is the only evidence of contract review I need. If he doesn't understand, it means that my specifications were ambigous, the supplier isn't especially bright, or he's just being difficult. In any case, I've learned something.

you can then respond,
"We simply want to know how much material was in the original batch covered by the cert and how much of the batch we receive. If our receipt is MORE than the original batch, it means there is high probability of "mixing." Above all, we want to be sure the certs are for the material on our dock and not some material on someone else's dock. If the material started out as 5X tons, but goes through 3 separate storage facilities, are the 5X tons we receive the same 5X tons or did they get mixed? What documentation is available to show no mixing?"
This conversation, which invites more confusion imo, doesn't have to take place if the OP has already specified the requirements and referenced the specification properly.

I did not know where to generate this thread. Reasoned that I ran into this situation during the follow-up of a Nonconformance Report (NCR) - a kind of spot audit. There were a number of issues dealing with our procurement, engineering, and inspection processes, but the Materials Manager and Purchasing Manager think that I am not being reasonable with the procurement issues. [In reality all the managers think that I am unreasonable concerning this procurement and inspection activity!] The PO was to a particular supplier (Name - Address in Dallas, TX) , it had multiple line items, and "Certs Required" at the end of the PO. The packing slip was headed with the Conglomerate (Name - Address in Victoria BC) and a source (Name - Address in Rogers, AR). The packing list indicated that a Certification of Inspection would be with the product, and a Certification of Compliance for Material. We only received a Material Certification with the product and it had a different name than that on the PO or Packing Slip in Rogers, AR. To top it off - the product Name/Number and Description is not the same on all three documents.

My points are:
1) just stating "Certs Required" is not specific enough - as evidenced by the packing list listing two types - but only received a Material Certification.
2) Who is the Supplier of the product - The Conglomerate or the entity where the PO goes, or the entity where the product comes from, or the entity where the Material Certification comes from (ALL Different Names and addresses)?

How would an ISO-9001 registration auditor handle this confusion?

Thanks,
Doug

As a ISO 9001 and TS registration auditor: In the scenario you described, if these certs were accepted as evidence the incoming material was acceptable product, it should be a nonconformance. Further, I would audit the process deeply, to ascertain whether the people responsible for making these decisions understood the process adequately. I would also link to purchasing, because as JSW05 said, the "certs required" statement is generic and meaningless.

A cert is just a piece of paper with ink on it. The information on it is what matters. The info might be useful and meaningful, or irrelevant, inadequate or useless, as this example appears to be. If it is inadequate, then the cert is incapable of certifying anythng.