Hi guys,
Our QA manual has been written to mirror ASME/NQA-1 2000. A few of our customers require that we meet ASME/NQA-1 2000 basic requirements.
Per NQA-1 2000 Requirement 4:204
"The procurement documents shall provide for access to the supplier's and subtie supplier's facilities and records for surveillance, inspection, or audit by the purchaser, its designated representative, and others authrorized by the purchaser"
We have always "flowed" this requirement down through verbiage stated directly on our PO's to our suppliers. Top management has just had this verbiage removed from our PO's. Unannounced, no explanation given. If I have an auditor come in, how am I going to show that I'm compliant with this portion of the standard? I'm trying to sell to top mgt that this verbiage should remain on there, but I'm not 100% sure that it should. Nor am I able to round up any firepower to back up my claims.
Even though it is still in our manual/procedures, how are we conveying to the customer that we still retain these rights? :confused:
Thanks for your help

Hi guys,
Our QA manual has been written to mirror ASME/NQA-1 2000. A few of our customers require that we meet ASME/NQA-1 2000 basic requirements.
Per NQA-1 2000 Requirement 4:204
"The procurement documents shall provide for access to the supplier's and subtie supplier's facilities and records for surveillance, inspection, or audit by the purchaser, its designated representative, and others authrorized by the purchaser"
We have always "flowed" this requirement down through verbiage stated directly on our PO's to our suppliers. Top management has just had this verbiage removed from our PO's. Unannounced, no explanation given.

Ask the question to your Management. If they have removed this requirement, they could be in violation of the Contract/Purchase Order.

Ask the question to your Management. If they have removed this requirement, they could be in violation of the Contract/Purchase Order.

Not only that, but there must have been a reason for removing it. People don't usually mess with the boilerplate unless there's a compelling reason to do so. It could be a case of the left hand not knowing what the right is doing--whoever caused the PO language to change might not have been aware of other contractual obligations. Some kind of upper-level review is needed.

Not only that, but there must have been a reason for removing it. People don't usually mess with the boilerplate unless there's a compelling reason to do so. It could be a case of the left hand not knowing what the right is doing--whoever caused the PO language to change might not have been aware of other contractual obligations. Some kind of upper-level review is needed.

That is true Jim. It needs to be reviewed.

To the OP:

Are the POs reviewed by anyone other than the Purchasing Manager? Is there a second set of eyes that look at them before they are released? Maybe a quick discussion with the Management might be necessary to identify specific requirements of the Customers.

That is true Jim. It needs to be reviewed.

To the OP:

Are the POs reviewed by anyone other than the Purchasing Manager? Is there a second set of eyes that look at them before they are released? Maybe a quick discussion with the Management might be necessary to identify specific requirements of the Customers.

Thanks guys for the responses. I review the POs to make sure the item being ordered is compliant to whatever customer/component it is being ordered for. Left hand not knowing what the right is doing is very much the case around here. IMHO I don't really think upper mgt is familiar enough with ASME/NQA-1:2000 to realize that "Rights of Access" is even in there.

My greatest confusion is still that. If we say in our Manual section 4 that we retain the rights to supplier facilities..., if we have removed that from the only document our supplier is provided, how then are we satisfying our OWN manual? Does that question make sense? There is a very good possibility that I'm missing something.

Again, The persons involved in removing this from the PO's most likely does not realize what NQA-1 states nor what our QA manual states. Would that scare you guys?

My greatest confusion is still that. If we say in our Manual section 4 that we retain the rights to supplier facilities..., if we have removed that from the only document our supplier is provided, how then are we satisfying our OWN manual? Does that question make sense? There is a very good possibility that I'm missing something.

Your quote from the standard says that the provisions must be cited in "the procurement documents." This usually means the PO, so your own manual is probably irrelevant. If your customer's "procurement documents" specify compliance with the standard, then you have to comply with the standard--it's as simple as that.

Again, The persons involved in removing this from the PO's most likely does not realize what NQA-1 states nor what our QA manual states. Would that scare you guys?

No, it would make me feel right at home.:D As I said earlier, upper-level review is needed. You might kick that off by informing someone (the purchasing manager, perhaps) that the PO boilerplate doesn't comply with your customer's requirements.

Thanks guys for the responses. I review the POs to make sure the item being ordered is compliant to whatever customer/component it is being ordered for. Left hand not knowing what the right is doing is very much the case around here. IMHO I don't really think upper mgt is familiar enough with ASME/NQA-1:2000 to realize that "Rights of Access" is even in there.

Than that is one problem. Training of Management needs to be accomplished.

My greatest confusion is still that. If we say in our Manual section 4 that we retain the rights to supplier facilities..., if we have removed that from the only document our supplier is provided, how then are we satisfying our OWN manual? Does that question make sense? There is a very good possibility that I'm missing something.

The bottom line here is that irregardless (the nomenclature that some covers don't like) of what your manual states, it is a legal and binding requirement by your customer(s) Management must understand the possible implications.

Again, The persons involved in removing this from the PO's most likely does not realize what NQA-1 states nor what our QA manual states. Would that scare you guys?

I'm with Jim on this answer. It doesn't scare me a bit, only the potential ramifications that could result from not complying with the PO requirements.

Any more comments from the Legal Eagles?

Let me make sure I'm understanding you. Irregardless of what our internal manual states. Since our customer requires that we meet this standard (asme/nqa-1:2000) and since requirement 4.204 of that standard cites the requirements for Rights of access, then it must remain on our PO's? Where do legalities come into play?
I apologize if you have to hold my hand through this one. But i'm utterly confused. If our manual is irrelevant, then how are we displaying compliance to any of the standard? (from an auditors point of view)
If our customers PO cites the spec that states we must be meet NQA, how else besides the verbiage on OUR po's to OUR suppliers would we flow down the requirements?
As I asked earlier, if an auditor were to come in and ask "Show me how you're satisfying the requirements of 4.204" What would I say?
Sorry again if I'm making this more difficult

Let me make sure I'm understanding you. Irregardless of what our internal manual states. Since our customer requires that we meet this standard (asme/nqa-1:2000) and since requirement 4.204 of that standard cites the requirements for Rights of access, then it must remain on our PO's? Where do legalities come into play?
I apologize if you have to hold my hand through this one. But i'm utterly confused. If our manual is irrelevant, then how are we displaying compliance to any of the standard? (from an auditors point of view)
If our customers PO cites the spec that states we must be meet NQA, how else besides the verbiage on OUR po's to OUR suppliers would we flow down the requirements?
As I asked earlier, if an auditor were to come in and ask "Show me how you're satisfying the requirements of 4.204" What would I say?
Sorry again if I'm making this more difficult

The Face of the Purchase Order from your customer is the binding document.

The order of precedence is: (What I remember from Contract Law, but talk with your company's attorney, since I am not an attorney)

1. The face of the PO/Contract

2. The drawings

3. The standards/specifications

The purchasing document is the legal driver.

A. The statement as flowed down through the binding document (PO) requires this standard.

B. The standard requires that this clause be referenced on your Purchasing documents

C. The purchasing document needs to have this requirement on it.

:caution: Note: This is my opinion (based upon basic contract law from college) and is not legal guidance. Talk with your Company's Attorney.

Let me make sure I'm understanding you. Irregardless of what our internal manual states. Since our customer requires that we meet this standard (asme/nqa-1:2000) and since requirement 4.204 of that standard cites the requirements for Rights of access, then it must remain on our PO's? Where do legalities come into play?

Your customer's requirement is presumably a matter of contractual agreement. The standard may be invoked by:

A direct reference to it on purchase orders, which might be printed out on each PO, or might form a part of the PO boilerplate, which is the "small print" usually printed on the back of the PO form.
A reference to it in some documented customer requirements, which are in turn referred to somehow in the purchase order.You quoted language from the standard that says,
The procurement documents shall provide for access to the supplier's and subtie supplier's facilities and records for surveillance, inspection, or audit by the purchaser, its designated representative, and others authrorized by the purchaser

It appears that the "procurement documents" referred to are your purchase orders to subtier suppliers. It looks like they are saying that these requirements must be a part of your contracts (POs) with subtiers.


I apologize if you have to hold my hand through this one. But i'm utterly confused. If our manual is irrelevant, then how are we displaying compliance to any of the standard? (from an auditors point of view)

No need for apologies--this stuff can get confusing sometimes. When I said your manual is irrelevant, I meant irrelevant to the question of whether the customer-mandated requirements must appear on your POs or not. Of course, if your manual says that you do something and then you don't, that could be an issue, but it's a separate issue.

If our customers PO cites the spec that states we must be meet NQA, how else besides the verbiage on OUR po's to OUR suppliers would we flow down the requirements?

It doesn't appear that your customer is giving you a choice in the matter. They clearly state that it must appear in the "procurement documents." This eliminates the possibility of using manuals, e-mail messages, letters, or smoke signals.

As I asked earlier, if an auditor were to come in and ask "Show me how you're satisfying the requirements of 4.204" What would I say?


You'd be stuck.

To my knowledge, the notice [and de facto agreement] for the supplier can be anywhere. When not in the text of the purchase order, it is often placed in the "supplier quality requirements" which rarely goes through top management or purchasing for review/approval. Typically, the phrasing is similar to: "Supplier agrees to allow audit of processes related to products we purchase by any or all of the following: our direct employees; our agents or contractors; our customer's employees or agents; government regulators which have jurisdiction over our products or services. All audits will be scheduled with advance notice to supplier. Auditors may execute confidentiality agreements to protect supplier's trade secrets."

To my knowledge, the notice [and de facto agreement] for the supplier can be anywhere. When not in the text of the purchase order, it is often placed in the "supplier quality requirements" which rarely goes through top management or purchasing for review/approval.


Conditions not referred to in the contract, directly or by reference, have no "teeth." If the poop hits the fan, the customer has to be able to show evidence that the supplier (principal or agent) has agreed to the conditions. Of course, there may be some binding arrangement outside the purchase order, but there still needs to be a viable contract.

Conditions not referred to in the contract, directly or by reference, have no "teeth." If the poop hits the fan, the customer has to be able to show evidence that the supplier (principal or agent) has agreed to the conditions. Of course, there may be some binding arrangement outside the purchase order, but there still needs to be a viable contract.Right! The key word in Jim's message is "reference" (however oblique in the purchase contract.) "Teeth" usually come in the form of a clause in the purchase agreement which says "supplier shall adhere to [customer name] Supplier Quality Requirements Manual" where the manual can range up to a small book or a series of web pages, depending upon the customer. This is much like the "standard" non-Standard additional requirements of the prime automakers over and above TS16949.

Many organizations are "streamlining" paperwork and moving away from multipage purchase contracts with tiny print "boiler plate" requirements and incorporating such in "referenced" documents which may be in print or electronic form. The regular supplier benefits because he doesn't have to scan each purchase order for possible new requirements and becomes more efficient during Contract Review. Ultimately, it's all about saving money. That's a primary reason to check with OP's (atreyu915) management to see where the clause about 2nd and 3d party audits is considered incorporated "by reference."

Coury,Jim,Wes
Thank you all for your input into this matter. This is beginning to make a little more sense to me. Just when you think you understand something :)
I will ask upper mgt about this matter. I will let you know what I find out. I can see this blowing up into a huge ordeal :)
I am however somewhat relieved that Jim and Coury would feel "right at home" in this type of scenario.

Coury,Jim,Wes
Thank you all for your input into this matter. This is beginning to make a little more sense to me. Just when you think you understand something :)
I will ask upper mgt about this matter. I will let you know what I find out. I can see this blowing up into a huge ordeal :)
I am however somewhat relieved that Jim and Coury would feel "right at home" in this type of scenario.

That is why we visit the cove, to try and help. Your welcome

It is a requirement that the "Pass down" requirements be include in your PO. This can also be accomplished by an attachment with the requirements on the attachment or by using a purchasing quality specification that is incorporated into the PO or referenced on the PO and sent to each supplier.

This is one easy finding when doing NQA ASME section III, or 10CFR50 audits because so many people say well this is standard business practice. But remember it is not legal in a court of law unless it is on or incorporated in the PO

To put this in very simple terms the removal of the requirement to flow-down right of access requirements puts your program in a noncompliance condition. What I would make management aware of is that if the company is audited by a customer or a federal agency (assuming the organization is doing work for DOE vs. NRC so it could be a visit from a DOE audit team) that their program will be noncompliance and finding will be issued and may cause them to be removed from their supplier list and possibily be subject to a fine under the federal rules, e.g., PAAA (Price Anderson...). I'm not suggesting scare tactics, but this are simply the facts!

I see that there were actually three pages to this thread. As a quick glance I don't think I have said anything that conflicts and hopefully this adds to the discussion.