:mg:OMG

We had our registration audit in March and with a few minor findings began to clean the NC up. We responded to them with the CA's to the auditors who approved the CA's and forwarded them onto our CRB. I have been in contact with them for a fseveral weeks and have been told everything is in place and we have been certified. So I was given a timetable for when our registration would be sent to us. SO this week I find out that there were "technical issues" that the review board and auditor had to discuss but everything is fine and we are still approved. But no cert as of yet. This afternoon on in OASIS and discover that our CRB has been "SUSPENDED". Does anyone know what effect this is likely to have on me the client when everything appeared to be going fine. I am beside myself thinking that we will be without ISO or AS registration because of =our CRB.

Similar situation to the one described in the AS9120 Certification Process (http://elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?t=33471&highlight=suspended) and Registrar Registration Certification Fees (http://elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?t=31758) threads. You can wait until your CB accreditation is reinstated and they can issue your certificate, or you could start from scratch with another CB, but it would take time for you to undergo Stages 1 and 2 audits with the new CB.

The OASIS database provides for accreditation status of all CB's in the ICOP Scheme. It is very important for registrants to know their CB accreditation status.

You may wish to do it or have your lawyer do it but you should review your contract with the CB regarding disclosure issues and failure to provide service etc. I am sure that the CB did not do this intentionally but if the suspension is not lifted you need to protect your company and recover costs associated with seeking a replacement CB.

Its also time to get something in writing from your CB regarding this issue because you may be under contract to disclose the expiration of your AS9100 registration to your customers. Customers some times call this expiration a “loss of certification” in their supplier quality assurance requirements. Again you need to protect your company.

If the suspension is only related to the AS9100 side of the business then they should be able to at least supply the ISO 9001:2000/2008 registration at this point. I would hope at no charge.

I absolutely concur the FIRST thing you should do is have a conversation with TOP management at your CB. Frequently, this suspension issue is over a check crossing in the mail with the suspension. You need the facts to make decisions. If it is more than a technical issue of slow pay, the CB management should be very frank with you on how your issue can be resolved with the least muss and fuss.

The last thing you should do is initiate legal action. All that does is cause everyone to dig in their heels and point fingers instead of looking for a quick and easy solution. Legal action is the last resort when the CB ignores you, or worse, tells you to fly a kite.

Money is important, but often it is more important to get things back on track than to sort out pennies and dollars .

Wes

You are correct about legal action or talk of legal action should not be an up front issue with the CB at this point and in my mind should always be the last resort.

But, that does not mean that you should be ignorant of the legalities while holding a friendly talk the CB on this issue because when all is said and done Bob seems to be indicating that some body forgot to mention their suspension.

Sometimes, the issue is already resolved between CB and AB, but the "paperwork" hasn't caught up to the listing/reporting service (Oasis in this case.)

Such glitches are why it is important to get the CB's side of the story - maybe he's not even aware the listing is going out showing him to be suspended when he thought everything was copacetic.

Good point

- maybe he's not even aware the listing is going out showing him to be suspended when he thought everything was copacetic.What? :confused:

They have been suspended since March 10th. According to the rules of the ICOP scheme, they should have informed all of their aerospace clients (certified or not) within 30 days of the suspension. The OP has been in communication with them and they were not forthcoming with the OP's organization.

When people belittle a CB's Aerospace accreditation suspension status as something inconsequential, they really don't understand the potential loss of business the registrants can incur in.

I know of a small aerospace organization which let their AS9100 certification deliberately lapse. A year later, an OEM source inspector refused a shipment because the supplier was not AS9100 certified, thus not listed in the OASIS database. It cost the supplier tens of thousands of dollars.

I feel encouraged by the fact that the Aviation, Space & Defense ICOP scheme is keeping people accountable. That is the ONLY way to make this a sustainable process.

People who are not well informed about the scheme rules run the risk of opining ignorantly.

What? :confused:

They have been suspended since March 10th. According to the rules of the ICOP scheme, they should have informed all of their aerospace clients (certified or not) within 30 days of the suspension. The OP has been in communication with them and they were not forthcoming with the OP's organization.

When people belittle a CB's Aerospace accreditation suspension status as something inconsequential, they really don't understand the potential loss of business the registrants can incur in.

I know of a small aerospace organization which let their AS9100 certification deliberately lapse. A year later, an OEM source inspector refused a shipment because the supplier was not AS9100 certified, thus not listed in the OASIS database. It cost the supplier tens of thousands of dollars.

I feel encouraged by the fact that the Aviation, Space & Defense ICOP scheme is keeping people accountable. That is the ONLY way to make this a sustainable process.

People who are not well informed about the scheme rules run the risk of opining ignorantly.OP does not identify the CB or the date it was suspended. You are bringing in new data. What part about call the CB management to get the their side of the story offends your sensibility? I may not be well informed about OASIS per se, but I sure do know how to maneuver my way through a business negotiation without accusing folks of crimes and misdemeanors without proof.

In some cases, the communication glitch may be totally within the supplier's organization. It wouldn't be the first time an outside communication got lost in the shuffle and not communicated to everyone who should be on the alert list within the target organization.

Why ASSUME when a cheap phone call can resolve most questions?

OP does not identify the CB or the date it was suspended. You are bringing in new data. There is only one AS CB currently suspended in the USA. The information is publicly available. It does not take much guessing. What part about call the CB management to get the their side of the story offends your sensibility?The OP stated that he has been in communication with the CB since March, when they conducted the stage 2 audit. And, as inferred by the OP, there was never a disclosure, by the CB, about their suspended status. Do you agree with the CB's posture? Why wasn't the CB forthcoming with the client? Not only, from an ethical perspective, but as MANDATED by the rules.

We responded to them with the CA's to the auditors who approved the CA's and forwarded them onto our CRB. I have been in contact with them for a fseveral weeks and have been told everything is in place and we have been certified. So I was given a timetable for when our registration would be sent to us. SO this week I find out that there were "technical issues" that the review board and auditor had to discuss but everything is fine and we are still approved.


Why ASSUME when a cheap phone call can resolve most questions?

There's nothing in the OP that indicates anything is being assumed about anything. It also looks like several cheap phone calls have been placed.

Sidney your good!

Never though of checking OASIS to see who is currently suspended and when. Maybe Bob should go back to my first post and understand the company’s legal rights regarding their CB just in case this snowballs.

The ruling came down today and we are left holding the bag:( The NAB is not going to allow our CRB to issue our cert. They (NAB) found that several of the CA's we answered and were approved by an accredited lead auditor were "weak". Go figure, one person who is suppose to be in tune and trained in the standard believes we comply and some who was never involved in our process decides we don't. We do not even get the specifics of what is weak. So we need to regroup and move forward. :mad:As far as earlier post suggesting phone calls and reviewing OASIS for status. I made timely phone calls to the person I was suppose to be in touch with and was lead (either on purpose or they didn't grasp the severity of the suspension) that there were no issues just a little clean up was needed. Never were we informed of any potential yet real problem. And then we get the icing on the cake, their top dog calls us and tells us "he feels our pain". I don't have a problem revisiting the true issues and correcting them if needed. However, a little no a lot of communication between our supplier (the CRB) and their customer would have gone a long way.
An ealier post cited a requirement that a client be informed with-in 30 days of the suspension. Well here's how they got around that one....Even though we had our Stage 1 before they were suspended we were not considered a AS client. Even though the contract was signed well before the suspension we are not seen as a client...unbelievable....we have been with this org for 12 years (ISO but still)...
What can ya do.......:frust:

They (NAB) found that several of the CA's we answered and were approved by an accredited lead auditor were "weak". If an ANAB auditor finds out that a CB is accepting substandard root cause analysis and corrective actions, they will issue a NC against the CB. ANAB auditors don't get involved with review of registrants corrective action responses, other than during accreditation audits. And, once again, they are assessing the CB process, not the registrant's.
An ealier post cited a requirement that a client be informed with-in 30 days of the suspension. Well here's how they got around that one....Even though we had our Stage 1 before they were suspended we were not considered a AS client. Even though the contract was signed well before the suspension we are not seen as a client...unbelievable....we have been with this org for 12 years (ISO but still)...That is hay (after being processed through the bull's digestive system). You signed a contract for an aerospace certification, you are an aerospace client, especially, if you have been through the stage 1 audit already. The ANAB rule (http://www.anab.org/HTMLFiles/docs/Advisory/AR29.pdf) talks about aerospace clients, not aerospace certified clients. What can ya do.......:frust:There are many things one can do.

Because our CB was suspended the NAB was reviewing the CA's to see if they would accept and approve our registration. So they reviewed our CA's and said no to the cert "based on the weakness of several of the CA responses". And this brings me to my next question, one of the things sighted by the NAB that the "root cause refrains from simply repeating the finding (I get this) or the direct cause (this I don't get). I subscribe to a partial definition of root cause as "to change a process, procedure, document system etc... and prevent an undesirable outcome in future events". So if we can't use the direct cause as root cause I do not understand this part. I wouldn't think they would want indirect causes to described root cause because it will not fix the problem; it’s just a band aid. But I have been wrong before.:confused:

I'm guessing that by saying "direct cause" they mean the surface cause. They are implying that further analysis is needed to identify the deeper cause(s) of the surface cause.

Yes, they want EFFECTIVE ROOT CAUSE ANALYSIS.
http://cqi.ua.edu/ppt/images/img009.jpg

I'm guessing that by saying "direct cause" they mean the surface cause. They are implying that further analysis is needed to identify the deeper cause(s) of the surface cause.

That's probably the case, but it would be good to see an example of what NAB didn't like. They could be wrong too. If Bob the QE provided a direct quote ("root cause refrains from simply repeating the finding...or the direct cause") I have no idea what they might be on about.

Contact the Certified Body's Accreditation body who issues AS9100 accreditation ,ANAB, at http://www.anab.org/ and file a complaint or call them at You can reach ANAB staff members by calling 800-606-5394 (toll free from the United States, Canada, and Mexico) or 414-347-9858.

We had a similar situation happen to us with our initial certification and it resulted in a 4 month delay and a "re-audit" beofre our certification was granted. I had to constantly keep on the CB to provide us with details and a time frame for their suspension to be lifted. We concluded that it was more cost effective and certainly less stressful to continue with the CB until their sitiuation was correced then to start all over again with a new CB. We never went the legal issue as waiting it out was far more to our advantage. We were never told by our CB that they were suspended (it happened after our audit and before certificaion) which is a gross violation. I only found out about their troubles here on the Cove after questioning how long a normal certificatation should take! We were made aware of why they were suspended only after we asked and although they were relatively minor issues for them they obviously affected us tremendously.

Anyway, good luck with it the whole situation proved very frustrating. For a first timer in the land of Quality I was most disappointed.

ANAB has been cracking down on the CA process with CB's and they have issued a Heads Up regarding this to the CB's you can find the details at http://www.anab.org/HTMLFiles/docs/HeadsUp/HU137.pdf. This document may also help you with what is expected and locating the gaps in your responses. The CB's are supposed to have trained all thier auditors on the expectations. And yes, ANAB has the last say on acceptance as they are the accreditation organization.

ANAB has been cracking down on the CA process with CB's and they have issued a Heads Up regarding this to the CB's you can find the details at http://www.anab.org/HTMLFiles/docs/HeadsUp/HU137.pdf. This document may also help you with what is expected and locating the gaps in your responses. The CB's are supposed to have trained all thier auditors on the expectations. As you said, the HU you referred to relates to the corrective actions that the CB's have to provide ANAB, as a result of accreditation audits. CB's need to improve on their corrective action responses (http://elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?t=31313&highlight=corrective) And yes, ANAB has the last say on acceptance as they are the accreditation organization.ANAB only got involved with the review of the corrective actions, by the registrant in this case, because the CB is suspended, and, technically, the CB could not issue new certificates. Apparently, in this unusual circumstance, ANAB stepped in and got involved with the review of the audit results, including the adequacy of the registrant's corrective action. But, in normal conditions, the accreditation body does not involve itself in certification recommendation decisions. The CB is responsible for that.

Sydney, you are right on the mark. ANAB got involved in the best interest of both parties. While the decision did not go our way I did and do appreciate their effort. We will regroup and try again as we have put a great deal of work into this project and we can see light at the end of the tunnel...I am just hoping that the light is the sun and not a train:lol:

Thanks for all the input.