During a recent audit, the auditor asked us to produce records that show that our suppliers (all are QS-9000) are having their material independently tested periodically to verify their finding when they issue us a Certificate of Conformance or a COA. None of suppliers have an accredited lab to include us. Anyone have any suggestions or interpretations of this in the standard?

Thanks

Let me ask a couple questions first.
Was this raw material or parts?

If it was 4.10.6 it is out of your control. You could, however, send the samples out on your own.

The company has to exercise some type of control over its suppliers even if they are QS. The amount of control is established, documented and verified. If you are receiving parts and the supplier is mfg them to spec, you recieve a cert per lot, etc. what else can you do. I don't believe you have to prove that they are using a lab etc..

If it is a production part you are required to perform the annual part lay out which includes the material spec.


:bigwave:
Welcome to the cove.

The material in question is raw material, metal strip, copper/brassd and aluminum. We receive certificates of conformance verifying the material from the supplier. We also maintain a spec sheet for each category of raw mateial. This spec is dictated by our customer. Quality verifies the COC to the spec and if it meets spec releases the material for production. If not then, our nonconforming process kicks in and the material is placed on hold. That is when we send out samples. The supplier will send out samples if they suspect a problem. However we are not informed unless they believe that we may have received some of the material. We have sent material out to be tested, however this is not done on a routine basis.

Max,

Exactly what "shall" is in question? 4.10.2.4? 4.6?

4.10.6 refers to "Supplier laboratory requirements" -- That would be you.

Does the material work? Based on your second post, I would say you have a system that works for you.

I'm not certain that QS has been violated. I would need to have the auditor (or you) quote the "shall" that is being referenced.

I strongly suspect that the auditor was referring to 4.10.2.4 and if I recall correctly that section changed in QS-9000 from the second to third revision. As of the third revision the bullet allowing Certificates of Conformance as the only incoming supplier quality system control was removed. It has to be supplemented by one of the remaining four bullets. The auditor has probably decided that you are relying heavily upon the supplier certs and as an obvious follow-up has asked for independent confirmation of their validity. I'm sure it is not applicable in this case but the auditor, like me, as probably seen some examples of supplier certs that weren't worth the paper they were written on or worse were completely made up. The path of least resistance is to send a sample out once or twice a year to an accredited lab for confirmation. You might just be surprised by the result. Hope this helps...

Neil

Hey Neil, Welcome to the Cove your input is always welcome!

I do believe you might be right. The funny thing is that although we rely heavily on supplier COC, 4.10.2 doesn’t even address them as a possibility. Reading the requirement and using a literalist interpretation, they are not an acceptable method for determining incoming product quality. However, the second bullet does mention sampling based on performance. One could interpret that to say, if it works as we use it, or base on past experiences.

BTW, 16949 does not contain any of this.(at least that I have seen)

Hi Db,

I went into my document archives and pulled out the 2nd edition QS-9000. For a change my memeory was correct. There used to be a 5th bullet to what is now 4.10.2.4 which stated:

Subcontractor warrants or certifications (shall include test results and shall be used in combination with one or more other methods).

So statements of conformance (CofC) from the supplier without actual test data was never acceptable as a stand alone supplier control. Now even Certificates of Analysis which contain actual test or inspection data are not acceptable as well. The sampling based on performance is referring to actual receiving inspection or testing frequency. So it sounds like we are all using the 2nd or 3rd party assessments of subcontractor sites as our main incoming quality control. Frightening isn't it?

So let's give the original auditor his due, he seems to be thinking about the effectiveness of the incoming controls. Periodic independent verification of CRITICAL sunbcontractor certs seems like a prudent thing to do. Let's be honest, we are all trying our best to do the minimal amount of receiving inspection as we can, and why not? Incoming inspection is not a value-added activity.

Thanks for the memory lesson. I threw away my 2nd edition a long time ago. It's funny how I would have sworn that cofc was still there!

But this doesn't detract from my original post. There is no requirment that the vendor's must have material independently tested. The fourth bullet allows for part evaluation and the second allows for receiving inspection. But no where can I find a "shall" that corresponds to the auditor's request.

Now, in defense of the auditor, we do not know the entire conversation. If the auditee is only offering cofc as their "proof" of incoming product quality, then the auditor has a much stronger point. But if the auditee is also offering the second bullet, then the auditor might well be out-of-bounds.

Yes db, you are 100% correct there is not an actual shall requiring independent confirmation of a cert. Without more details from the thread starter it is impossible to know if this was their only incoming control. If that is indeed the case then there is an obvious nonconformance. I suspect, however, they are using an ISO 9000 or QS9000 accredited source (bullet 3) and then using supplier certs in lieu of receiving inspection. Perfectly acceptable by the rules of QS-9000 and the auditor is not at liberty to write a nonconformance.

My point though is that in the spirit of quality assurance the auditor is barking up the right tree and kudos to him or her. Accreditation of the supplier combined with non-validated supplier certs is not an effective system for supplier control IMHO.

Thanks everyone for your inputs. They are opening doors and some minds on my side of the fence. The auditor cited 4.10.2.2, that there was not enough evidence provided that incoming product quality for our certified suppliers are properly reviewed and that a 3rd party registration was not on file. Not all of our suppliers are 3rd party registered.

We believe that a checklist documenting incoming material and identifying characteristics is what the auditor is looking for. The characteristics is something we will determine as required for incoming inspection.

I know I didn't hear the whole conversation with the auditee, and just maybe the auditor spotted something else in your incoming inspection and didn't feel it was being performed properly, so I'll cut them a little slack.
However!!!!!!
IMO this is a classic case of an auditor over stepping their bounds by hitting this clause. It states that "consideration shall be given", it gives you the flexibility to place the amount of control on your suppliers that YOU deem necessary, not the auditor. I can see my company going to Aloca and demanding a similar test to be conducted - yeah right, we'll get right on it, the results are in the mail.
To me this is petty. Yes you should have some control over your suppliers, yes they need to be monitored. How, how often and to what degree is up to you.
:eek:

Hey Stew, what evidence would you look for to show "consideration shall be given"? I’m not trying to start an argument, I agree with you. My question is simply one of curiosity.

I'm not arguing db, I'm just a nice mellow guy.:D What I use is a supplier questionaire that is required in order for purchasing to place them on the "Approved Supplier List". Once the questionaire is received myself, purchasing, program mgr, or dept. mgr will review the supplier. This may be in the form of phone call, emails, personal visit, etc. All contact is docuemented on the form. We usually place them on a probationary period until we have a little history with them. Their performance is tracked and the control level exercised is dependent on their track record.
I'm use to having to answer question in this area because of the business we're in. We have a supplier for e-coat that is horrible. Lost parts, changed labels, damage, etc.. They are still being used because their the only ones who will take the job. It is a extremely low volume, galvanized steel tub for Natural Gas Vehicles that has a ton of regulations and requirements on it. Not much we can do with them, but we show where we have a different ordering and replenishment system with that part to protect the customer. Another way is to document on-site visits may be required on the PO.
Okay, no argument db. If you feel that the NC was valid (from info given) can you explain to me why? I know we don't have the whole story - my feeling is that s/he was following a trail and wasn't given the warm fuzzy that it was understood or happening, been there done that.
Here is the form we use to let the supplier know what we are looking for. When the PO is issued the requirement numbers are listed.
:truce:

Stew, the reason I asked is I sometimes have trouble with the comments like "shall consider". They are too elusive statements for my liking. When someone, like you, bring up the subject, I like to know what they use for “evidence”.

As far as the NC. I too, have trouble with 4.10.2.2. My first post indicated that. I could possibly support a NC to 4.10.2.4, as I also stated, but only with certain limits. I too feel that 4.10.2.2 is not a proper cite.
:thedeal:

I agree with the 4.10.2.4. I know I sound like I classify the ISO/QS audits up there with the Spanish Inquisition and IRS audits, it's just that I don't agree with the cert/registration system. Is it a necessity? I believe it is in this day and age, customer service & "quality" has gone out the door for the almighty buck and bottom line (look at the Firestone issue). I look at it like trying to legislate and govern freedom. You just can't do it. The more laws you write the less freedom you have. ISO was viewed as a way the B3 could force suppliers to give them good parts. If you doubt that look at how many of their plants are registered to QS! Not many and it is not a requirement (do as I say, not as I do).

I believe that a properly organized and implemented business system aligned with ISO 9K2K & or TS 16949 will ensure quality products, continual improvement, higher profits and satisfied customers. Isn't it really based on sound business practices?? It's just a shame that I have to have an outside firm come in and prove it. No wonder JAMA laughs at us, it's their culture and we still can't seem to get the basic concepts right.
:bonk: :frust:

Stew, I beg to differ.

Once an organization becomes QS three things magically happen. First, your sales triple. Second, all quality problems disappear. And thirdly, the weather becomes just like any other Michigan day…sunny and 75.






Then you wake up!

Actually, I don’t differ at all. I often say, if your system is good ISO or QS probably won’t help much. If you have no controls it could help. The key is if you want it to help. One of my clients put it this way. The QS banner is their “right to do business tax”.