“ Define the type and extent of control exercised by the supplier over subcontractors.”
Would you give me some ideas on implementing this SALL from the standard….

Best regards, Arturo Rosales

This isn't a biggie. Mainly they're looking for things like do you reserve the right to audit a supplier's (to you) facility or do acceptance testing at a supplier's facility. That they be ISO9001 registered and maintain their registration. Just think about it. 'Type and extent of control' is the key part of this.

I think often the word 'Control' in that requirement phrase throws people.

[This message has been edited by Marc Smith (edited 10-23-98).]

Subject: Re: QS-9000 Subcontractor Development /Scott/Hillyer
Date: Mon, 16 Aug 1999 14:19:57 -0600
From: ISO Standards Discussion

From: larryhillyer
Subject: RE: QS-9000 Subcontractor Development /Scott/Hillyer

--> >Subject: Q: QS-9000 Subcontractor
--> Development /Scott
-->
--> > Hi List,
-->
--> Clause 4.6.2.1 of QS-9000 3rd Edition speaks to the need for a
--> supplier to, eventually, develop its subcontractors' quality systems
--> to QS-9000 compliance. I have two related questions:
-->
--> 1) To paraphrase, "subcontractors" are defined in the glossary as
--> providers of production materials, or production or service parts
--> directly to the Big Three or other customers subscribing to QS-9000
--> 3rd Edition. What does it mean to subscribe to QS-9000?
-->
--> 2) Isn't it unrealistic to expect a "Mom 'n Pop" subcontractor to
--> become compliant to QS-9000?

I've been in this automotive thing long before the ISO/QS9000 thing all came about (it was needed!).

"Subcribing". Well, the interpretation can be very literal, if you supply as a tier 1, 2 or 3, you better have systems compliant to the guidelines! Of course, if the customer requires that you have the systems and registration, you have no choice. Subscribe then means "do it or else"! As an automotive supplier, down the food chain, requires the systems to comply, following the AIAG manuals provided. I really do not know how else to explain this. If your company has a choice in the matter, they had better benchmark with others to see if it falls into their business plan and strategy for the future. Many companys are doing it for good business sense, like mine. They currently provide product that must meet ISO9001, but with potential automotive(T-3) business coming (2-3 yrs.), it makes good sense to reach for the QS9000 early-on, and not be forced.

As far as the mom-pop shops go, they have no choice. I have had to deal with this very situation from coast to coast, most recently in CA, now in LA, and it is a stark reality, if business is to be had, you had better do it or seek other types of business. Most of the smaller businesses can support the QS9000 guidelines alot easier than the big ones. The cost of the registration and related start-up costs now-a-days can be off-set by state supported grants, etc.. You need to seek out your individual state offered fundings. Some larger corporations that had the same registrar world wide, can many times work with their registrar to offer their supply base reduced rates.

Regards,

Larry

Related threads include:
purchasing-vendor evaluation (http://Elsmar.com/ubb/Forum2/HTML/000061.html)
and
Subcontractor Evaluation (http://Elsmar.com/ubb/Forum5/HTML/000032.html)

-----snippo-----------------

From: ISO Standards Discussion
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 12:50:28 -0600
Subject: Re: Q: Supplier Evaluation /Giede/Humphries

From: Edwin Humphries

Bill

> My questions are: Does an ongoing evaluation of suppliers satisfy
> "periodic evaluation?" If a supplier is in the database, and purchases
> can be made from the suppliers listed (purchases from "unapproved"
> suppliers can not be done, even though their name would still appear),
> would that satisfy "follow-up actions?"

This clause of the standard is one of the most frequently misunderstood and bureaucratized.

The reality is that any company that is successful has to be making some sort of on-going (= periodic) assessment of its suppliers. The all to frequent interpretation is that one must have a formal evaluation process - sometimes even an audit process - with questionnaires, schedules for reassessment, classification systems and so on. I'll invite you to read the standard and find any of these things: you won't.

The first rule of ISO implementation is to document what you do; then you look at it and find out whether, in principle, it meets the standard's requirements. If so, leave it, or at most, rephrase it so that an auditor will recognise it as conforming. If it doesn't identify the areas where there is a shortcoming, and address only those, in such a way as to support basic business objectives. Under no circumstances accept some arbitrary method of supplier assessment if it doesn't make business sense to you.

So:

1. You must have some way of ensuring that information about consistently under-performing suppliers reaches those who make supplier choices. The capture of such information is as good a form of review as any.

2. There must be some way that routine purchases from such suppliers can be prevented. This must mean some form of record, whether it is a flag in your purchasing or inventory control database or a quite separate register. This provides a record that the assessment has been done, and if it also has a date, provides some evidence of its regularity.

3. When faced with the situation, you must also have a system that evaluates the ability of a new supplier to meet the company's needs (this includes, but is not restricted to, quality; therefore, price, delivery, technical support, etc, may also be relevant - they are also company needs).

If you have all the above, document these systems, and do nothing more: a reasonable auditor should find no problem.

Best Regards
Edwin

This might be a good place to gather some opinions on the following;

A client (Small electronic manufacturer 10 people) is horrified by Element 6. He has never before carried out any assessment of suppliers because he his working in a environment where the projects change frequently and involve short production runs. If he needs any components he simply picks up the phone and buys the cheapest diodes/chips whatever. The majority of his suppliers are distributors who have very little influence over the manufacturers quality.

It also seems that electronic components are traded as something of a commodity, with people buying and selling according to the price in the market place. Which means that suppliers change quite rapidly

My reaction has been to state in the handbook that company *****carries out evaluation of vendors that manufacture the parts supplied to *****, or according to a design from company*****. IE i have excluded dealers and distributors.(Even to classify them as a 'C' supplier on the Acceptable Supplier List would mean the nightmare scenario of constantly updating a list that is not used or wanted by anybody).

The result is that i am now down to 18 suppliers that exist on the Supplier List and are evaluated?

What do you think will i get away with it?

Regards



------------------
Andy B

In response to Andy's query:
If you have classification levels for suppliers, does that dictate the level of receiving inspection to be appied to the purchased product? I don't see that 'C' suppliers need to be continually updated. If the supplier list covers all potential suppliers (all those used in last 2 years , and may be used in the future - for example) and these are assigned a classification, and inspection levels are applied for particular classifications, then all should be fine!

In short, yes you'll get away with it, depending on the receiving inspection aspect?
Counter thoughts?

------------------

Hello Dave

In short no - The supplier list is not connected to any sort of inspection status. Inpsection is done according to a wide variety of factors including how important that particular part is too the product, or if the product has never been used before etc.

It is not linked to the status of the supplier on the supplier list.

Regards

------------------
Andy B

You might be interested in the Purchasing policy I wote into a recent Management Manual (please note - it is not a procedure):
3.4 PURCHASING
3.4.1 POLICY
Partnerships with suppliers and contractors shall enhance organisational performance in meeting customer requirements.
It is the policy of Automation Engineering to:
 Maintain long-term, mutually beneficial relationships with key suppliers.
 Ensure that suppliers meet their contractual obligations to Automation Engineering and our customers.
3.4.2 APPROVED SUPPLIERS
A list of approved suppliers/contractors shall be maintained by the Company Secretary. To qualify for approval, suppliers shall demonstrate that they:
a) have a proven history of quality supplies; and
b) have been certified, or are in the process of becoming certified to AS/NZS ISO 9001 or AS/NZS ISO 9002; or,
c) adopt policies consistent with AS/NZS ISO9000
Each supplier/contractor shall have a demonstrated capability to furnish product that meets all the requirements of the specifications, drawings and purchase documents, and the Automation Engineering Management Manual.
3.4.3 EVALUATING SUPPLIERS’ COMPETENCE
The methods of establishing this capability can include, but are not limited to, any combination of the following:
a) on-site evaluation of contractor’s competence;
b) evaluation of product samples;
c) past history with similar products;
d) test results of similar products;
e) published experience of others.
3.4.4 PERFORMANCE
Suppliers/contractors who exhibit continuous poor performance in the areas of quality, delivery, or safety shall be removed from the list of approved suppliers. Notification of removal shall be given in writing, after appropriate corrective action requests have been raised.
3.4.5 PURCHASING DOCUMENTS
Purchasing documents shall contain a clear description of the product or service ordered including a ‘purchase specification’. If it is not possible to nominate an Australian Standard, industry standards may be used, If it is not possible to nominate any standard, a summary of requirements shall be made and attached to the purchase documents.
3.4.6 VERIFICATION OF GOODS AND SERVICES
Where appropriate or when specified in tender contracts, Automation Engineering shall verify at either the contractor’s works or on receipt at our premises, that the goods or services meet the specified requirements and are fit for the intended purpose.
Where required by the contract, Automation Engineering customers are afforded the right to verify at either source or upon receipt that the product conforms to specified requirements. However such verification on the part of the customer does not absolve Automation Engineering from the responsibility for providing acceptable products.
3.4.7 REJECTION OF UNSATISFACTORY GOODS AND SERVICES
Automation Engineering reserves the right to reject unsatisfactory or noncompliance of products when received or at any subsequent time up to the expiry of the contractually agreed warranty period.

Our company is QS-9000 certified and does not use subcontractors. We do have suppliers for purchasing packaging materials. Does this element apply to us? If our packaging suppliers are ISO certified, why would we have to send them a self assessment audit? Shouldn't the fact that they are ISO, and have a resgistrar audit them on a regular basis, be enough? And what about our suppliers that are not ISO? They are small companys, that have no intention of becoming ISO, and don't understand the self assessment audit enough to answer the questions and send it back. If you could clear up any confusion on this I would appreciate it.

Our company does not have subcontractors but does have suppliers. These are not production critical supplies, the closest to it would be packaging. Do we still have to send out self assessment audits? To all the suppliers, or just the ISO certified? I'm pretty new to this and I could really use some help. Thanks

Originally posted by KathyS:
Our company does not have subcontractors but does have suppliers. These are not production critical supplies, the closest to it would be packaging. Do we still have to send out self assessment audits? To all the suppliers, or just the ISO certified? I'm pretty new to this and I could really use some help. Thanks

Are you aware of the difference between subcontractors and suppliers as outlined in QS-9000 and are you a direct supplier to automotive? Are you Tier I/II/II/IV etc...

How do you differentiate between a subcontractor and a supplier?

Does packaging have anything to do with product quality? If you are QS-9000 Yes.

Try to send G.M a cardboard container when they are expexting a metal container with a barcode attached.

Do you have to send out a self assessment? Not unless you say you will in your documentation.

You need to define how you will develop and improve the companies that send you product.

Possibly define different levels of control and development in your quality documentation based on the affect they have on your processes and final product.

Basic sense and imangination!!!!!!!!!!!

ASD...

In the back of the QS-9000 book the definition for subcontractor and supplier is the same.
We only service customer supplied product and usually send it back in the packaging the customer has provided, or we purchase the packaging from Customer approved suppliers.
If we document how we approve a supplier and what we expect from them and monitor them, then we do not need to send them the self-assessment audit?
Sorry but for a beginner it's a little confusing.
Thanks again

Spoke too soon.
Reread the definitions and can cleary see the difference now.
Thanks for all the help.

Just a thought...

If you are providing service to customer supplied product, something of what you purchase is likely to influence the "value added" by your company. These suppliers are the ones you want to consider for approval within your system.

A supplier is a sub-contractor. So - yes.

If you are already QS certified don't you already have a supplier/subcontractor development system in place?

As Marc said, the definition of supplier and sub-contractor are the same, just at different levels of the suppy chain.

Registration/certification to "a" standard does not resolve the requirement to help develop suppliers/sub-contractors.

I don't say it often, but the definitions and requirements on this element (4.6) are pretty clear.

ASD...

Refer to the IASG interpretations for clarification.
Can be found at this site: http://www.qs-9000.org

You as the customer decide the level of subcontractor developement to implement.

Subcontractor development does not mean that your subcontractors are required to register to QS-9000.

Is anyone else having a nightmare with the new C9 interpretations? We have very important suppliers who are not certified and will not become certified. I'm curious as to how others are handling this. We used to grandfather some of our suppliers but my registrar tells me this is not applicable any longer. Just looking for suggestions or loopholes.:bonk: :ko:

Hi Angela and welcome to the Cove.

There was an extensive discussion on this when it first came out. Check the other threads for more info but the bottom line is if you are not a tier 1 supplier, the requirement does not apply to you.

Tier 2 and lower subcontractors are required to continue developing their suppliers using QS-9000 compliance as a goal.

Try a search in the Cove for the other threads. It is full of good information.

Dave

Have you seen the intrepretation to the intrepretation at www.qs-9000.org (click the link at the top - partially hidden by the frame)? It provides some loopholes, such as distributors not having to comply. Other options are OEM approved tier-1 audits, but if you are not tier-1 you cannot conduct these audits "officially". The rules look more complicated than getting certified in the first place.

Appendix I also allows portions of the standard to be exempted.

What type of suppliers are you not able to have certified? Even if you can find a loophole in QS, TS-16949 has the same requirement, but no intrepretations (yet).

Tom

We are a tier one supplier to both Ford, Visteon and GM. But the C9 interpretation states that all suppliers who directly affect quality must be certified to a version ISO excluding 9003. Quote "Minimum compliance shall be certification by an accredited certification body to a current version of the ISO 9000 Quality Standards" If not certified they must be assessed by an OEM or a 2nd part OEM approved party. My problem is that I have three suppliers right now that are not certified. We could go and perform 2nd party assessment but the cost we would incure is ridiculous.

These are high priority suppliers and I am desperately looking for a loophole.

I have read the C9 interpretations. We are a tier 1 supplier to Ford, Visteon and GM. We manufacture labels for car engines and such. I did recently perform a 2nd party assessment but the other suppliers are across the country and the cost is ridiculous. They are material suppliers so there is no getting around them affecting the quality of our product. I tried using waivers but Ford and Visteon will not sign.

Are either of your tier 1 suppliers with this dilema?

Angela,

You (and several others here) are on the leading edge of this requirement. Many companies I have talked to are not going to do anything until they receive a nonconformance from their registrar - much like what happened when the ISO 17025 requirement kicked in.

I helped QS certify a tape and label company a couple years ago, so I am assuming your critical purchased products are label stock/paper, inks and possibly adhesive. Have you considered if you are purchasing these items from:

1. distributors (not affected by interpretation)
2. OEM approved/required source (would waive requirement)
3. Someone who has been audited by another tier-1 so you can "transfer" their approval. (May be difficult to document)


Tom

Yes all of that has been taken into consideration. All of the paper product has something done at the site that is value added. None of these suppliers have been assessed by another second party and none are distributors. One of them is on an approved vendor list with Ford but our registrar tells us that does not negate our responsibility. I would just wait to see if they issue a non-conformance but we were told that they were issuing majors. Never got one and don't want one. Any other suggestions?

Just in case anyone is having my same problems with subcontractor development. This is what I found out from George Hummel. First tip was - When writing your letters to get approval for the 2nd party assessment phrase it as such "In the absence of a negative response we will consider this audit approved" Now why didn't I think of that. Most of the OEM's are to busy and this will alleviate the paper trail. Second tip - grandfathering is not allowed anymore. Also if you have done everything that you can and still can't get cooperation ask your registrar to show where the IATS directed them to issue a major.

Angela wrote :"When writing your letters to get approval for the 2nd party assessment phrase it as such "In the absence of a negative response we will consider this audit approved"

Did your registrar agree with this phrase.Because we have sent such letters to our customers and have not replied to it till now.

Will the registrar accept if none of the customers respond.

Back in about 1998, the IASG issued an interpretation on the "negative" waiver saying it should not be accepted. I realize the interpretation was for testing and ppap waivers and not acceptance of a second party audit, but I would imagine they will view it the same way.

Their decision stated that to be a valid waiver it had to be an actual directive (written or verbal with documentation).

Maybe there is someone out there who can lay hands on the original publication for us.

Mind you, I am not saying you can't do it, just be aware we tried in the past and it was shot down.

Dave

The "in absence of a negative response" quote was recommended to me from a member of the oversite board. I have to go with it. I have tried everything. After three months of non stop phone calls to customers I'm ready to try anything. If it doesn't work for your auditors it sure kicks the customer in the butt. I sent over a letter the other day to a Ford STA. Mind you I contact him frequently regarding our Q1. It usually takes a week or two before he decides to return my calls. I emailed the letter to him within three minutes he was on my phone giving me direction as to where to go. If it doesn't help in one way than it will in another.

I guess I should have read your post more thoroughly. I don't think any auditor will accept the "in absence of a negative" quote if none of your customers have signed. I would say that 85% of our customer base has signed this is my last effort to those that haven't. Like I said it will kick them in the butt or hopefully help us to satisfy the requirement.

What can one do if the customer does not reply despite numerous reminders?

That is precisely why we sent out the notices with the reference to "in absence of a negative response". The first set of letters I sent out asked them to sign. The second set contained the above reference.

We are a QS-9000 company. We supply Visteon and Chrysler, but are considered a tirer 2 company. We have been trying to ensure that our suppliers are ISO registered. Most of them are either ISO registered or QS-9000 compliant, but a couple of them are saying they have no current plans.

Dave, I am curious about your comments from an earlier post:
"If you are not a tier 1 supplier, the requirement does not apply to you. Tier 2 and lower subcontractors are required to continue developing their suppliers using QS-9000 compliance as a goal".

What certainty do you have that this requirement applies to tier 1 suppliers only? Your customers? Your registrar? Don't get me wrong, I totally agree with you! I just don't have any real evidence to take to the table when I make my arguement.

If you are a QS-9000 compliant company, then this standard does apply to you.

Angela

Hi Sandra - Here is a copy of the notice I received from our registrar. We have had surveillance and renewal audits at all 10 of our facilities and have the same interpretation given at each one. There was a follow-up from the IASG which stated the same thing but I don't have that available for posting.

Dave

What follows is a clarification of the Sanctioned Interpretation C9 and the issue of subcontractor development from QS-9000, 3rd Edition section 4.6.2.
According to the November 2001 issue of ActionLINE, the AIAG magazine, and in accordance with the SQA analysis of this information auditors and their QS-9000 certified clients should take note of the following:

Definitions as taken from QS9000 3rd Edition:

- SUPPLIERS: Suppliers are defined as providers of: a) production
materials, b) production or service parts, or c) heat treating, plating, painting or other finishing services., directly to Chrysler, Ford, General Motors or other customers subscribing to this document. See SITE.
- SUBCONTRACTOR: Subcontractors are defined as providers of production materials, or production or service parts, directly to a SUPPLIER to Chrysler, Ford, General Motors or other customers subscribing to this document. Also included are providers of heat treating, painting, plating or other finishing services. See SITE.
- SITE: Site is defined as a SUPPLIER OR SUBCONTRACTOR location at which value-added production processes occur. "Site" also includes distributors of parts manufactured by other companies.

A SUPPLIER is often referred to as TIER 1 and a SUBCONTRACTOR is often referred to as TIER 2. A TIER 1 SUPPLIER provides products, materials or manufacturing services directly to Ford, GM, Chrysler or those customers listed on page 79 of QS9000 3rd Edition. These CUSTOMERS are often referred to as an OEM. A TIER 2 SUBCONTRACTOR provides products, materials or
manufacturing services to SUPPLIERS.

The reference to SUBCONTRACTORS in the sanctioned interpretation for SUBCONTRACTOR DEVELOPMENT only refers to TIER 2 sites WITHIN the aforementioned customer or OEM's supply chain.

EXAMPLE: A Tier 1 supplier named ACME Widget Company, which provides fiberglass molded parts to Navistar, a customer subscribing to QS9000, must develop their subcontractors (Tier 2 companies) as described in the Sanction Interpretation C9. A QS9000 certified provider of the raw fiberglass to
ACME Widget Co., which would be considered a TIER 2 in the supply chain, does NOT have to develop their subcontractors as described in Sanctioned
Interpretation C9.

When another Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) not listed on page 79 of QS-9000 and not GM, Chrysler or Ford, requires their suppliers to obtain and maintain QS-9000, this sanctioned interpretation does NOT apply.

Whether Suppliers (Tier 1) elect to have their Subcontractors (Tier 2) certified, assessed periodically by an OEM customer-approved second party or 3rd party registrar or assessed by the OEM is up to that supplier. When a QS-9000 certified SUPPLIER (TIER 1) elects to "qualify" their SUBCONTRACTORS on their own, they must obtain WRITTEN Approval from ALL the customers or
OEMs affected by that SUBCONTRACTOR'S product, material or service. In ALL cases the requirements on the SUPPLIER and the SUBCONTRACTORS must be met by December 31, 2002.

Okay Dave! Where was this information when I asked for it, back when I started this thread.:vfunny:

I still see an issue here with the definitions. If I am XYZ Inc. and am QS-9000 certified making auto parts as a tier-2 or 3, does that not make me a "customer subscribing to this document" and therefore a supplier? The OEMs on page 79 are not referred to as "subscribing to QS-9000", only recognizing registration/compliance as meeting their requirements. My interpretation is that "customers subscribing to QS" does not equal those on page 79. Page 79 is simply a reference to other customer specific requirements outside of the QS-9000 book. I don't think it is intended to be an all inclusive list and define all customers subscribing to QS-9000.

If I am not a supplier, by the definition "supplying product to Ford, GM, DC or one of the OEMs on page 79", I do not have to follow any QS-9000 requirements since every requirement states "the supplier shall..." If this is true I should never have been registered to QS since I am not a supplier. So how can I be a supplier for 4.1 to 4.20 except for 4.6.2.1 and C9?

I am also not confident an article in Action Line can be considered an interpretation. It appears from your post that Smithers has adopted the interpretation that if you are not tier-1 you don't have to worry about it. Someone earlier stated their registrar was considering it a major.

I'm going to check with a few of my registrar contacts and see what their current interpretation of the interpretation is. I’ll post an update when I hear something.

Tom

One more follow-up. I just re-read the Q&A on www.qs-9000.org. Read point 2:

Q&A: Questions and Answers On C9


2. Does 4.6.2.1 and C9 apply to all tiers of subcontractors?



No. Section 4.6.2.1 and C9 only apply to those subcontractors of suppliers who have QS-9000 certification.


So I read:

A is QS certified. A buys from B. B must be ISO certified. B buys from C. C is a tier-2 to A, B is not QS, therefore C does not have to be certified.


Tier does not necessarily mean distance from GM, DC or Ford - it can be distance from any QS certified company.

Tom

A is QS certified. A buys from B. B must be ISO certified. B buys from C. C is a tier-2 to A, B is not QS, therefore C does not have to be certified.

Tom, I agree with your understanding, but I really dislike the idea that B (A's supplier) could force A to lose their QS. If B refuses, and is a "customer approved" source, then A must use B, but if B refuses, then A loses their cert. I don't like it one bit. No sir!

I'm dealing with all of this right now. We currently have a material supplier that is on the approved supplier list with Ford. The supplier is not certified to a version of ISO, will not allow an OEM assessment or a 2nd party OEM assessment. I've been dealing with Ford and Visteon STA's regarding this. Because of this requirement they will have to change their approved supplier list. If not then they have to put the leverage on the supplier to allow someone in. In this case the supplier will not budge. So Ford will change their list. This particular supplier just lost approx. $1,000,000 in business (per year) They scewed themselves. It would have costed them nothing to allow an assessment. There failure to do so costed them plenty.

Angela

Angela, what would you have done if Ford did not change their list? How would you have been able meet both requirements (approved supplier vs C9)?

Ok! Got me! There is no way to meet both the C9 and approved supplier requirement if Ford refuses to change their listing. I went to Ford with either change the list or sign this statement saying that you have refused to change your listing and our aware that they are not certified and will not allow an assessment. One way or another I was determined to come out with some proof of the circumstance. Meanwhile I contacted my registrar to explain the situation in detail and got them to agree to submit something to me in writing if Ford refused to change their supplier list. My registrar agreed. I did not need their letter because Ford changed their listing.

Angela

I went to Ford with either change the list or sign this statement saying that you have refused to change your listing and our aware that they are not certified and will not allow an assessment. One way or another I was determined to come out with some proof of the circumstance. Meanwhile I contacted my registrar to explain the situation in detail and got them to agree to submit something to me in writing if Ford refused to change their supplier list. My registrar agreed. I did not need their letter because Ford changed their listing.

Wow! There is intelligent life on this planet! This is excellent heads-up action! :agree:

It would have been interesting to see what would have happened if every one dug in their heels and refused to budge. I would hope that good auditors would see you were between a rock and a hard place and would cut you some slack.

Dave,

I agree there are going to be some bad, no-win situations like you describe. The first round of audits after 1/1/03 is going to be very interesting.

I'm still waiting on replies from registrars. First one I did get is from NSF - basically they say C9 applies to all QS registered companies, regardless of tier. Still waiting on a call as to major/minor. My guess is it would have to be minor.

Tom

OK Dave! Your going to give me a big head.

Actually I think that it would make our lives easier if every starting digging their heels in a little. I have spent three months working on this new subcontractor development. I have drove my registrar, Ford, Visteon and my customer insane. But I have made some progress. Just a few moments ago I receive an email from the VP of the registrar telling me that he was going to work out some of these details with the board and the big three. I'm hoping that I can count on him for the absolute definition.

Angela

Hi Marc. I saw your name on the Cove forum and hoped you might have some advice. I'm trying to find out the latest info on the QS9000 4.6.2.1 interpretations and thought maybe you might have some advice or insight into our issues.

Our company has been working to resource suppliers since the July 1, 2001 AIAG interpretations were released requiring subcontractors to be ISO registered by Dec. 31, 2002. The subsequent interpretation provided a big loophole that let distributors and manufacturers supplying parts through distributors off the hook for ISO.

Many of our suppliers are already ISO, several more have achieved registration during 2002 and we have resourced and consolidated suppliers to get everyone on board. Our problems:

We still have 30+ suppliers that are not ready, several originally planned on being registered during 2002 and aren't going to make it for various business reasons.

We are trying to develop a strategy that keeps our QS in compliance while we work on these remaining suppliers. Our QS-subscribing customers are primarily heavy truck and construction equipment manufacturers. We have virtually no business with Ford, GM and Chrysler.

With time getting extremely short, it isn't possible to audit all of these suppliers before the 12/31/02 deadline. Due to the specifics on some parts, it also isn't feasible to resource them all.

Can our non-Ford/GM/Chrysler customers waive or extend the deadline for 4.6.2.1?

Are other companies having this same problem? Is so, what solutions are available? Is there any relief in sight from the AIAG sanctioned interpretations?

Any insight would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks.

Marc;

Is this person working to make all of his suppliers certified or assessed? Does he realize that this requirements only pertains to those suppliers who effect the quality of his product?

Angela

Can't the supplier (we) audit the subcontractor to check the compliance to ISO9001-2000 requirements in cases where the subcontractor is not able to bear the charges for certification as the clarifications given by AIAG in July 2002 regarding the approach to subcontractor development.

You can audit the subcontractor if you are a approved 2nd party OEM. If you are QS registered. And if you have a auditor that meets their requirements. You have to have approvals from all of your customers that are QS-9000 registered and are effected by the supplier.

Angela

Related threads:

Complying with TS 16949 and QS-9000 Supplier (Subcontractor) Development Requirements (http://Elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=472)
Approved Supplier List and Subcontractor Development (http://Elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=495)
Subcontractor Development Requirements and Audit (http://Elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=478)
QS-9000 Clause 4.6.2.1 and Interpretation C9 - Subcontractor Development (http://Elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=4813)

Poll Threads:
Who is compliant to the new subcontractor development guidelines? (http://Elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=5800)
and
Are You Meeting Subcontractor (Supplier) Development Requirements? (http://Elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=4694)