We are in the process of putting together our Purchasing procedures. We are currently working on an Approved Supplier list. I am wondering if anybody has any examples of Supplier evaluation forms that we could look at. We need any ideas that we can get! This is something new to our company, and we are at a standstill. Any help from this forum would be much appreciated! Thanks!

Hi Chickenlips,

What a screen name!

Most supplier evaluation forms start by asking some basic questions like supplier name, address, phone, fax, etc.; plant size; # and classification of employees (i.e. how many Engineering, Production, etc.); key contacts (names, titles, contact info.); # years in business, products/services offered; etc. etc.

Then, they ask about the QMS. Can we get a copy of the Q Manual? Are they certified or compliant, and if yes, to what standard? Many surveys stop there if the supplier is certified to ISO9001 or QS, etc. If not, they go on to basically ask if the supplier has or performs the critical functions of a good QMS -- i.e. do you have doc. control procedures, do you calibrate your equipment, etc. Often there is a question for every "shall" in ISO.

Of course, add any questions important to you and your company. Make it meaningful to you and your needs/concerns.

Hope this helps.

Thanks so much for the reply! I think that will give me a good start.

As for the screen name...it is a nickname given to me by my best friend's Dad, who is somewhat of a joker. It's stuck with me, and I found that it was much easier to sign on to a website with it, as very few other people would have such a nickname! So I don't have to try several different user names before I find one that hasn't been taken.

Do you know of any links where I can find an example of such an evaluation form? I could think of many questions, but I would like to see what others are doing out there. Thanks again!

I'm pretty sure that there have been examples posted here in other threads. Have you done a search? I'd post the link if I knew how, but just look at the titles of the threads and surely you will find one dealing with supplier approval.

Chickenlips,

As Lucinda said, there may be examples here on the Cove you could find with a search. This should get you started. I think you'll find that SEF's are really pretty easy.

Good luck.

When you start figuring out what to ask: Remember that short is sweet.

I get those surveys by the dozens, and I don't mind telling anyone that I hate the ***** things. More often than not they contain far too many questions and take too long to fill in, because the questions are too specific.

/Claes

But Claes, are they specific about things that are important to your customer, or do they just contain a whole bunch of standard questions that have no relevancy ?

Chickenlips - such surveys are an opportunity to enhance the understanding of your suppliers about what is important to you. If they've got any sense then they'll jump on what you've asked and try the utmost to achieve it....but only if they think it's been designed appropriately. I try to pitch this as part of the relationship/partnership building exercise.

Cheers, Al.

If you go thro' some of the QS procedures of Big Automotive company ( Ford , Gm , Chrysler) , you find the forms.

Al the Elf said:

But Claes, are they specific about things that are important to your customer, or do they just contain a whole bunch of standard questions that have no relevancy ?

Cheers, Al.

Hi Al,

Good question. Ok, my opinion: Mostly standard questions that have no relevancy. In most cases I actually don't think that anyone reads the returned document. They just want a signature on the paper to be able to prove that they're doing the evaluation.

I can understand it when we get those forms from new customers, but when we get them from long time customers that know us well and already have information on us that goes far beyond what any survey could convey??? The standard requires no surveys.

/Claes

I agree Claes, IMHO long-time customers shouldn't be re-sending surveys provided there are no major problems. Once approved by an initial survey or site visit, etc. our system is set-up such that the vendor remains on "approved" status as long as their demonstrated performance dictates it. Sending out the same old survey year after year tells me the customer is not thinking and is making extra work for themselves and us.

I've never had the guts to do it, but I suppose the answer is go back to the customer who's asked for the useless information and ask them if they really need it, pointing out that you'd prefer not to waste time which is only costing them money in the long run !

Anybody tried this, or it's closely related cousin - ignoring the request completely ? :p

In my experience most of the Claes type repeat year in, year out merchants don't have any real influence over you being a supplier or not anyway.

Alternative A: Oh yes, in spite of being a very shy person ;) I have on occasion asked customers why they need certain information...

Alternative B: No I have never completely ignored a survey.

Alternative C: Sometimes I leave fields in the survey blank, and wait for the issuer to contact me for additional info.... Well, it never happened.

What all this boils down to is that even if you have only a couple of hundred customers and each of them send you a survey every year, and each survey takes half an hour to fill in and return (Which is not in any way unusual).... Well, that's 100 hours down the drain.

Is it reasonable?

/Claes

We have a Customer from 2 years ago that purchased a 150K-200K system that never fails to send out a survey every year. They want Lost time injury rates, copies of our OSHA200 Log (Now OSHA 300 for those who may want to correct me:rolleyes: ) as just a small part of a 15 page questionaire. We take to that task with the same furvor we would existing or potential Customers. You never know when they may want to Purchase again.
As someone who would review our Supplier's Survey Form, no-we haven't started that yet, I would view an incomplete form or no response at all with disappointment. Such a disappointment that I would bring all the pressures to bear, through Purchasing and Accounting to get them to respond. Unless they make a one of a kind product, Purchasing would be pressed to go another Supplier who treats his Customer like we treat our Customers. I agree that I wouldn't do it if we didn't have to. There are other ways to measure Supplier's performance. The head count isn't sufficient to justify an alternate method of proving that you keep in touch with your Suppliers. Let's face it, no matter what the survey says, NC's, Late Delivery, Price, etc. really dictate the status of the Supplier. It's just an acceptable method of gauging your Supplier's QMS, as they see it. Could be BS? Could be. You would know that by the nature of their product and service.

I once reviewed a survey that had N/A in approx. 90% of the form. We knew what they did for us, not one recorded NC and all the other nice things a good Supplier does. It was accepted and filed away. They didn't ignore it or leave blank spaces. Perception that you respect your Customer's efforts to satisfy some requirement goes a long way towards good Customer/Supplier relationships. Isn't that expected of us in the new standard?
So, fill them out boys and girls. Take the time, take them seriously and you may never know that the next order from them was because you showed the Customer due respect. JMHO
:ko: :smokin:

energy said:

I once reviewed a survey that had N/A in approx. 90% of the form. We knew what they did for us, not one recorded NC and all the other nice things a good Supplier does. It was accepted and filed away. They didn't ignore it or leave blank spaces. Perception that you respect your Customer's efforts to satisfy some requirement goes a long way towards good Customer/Supplier relationships. Isn't that expected of us in the new standard?

Energy,

Just curious. Why did you send a survey to a supplier who had already demonstrated excellent capability. As you said, the actions speak louder than the check marks on a survey. Maybe just to get some of the contact info, etc.??? One of my ways to qualify/approve a supplier when we implemented our QMS was based on previously demonstrated performance. Only new suppliers got a survey or visit.

With over 300 Suppliers, it's the easiest way to communicate. We do not have the manpower at this time to do it any other way. Where I worked before, a Customer Auditor for an Aircraft Company randomly selected 5 Suppliers and asked to see the Supplier Evaluation forms. 4 of the 5 were okay. The fifth was an excellent Supplier that failed to respond. My boss, the QA Mgr explained how good they were, showed the Vendor's history since their last response. It took about an hour to prove the Supplier measured up. I would not want the task to do that with every supplier we intend to have in our pool. Part of the Correction Action cited by the Customer was to get that good supplier to respond to the accepted method of checking up on our Suppliers. Call me old school. I don't care if the Supplier was golden. They know it's part of doing business with us. If we had all 5 Supplier Surveys in our files in my other life, that part of the audit would have taken 5 minutes. Does it prove anything? No. Is it an accepted way to demonstrate that you have contacted all your suppliers and leave your auditor something else to root around for? Absolutely. As I said, that's me. As the original post was for an example of a Supplier Survey form, I just thought I would re-enforce the fact that it is perfectly acceptable to perform the exercise that way.
Hey, leave me alone. It's funky Friday! 4 hours and counting.
:ko: :smokin:

Energy,

Do you send the survey yearly or only once if the vendor performs well after that?

I promise -- no more questions then on this "Funky Friday"!

As I have not done that here, yet, I was speaking from previous employment. Purchasing is presently tasked with that effort, but is looking to me for advice. I would lean towards something between 18 months to two years. When we did them annually, allowing for sufficient time for the Supplier to make it a priority, sometimes the stragglers took three months. Particularly if you haven't purchased from them for awhile. Where's their motivation? Before you know it, it was time to send them again. Annually, I believe, dilutes what little importance placed on them. I can tell you that my ex-boss went 2 1/2 years before sending them again. And that was only because we knew we were going through a round of audits, shortly. Words like periodically come to mind. This way you are not tied down to a timeframe. As I said, these forms are only a small part of Supplier Evaluation. The other things we discussed are in your face every day and will suffice in between surveys. Our CA 5 database develops Pareto Charts for who the worst supplier is, the type of nonconformance and repeat offenses. SCAR's are issued to those suppliers. To show you how little of those are issued, my top number is 0007. I'm easy.:vfunny: :ko: :smokin:

We are in that same loop of sending out survey requests. We are presently changing our process to require the following:

1- require a sample with supporting data from each new supplier,prior to acceptance of the first order.
2- require a sample with supporting data from each existing supplier as time permits.
3- request supporting data with each shipment,
4- Select suppliers that are 9k2k or TS registered, when possible.
5- Request a status report on third party surveillance audits from those suppliers that are registered,
6- Submit a quarterly rating to each supplier.(This will take some work)

Sam,

Unfortunately, a large majority of our components can be purchased from Home Depot, Lowes, Sears and any place that sells plumbing supplies. Very difficult to ask for and get traceability in pvc elbows, tees and pipe. Our Customers do not require it. When there is traceability requirements for stainless steel systems, they too can be purchased from many Suppliers who send chems & phys reports as a matter of routine. We are strictly commercial, custom and standard water treatment systems and components. Got to do what is most convenient for your place and type of work. ISO certification is being driven by the CEO because he feels we will get better organized and believes it is a valuable marketing tool. We have no plans to ask Suppliers to get registered. It's interesting to note that a couple of big ticket companies are Registered and have as many N/C's as those that aren't. But they are prompt with replying to the few SCAR's I sent them!:vfunny: :ko: :smokin:

I’ve read through this thread – it’s good stuff.

We are in the midst of pondering whether to keep a list of suppliers with ISO certification. Being in the chemical business, most companies are ISO certified anyway. One can ask each company whether or not they are certified or go to worldpreferred.com and look it up. But why am I doing this? :confused: If they are providing the raw material according to all the requirements, we will buy from them regardless of their ISO status.

Our Sourcing Department would like to handle supplier evaluation in this way:
- Once a supplier ships material that meets our requirements and the material performs as expected, that supplier is approved.
- Any quality problems that arise after that are captured by our SCAR system
- Evaluation of the supplier is gauged quarterly by reviewing the SCAR system

Will this satisfy the “intent” of 7.4.1 and the new “reevaluation “verbiage?

Thanks in advance for any opinions on this subject.
;)

Todd,

Sounds okay to me -- if it works for your company that is the most important thing. Just one minor point: How do you select the supplier for the first (initial) PO? Might want to say something like "Purchasing Manager selects a prospective supplier based on advertising, references from others, previous experiences, etc. Then, an initial order is placed with the prospective supplier.

Then add your stuff.

Make sure you describe who has the responsibilities for the activities you say you will carry-out, then make sure you actually DO it.

JMHO.

we have decided that the way to do our supplier appraisal is to evaluate them on the incoming quality, ie reject rate at incoming inspection. We are a relatively small distributer/inventory mangement company in the Aerospace industry. The parts we buy have very specific certification requirements and the requirement is on our customer to ensure the actual part complies with the required specification. all we check is if the paperwork is correct ie JAA form One or 8130-3. The feeling is that we are so small a customer of our suppliers we would not get a very good response to a supplier questionare, and unfortunately a lot of our suppliers are either sole source or one of a very limited no of sources. I am also trying to get data on OTIF (On Time In Full), and margins to include these in the supplier evaluation. when we do have a problem with a supplier they are contqcted and if the performance does not improve the are removed from the list of approved suppliers.

My favorite approach is similar to what Jonathon suggests. More extensive Initial qualification, then ongoing monitoring of supplier performance (quality, delivery, etc.). You also don't have to treat all suppliers the same. ISO 9001 requires that you establish criteria, but they can vary depending on the importance of the products they supply.

howste said:

ISO 9001 requires that you establish criteria, but they can vary depending on the importance of the products they supply.

Always one to be curious about newbee's post and separating the wheat from the chaff, I pulled up the address on your license plate Avitar and came up with .....zilch. Help us out here. Maybe, I'm the unappointed Cove Marshall, or just nosy, but why can't I hook up that address? Just call me Spam Man! :vfunny: If it's me and I'm doing something wrong, please tell me. I will be the first to say, Mea Culpa! How about it?:bonk: :smokin:

energy said:

Always one to be curious about newbee's post and separating the wheat from the chaff, I pulled up the address on your license plate Avitar and came up with .....zilch. Help us out here. Maybe, I'm the unappointed Cove Marshall, or just nosy, but why can't I hook up that address? Just call me Spam Man! :vfunny: If it's me and I'm doing something wrong, please tell me. I will be the first to say, Mea Culpa! How about it?

howste, Mea Culpa, (see what I mean?)

I see that you are from a ISO Consulting Firm and for some reason, the browser I tried to pull up the site on last week, didn't respond. Blame aol. However, from home, I was successful. I am truly sorry for casting doubt on the motives of your post. Call me embarrassed.
:agree: :smokin:

No problem, Energy. :) Now that I've stumbled upon the Cove, I plan to visit regularly. Hopefully I'll be able to help out a little as well as have some of my own ISO 9001 & TS 16949 questions answered here. It seems like there are quite a few friendly and knowledgeable people here.

Here's a somewhat generic form I've used.

A 'quickie' form.

Yesterday, I recieved a supplier questionnaire that prompted me to resurrect this thread.

One of the questions read: Is your Company registered to BS5750/ISO9002 Pt. 1, 2, or 3 or BSI Stockist of Assessed Capability? If not, are you planning to register?

It occurred to me that it ought to be a good idea to actually read your questions before sending them out :vfunny: . I wonder how old they are? As it happens, we have no intention to register to an obsolete standard mere months before its final demise.

There were also other peculiar questions, several of which made me think about db's "Where is the shall?".

Thus, I rate the value added by this questionnaire to be exceedingly limited. But: I acted like a good boy and filled it in.

/Claes

Has anyone else noticed supplier evaluation forms/surveys becoming increasingly intrusive over issues like annual sales, percent markup on raw materials; percent markup on purchased materials; G&A markup; labor rate; overhead rate; outstanding debt; sales, profit and loss for last 5 years; market share percentages; etc. etc. ? Some of these surveys seem more like they're coming from VC's or major lenders than potential customers.

Opinions?

Has anyone else noticed supplier evaluation forms/surveys becoming increasingly intrusive over issues like....

Opinions?
I certainly have, and I don't approve, because some of those questions I'm not even allowed to answer (nor do I want to).

/Claes

We've been seeing alot of this lately too. All I can do is fill out the portions that have to do with our QMS, capabilities and commodities, and contact info. Then I send it to the Office Manager (one of the owners) and let them decide what other information they are willing to give to that particular customer.

One odd one I read recently was asking about our vehicle registrations and insurance. About the only thing I can think of is it might have had something to do with our trucks delivering or picking up at their premises. :confused:

Mike S.,

Yes, I've been getting a lot of those lately too. Like Cari, I fill out only what I'm responsible for. I get input from others (CFO, admin, etc.) and they either complete it or do not. Interestingly, for those surveys where we leave those intrusive questions blank, we have not heard anything back from the customer.

We believe these are just a formality and that they end up in a file somewhere - and the responsible person gets to put a "completed" checkmark on some form to get the warm fuzzies for their accomplishments. ;)

Outcomes of supplier surveys shall answer the following:

Do we have enough information to decide whether to develop them?

Do we have enough information to decide whether our competition has a strategic advantage because of them.

Has anyone else noticed supplier evaluation forms/surveys becoming increasingly intrusive over issues like annual sales, percent markup on raw materials; percent markup on purchased materials; G&A markup; labor rate; overhead rate; outstanding debt; sales, profit and loss for last 5 years; market share percentages; etc. etc. ? Some of these surveys seem more like they're coming from VC's or major lenders than potential customers. Opinions?
I have received a couple of questions about whether we have liability insurance with the follow up "How much?". I have answered these and several other intrusive questions with "NUNYA". Not one of these surveys have been questioned by the customer. BTW, NUNYA is not an acronym, it means nunya doggone bidness.

Exactly, Icy. Sometimes you have to throw those ringers in there just to see if anyone's awake at the other end. I could give you specific examples, but that's NUNYA. :biglaugh:

Well, misery loves company! :vfunny: I got a 10 page survey, ~ 100 questions, including those I listed in my earlier post. This from a customer who had bought from us for a year before they ever asked anything or visited. No Q problems. They gave me 2 days to get it to them before they visited. When I told them I did not have the time, they cut it back to 4 pages - temporarily. During their visit I told them than in ~ 15 years in the industry I never saw such a loooong survey and one that asked so many personal/financial questions and they acted like I was nuts, insisting that this is not at all unusual and they often get much longer and more detailed surveys and theirs is kinda short! And they do not cut it short for a ISO 9L2K registered company, either, making everyone answer all the same questions. They do both commerical and defense work, but so do we, and I have done work for most of the major telecoms and defense companies and many large consumer electronics companies at one time or another and never saw anything that bad. Like you guys, I give the financial questions to the Prez or owner to decide if they wanna answer. I just think it is ridiculous, though. Next they'll be wanting DNA samples and bank statements. :rolleyes:

Even though you may have been working with a supplier for a long time and know the answers already, There is the possibility that new management has joined the group and is now requesting this information. This has just happened to the company I work for and the new VP wants documentation on all vendors that do work for us even though we have used them for 8-10 years.
It's all about what management is looking for.