Interesting to see that some Registrars have had some accreditations (partially) suspended by the ANSI-RAB NAP.

To find it, do a search in the QMS registrar directory maintained by the RAB

Interesting indeed.

1)It looks like RAB has reversed its stance on not making suspensions public. About time.
2) Also appears that RAB is willing to suspend accreditation under some circumstances. Maybe not in enough cases, but at least it's a beginning.

Help I don't see what you two do. I went to the site but came up empty handed. Could you please give a better map of where I need to go? Thank you.

Go to the list of registrars, then go down just past the IAF scope categories and it will tell you. American Global Standards and and the last is Perry Johnson!!!!!!! I believe there are five. If you go to the news letter for winter 2003 on page 4, I believe, it will tell you various reasons for withdrawls or suspensions.

Maybe you can provide a direct link to what you're reading. I Googled around a bit and came up with this:

From the PJI website: "Is there a clear division of responsibilities between registration and consulting?
As a registrar, Perry Johnson Registrars does not engage in any consulting. There is a company with a similar name, Perry Johnson, Inc., that does provide training and consulting services. The two companies are completely separate operations, but share a common owner, not unlike many of our competitors. Every step has been taken to ensure audit independence and impartiality. These steps have been reviewed and approved by official accrediting bodies worldwide (i.e., RvA, RAB, TGA, DAR, UKAS, JAB and INMETRO)"

From the RAB site when looking for a QMS registrar:
The following registrars have been accredited (unless noted as an applicant) in the National Accreditation Program, a joint program of the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) and the Registrar Accreditation Board (RAB).

Perry Johnson Registrars, Inc.
Terry Boboige
26555 Evergreen Road
Suite 1340
Southfield MI 48076
United States
Phone : 800-800-7910
Fax : 248-358-0882
Other qualifications :
AS9000
AS9100
QS-9000
QS-9000 TE Supplement
TL 9000

Effective 24 March 2003 PJR's ANSI-RAB NAP AS9100 Accreditation has been suspended. While suspended PJR will not be able to issue any new ANSI-RAB NAP AS9100 accredited certificates.

http://rabnet.com/rab/presearchReg.do?command=QMS

Click "submit" and you will see the list.

I have dealt with and disparaged PJ for years now (as many others have) and now have the pleasure of knowing that a past employer has finally found that they cannot buy the certificate forever. I feel I have been vindicated, at least in my own mind.

Seriously though, I hope the RAB and others will continue to act as they should and take complaints seriously and really investigate some of these registrars, but don't forget that there are AUDITORS that are involved in the process. These auditors are the ones we should be wary of and investigating.:biglaugh:

By the way, I have met Perry on a few occasions and he is one smooth operator and very rich. He lives about 20 miles from me in a very nice ESTATE.

For those of you who have access to Quality Systems Update publication, don't miss this month's issue. They have an article concerning a law suit brought on to the ANSI-RAB by a registrar mentioned in this thread.

The case was settled out of court, according to the article.

Due to copyright issues, I can not post the article here . . .

Their website is www.qsuonline.com, but the article is only available online for subscribers.

According to the RAB website data, all ANSI-RAB NAP accredited Registrars have a "clean bill of health". No partial suspensions listed anymore.

Originally posted by Sidney Vianna
For those of you who have access to Quality Systems Update publication, don't miss this month's issue. They have an article concerning a law suit brought on to the ANSI-RAB by a registrar mentioned in this thread.

The case was settled out of court, according to the article.

Due to copyright issues, I can not post the article here . . .

Their website is www.qsuonline.com, but the article is only available online for subscribers.

Sidney-

I did not see the article you are talking about??

If you are a subscriber, log on and check the April issue. If you are not a subscriber, then you don't have access to it, like I mentioned in the original post

I did log in and checked the April issue and was unable to locate?:confused:

So they were suspended for AS9100, but are not anymore? By the way, I have a potential new client. Guess who is the registrar? The QM who called me said she can't believe they are registered. I don't think she knows the reputation of the registrar, but indicated in a message that if she didn't know better, she would say they bought their cert. This ought to be interesting. I'll have a hard time getting involved if they don't want to do it right.

There are rumours that a Registrar operating in the US will be forced to give up on a large number of their QS-9000 certificates because it was found that a related body to the Registrar was involved with providing consulting work for the same certified organization, which is specially prohibited in a few schemes such as QS-9000, TS-16949 and AS9100.

Did anybody out there hear about this?

Sounds like another cover up for bad registrars.

I have dealt with too many of them in the pasted.

RAB needs to do it job.:bonk:

Sid, I have heard that rumor also. From what I heard those companies that used the registrar and the consulting division will loose their registration and the registrar will not be allowed to register companies to QS. That is the rumor that I heard.

So what is the real scoop. The RAB site shows they are still certified. I heard today they told all their clients to find someone else.

This type of crap has been discussed a long time ago. Whispers, gossip, finger pointing, etc.. Just more of the same. All these intelligent members searching and coming up empty. Sickening! Just say it. What's the problem? Or, is there? I find the laying out of the roadmap for discovery severely lacking. Become a member for access? What games we play to say what we want to say. Grow some ba**s. :bonk: :smokin:

yeah who is it?

Using the link given by db, I couldn't find any mention of the 5 Registrars noted. I did see AGS in the winter issue of the newsletter, but no mention of Perry Johnson or others. Who were all 5? This should not be so hard to find.

Also, our Mexican operation is switching to a Mexican Registrar called GMS. It isn't in the RAB directory, has anyone heard of this group??

The content is dynamic. In order words, it gets updated. So, one day a Registrar is suspended and the information is displayed in the RAB website. Some time later, the suspension is revoked and you don't see it anymore...

Energy, the suspension of a number of Registrars by the RAB, a lawsuit filed by one of them and the resulting outcome is not inuendo, gossip, etc. . . They are FACTS. Information concerning the suspension was available at the RAB website. Many of us SAW it. If you want to see more, go get yourself copies of recent issues of The Informed Outlook and Quality System Update.

Concerning the QS conflict of interest, just wait and see.

Originally posted by Sidney Vianna

Energy, the suspension of a number of Registrars by the RAB, a lawsuit filed by one of them and the resulting outcome is not inuendo, gossip, etc. . . They are FACTS. Information concerning the suspension was available at the RAB website. Many of us SAW it. If you want to see more, go get yourself copies of recent issues of The Informed Outlook and Quality System Update.

Concerning the QS conflict of interest, just wait and see.

Why not just state the facts here instead of sending people on goose chases to look up information? I thought the whole idea of this forum was to share information.

I agree with Energy and Richard.

I see posts that say "There are rumours that..." and "I have heard that rumor also..." and "I heard today..." No names, no sources, no quotes. What does it tell me? Nothing. If it is truly public information (or "FACTS" as Sid calls the information) post the "FACTS" -- links or at least the source(s) and maybe some quotes. To do otherwise does not help anyone. JMO.

Hey Guys,

Ease up on Sid now...she is correct. After her first post on this issue, I looked up the registrars on the RAB website and there were some that were under suspension. My recent visit there, about a week ago, showed some changes.

Sidney said
The content is dynamic. In other words, it gets updated. So, one day a Registrar is suspended and the information is displayed in the RAB website. Some time later, the suspension is revoked and you don't see it anymore...

So she is correct. It is a dynamic page that is updated frequently.

:truce:

I'm gonna duck, now.:biglaugh:

CarolX

All this and all this, I want to see proof, not links to sites where you have to subscribe for $300+++++ or find news one day and not another. If the RAB and some people here had the real answer they would post it. We all know one of them and it is Perry Johnson, what's the big deal people? Quit dancing and give us the real news or go back to OZ............

As with Energy's statement, SHOW ME THE MONEY, not the bill!!!!

I saw the same and now it is not on the RAB site. One that i remember was PJR. I will go back in my history and try to find.

It's public information and I wouldn't hesitate to post anything relevant here. That's all I'm saying.:agree: :smokin:

Hi Carol,

Thanks for the support. Just one thing. Even though my first name is Sidney, I belong to the male gender. Having latin blood in my veins, being called a female could be a major offense, despite the fact that I live in California where people tend to be open minded . . . .:vfunny: :o

This cracks me up. Some names are one gender to one generation and the other to the next. Sidney Portier? Now, I was thinking S. Vianna was female, but now I remember the trend change when my friends starting using the name for female. In 2003, no one even thinks of it being male. Funny how times change ( and us 'girls' stick up for each other!)

Laura

:topic: Sid's a dude? I promise;)

Originally posted by Laura M
In 2003, no one even thinks of it being male. Funny how times change ( and us 'girls' stick up for each other!)
Laura

There was never a doubt by this member that Sydney was a male. A no-nonsense, and up to now, an accurate and factual contributor. I've listed him as one of my favorite posters. I was surprised to see Laura and Carol mistaken him for a her. C'mon Girls, he's too smart!:vfunny: :truce:

So, after all this, has anyone come up with any FACTUAL information showing that ANY registrars were suspended, fined, slapped on the wrist, or anything??? :confused:

In this the information age I find it hard to believe such critical information is so hard to find.

LOL, maybe we can have Marc add a "gender" field to the profiles here. In case anyone wonders, I'm male. :vfunny: BTW, I used to know a man named Carol. Laura, I guess I've always assumed you're female... :confused:


OK, here are some quotes for you screaming for information. They are taken from the April issue of QSU. I believe what I'm posting is legal based on copyright fair use limitations:

Facing suspension from the AS9100 and AS9000 aerospace certification program earlier this year, Perry Johnson Registrars Inc. (PJR) filed suit against the Registrar Accreditation Board (RAB) but later agreed to accept the suspension and withdrawal of two registration certificates, according to court documents and interviews.

The case, which was settled out of court in March, stemmed from findings by the accreditation body with respect to alleged violations of its conflict-of-interest guidelines concerning two aerospace industry clients of PJR at the time - Wilson Products and Giddens Industries — states an eight-page complaint filed by PJR attorneys seeking both injunctive relief and damages exceeding $25,000.
RAB, which administers the National Accreditation Program for ISO 9000 registrars in the United States in partnership with the American National Standards Institute (ANSI), recently withdrew the accreditation of another registrar, American Global Standards of Massachusetts, and suspended several other firms for undisclosed violations of the terms of accreditation.

:topic: Sid - my deepest appologies - duh on me!!!!

Originally posted by Sidney Vianna
Hi Carol,

Thanks for the support. Just one thing. Even though my first name is Sidney, I belong to the male gender. Having latin blood in my veins, being called a female could be a major offense, despite the fact that I live in California where people tend to be open minded


Energy - your cruising - :mad:

There was never a doubt by this member that Sydney was a male. A no-nonsense, and up to now, an accurate and factual contributor. I've listed him as one of my favorite posters. I was surprised to see Laura and Carol mistaken him for a her. C'mon Girls, he's too smart!

I'd threaten you with some sort of physical abuse, but I think you would like it - LOL:vfunny:

howste -


LOL, maybe we can have Marc add a "gender" field to the profiles here. In case anyone wonders, I'm male. BTW, I used to know a man named Carol.

Was it spelled this way - the male version is usually Carrol or Carroll (rembember Archie Bunker - played by Carrol O'Conner).



CarolX

:topic: You're right - I think it was Carrol. :o But it still sounded the same...

Thank you for your post Howste, I had suspected as much. The problem with PJ is that they are so large they could probably buy half of the registrars, and put the RAB etc... out of business with their power and cash reserves.

Al...:bigwave:

Originally posted by howste

OK, here are some quotes for you screaming for information. They are taken from the April issue of QSU. I believe what I'm posting is legal based on copyright fair use limitations:

Thanks, howste. That does if for me and should be for Mike S. But, with him, you never know!:vfunny: :smokin:

Howste,

Now we're getting somewhere! Details and a source. What a concept! Thanks.

I wonder, though, about the "...and suspended several other firms for undisclosed violations of the terms of accreditation" part. Why did they not name these "other firms". This info. should be easy-to-access public knowledge put out by the body (RAB) that is supposed to be authorizing and policing these firms. I don't get it.

Al said "The problem with PJ is that they are so large they could probably buy half of the registrars, and put the RAB etc... out of business with their power and cash reserves."

Just wondering... How did PJ get so huge if they are so shady and everyone looks down on them? Their product is not addicitive, so I assume there must have been a great demand for their services over those of their competitors. Why? Is it because they are "easy"? If so, what does this say about their customers, and about ISO? I don't have the answers -- just the question.

Since Randy's post got lost from the database last night, I'll repost it here from my forum email notification:

Originally posted by Randy
Originally posted by Mike S.
So, after all this, has anyone come up with any FACTUAL information showing that ANY registrars were suspended, fined, slapped on the wrist, or anything??? :confused:

In this the information age I find it hard to believe such critical information is so hard to find.

YEP!!!!!!! I'm sitting on a useless airline ticket to place that I had been auditing on a continuing basis because one of the registrars had their ticket yanked. How's that for proof? I'm out a wad a dough with probably no recourse. All of the RAB certs issued by this registrar have been cancelled and they were removed from the RAB website.:mad:

Randy,

What a bummer!

Who was the registrar?

I assume you'll be contacting the RAB -- let us know what pathetic excuse they have for such poor communication with their customers and other "interested parties". I'm sure they have a real good excuse.:rolleyes:

The name doesn't matter, the fact that my butt is frosted does.:frust:

Mike,
PJ started out with a blitz of telemarketing and sales calls. When I started here 8 years ago I received 2 to 4 sales calls a week from them. I would find their QS packages left in the lobby for me after business hours, I bet I received 2 dozen golf balls from them over a 6 month period! A company with their backs against the wall to get QS or ISO grasped what was available. We know that most wait until the last minute. When they come in and do a sales pitch to management with bells and whistles and promises of an increase in ROI, they turned heads. It wasn't until the first group of surveillance audits that the truth started to come out. With no meat to the system (created for the certificate) companies started to fail and the mask was removed from PJ.
That's my view of what happened anyway. :smokin:

RAB still shows PJ as certified for QS audits. Anyone know any different?

They are still "marketing geniuses." For example, if you are QS9000, currently, even though it is based on ISO-1994, you can still be QS after Dec, right? QS has its own expiration date.

They've been after a local company, insisting that they need the upgrade from QS to ISO-2000 by the end of the year, or they will lose their cert.

Am I missing something. I mean, I know the various deadlines on when documents are becoming "obsolete" and I guess technically they can say a company is QS and ISO-2000, but the QS cert is still valid after 12/03.

They have the QM at this company so confused as to what to do. Of course, they offered to help "update their docs" for a good size chunk of change. And since they did the previous set of docs, with very confusing numbering and references, its almost impossible for anyone else to do them without a complete re-write. The QM supposedly told them to jump off a building. I don't know if they'll switch registrars, or not, but I was looking for evidence that they are actually "one of the others."

I don't know the definition of "marketing geniuses", but in my case PJ is certainly persistent. I get twice as many sales calls from them as I do from all the others combined. Thank goodness they don't have my email address. Yet.

Think next time I'll ask about the issues in this thread. Should be fun.

I once had a client that was getting so annoyed with the calls from PJ that he set up a meeting with a salesperson, just so he could tell someone to their face to stop calling.

I have also heard of them calling clients they already certified, or were fired by, trying to get business. They don't seem to cross reference thier client and marketing databases.

Originally posted by Randy
The name doesn't matter, the fact that my butt is frosted does.:frust:
It might matter to someone like you! Or me. Or others here on the Cove. Why not post it? If the registrar had their "ticket yanked" by the RAB, this is (or should be!) public knowledge, right? I see no way you could be accused of libel or slander if it is true and there is no confidentiality agreement. There seems to be more secrecy surrounding which registrars are in hot water and which ones aren't than enough, and my feeble mind just doesn't "get" why that is. :confused:

It doesn't really matter to me who is or isn't, but I agree with Mike. We certainly want it broadcasted that a food chain has found mad cow in their product or a car manufacturer is issueing a recall. But if a registrar slips up no one wants to say anything. Maybe Ford should have kept quite about the tire problem:eek: Or the WHO remained mum about SARS.
Why is it that the name is so privileged?:bonk:

The last time PJ called (when BSI took over KPMG) the sales pitch was about the change in registrar. I asked them for names and numbers of their clients so that I could get an objective view on what they were offering. When they declined I said thanks but that tells me all I need to know. They haven't called back since.

The RAB directory of QMS accredited registrars shows a major Registrar with their QS-9000 Accreditation suspended.

The RAB directory of QMS accredited registrars shows a major Registrar with their QS-9000 Accreditation suspended.
Might as well make it easy for everyone:

ABS Quality Evaluations, Inc.

Effective 25 June 2003 ABS' ANSI-RAB NAP QS-9000 Accreditation has been suspended. While suspended ABS will not be able to issue any new ANSI-RAB NAP QS-9000 accredited certificates.

I once had a client that was getting so annoyed with the calls from PJ that he set up a meeting with a salesperson, just so he could tell someone to their face to stop calling.

I have also heard of them calling clients they already certified, or were fired by, trying to get business. They don't seem to cross reference thier client and marketing databases.
See http://Elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?p=41471

Might as well make it easy for everyone:

ABS Quality Evaluations, Inc.

Effective 25 June 2003 ABS' ANSI-RAB NAP QS-9000 Accreditation has been suspended. While suspended ABS will not be able to issue any new ANSI-RAB NAP QS-9000 accredited certificates.

Does it give a reason for the suspension?

Not sure if this has been posted anywhere yet, but the June 2003 edition of Quality System Update has an article about two PJ QS-9000 certificates they were forced to drop. Apparently PJ sent the clients letters saying they had to take down their flags/plaques/banners and send them back. There is also some additional detail about their AS 9100 suspension earlier this year and how it was settled, out of court.

I think you can view the article at www.qsuonline.com - our firewall is blocking as a shopping site, so I can't check it from here.

Not sure if this has been posted anywhere yet, but the June 2003 edition of Quality System Update has an article about two PJ QS-9000 certificates they were forced to drop....
I went to the link (its for Quality Systems Update). Sure enough, there is a list of headlines from the latest issue, and there is an article with a headline that refers to PJ and the 2 lost certs. I couldn't figure out how to access the article without plunking down the $375 yearly fee. Anyone know more about what happened?

I've got the hard copy, and it is a full page article. Here are some of the highlights.

At least 2 QS cert holders received letters from PJR stating their registration certificates were being withdrawn based on the fact that the companies had used its registration services as well as the services of PJI in apparent violation of conflict of interest rules.

One was Hurd Corp, subsidiary of Avis International. Had used PJI for initial document writing and internal audits for about 30 months.
Other small 7 person company, asked to remain anonymous.

PJR would not say if more than 2 clients were involved.

PJR filed suit against the RAB earlier this year because they were facing suspension over AS9100 and AS9000 certification programs. PRJ later dropped suit and accepted the supension and withdrew 2 certs (unrelated to QS withdrawls).

I'll see if I can scan the entire article and post - if it is allowed by the forum rules on copyrighted material.

Does it give a reason for the suspension?Nope, that's a copy of the entire text they put on the website.

Might as well make it easy for everyone:

ABS Quality Evaluations, Inc.

Effective 25 June 2003 ABS' ANSI-RAB NAP QS-9000 Accreditation has been suspended. While suspended ABS will not be able to issue any new ANSI-RAB NAP QS-9000 accredited certificates.
Thank you for posting the name. This cryptic teasing stuff drives me nuts. Tried to give you a green point, but must have given you another one too recently. You must be good! :thedeal:

OK so here is the scenario ... RAB responds over an year later to complaints about a registrar who has periodically been using uncertified auditors, issuing certifications for unaccredited scopes and providing consultation during audits. Strong indication (RAB Website) that registrar was NOT suspended.
What is the next step, i.e., who gets notified regarding APPARENT RAB apathy/inaction?

OK so here is the scenario ... RAB responds over an year later to complaints about a registrar who has periodically been using uncertified auditors, issuing certifications for unaccredited scopes and providing consultation during audits. Strong indication (RAB Website) that registrar was NOT suspended.
What is the next step, i.e., who gets notified regarding APPARENT RAB apathy/inaction?

If you REALLY want to pursuit the issue and you have evidence that the RAB was not responsive to your claims, you could take it to the International Accreditation Forum IAF http://www.iaf.nu/complaints.asp

Since a previous ISO secretary made unflattering remarks about the state of the third-party certification sector, a couple of years ago, there is renewed interest by the stakeholders to keep the players straight and maintain some integrity and credibility in the process; (transparency might never come).

Since the RAB is a signatory of the IAF MLA, pressure from the IAF MIGHT lead to better responsiveness from the Accreditation Bodies, RAB included.

Just a suggestion

Dear Sindney:
Thanks much for the nice lead and quick response.

I will follow-through.

Its time to stop the good old boy network. It is hurting the process.

OK so here is the scenario ... RAB responds over an year later to complaints about a registrar who has periodically been using uncertified auditors,

What is the next step, i.e., who gets notified regarding APPARENT RAB apathy/inaction?

You'd be surprised how many Registrars don't use "certified" auditors. Registrars aren't required to use "certified" auditors because they have to do their own certification of auditor abilities and all that stuff. You would not believe how many times I've answered ads posted by RAB accredited Registrars looking for "RAB certified" EMS-LA's only to be told no thanks, or "you're not qualified". DUH!!

Go to www.rabnet.com and look under the "EMS Auditor Directory". When you get there just do a search for EMS-LA's, you'll come up with less than 300 that the RAB has "certified" (some of them like me frequent the Cove). Many of the EMS-LA's listed are not available for hire for a variety of reasons....machts nichts. Just looking at the numbers you can use basic math to determine there is more need than the numbers available. It boils down to who and not what you know in this business. As far as the "certification" is concerned a good number of the Registrars I've been in contact with don't really give a krap one way or the other. Why? Because Registrars are required to "certify" their own auditors anyway regardless of someones credentials.

In all things in this business there are loopholes. Learn to accept it.

Perry Johnson suspended?!?!? NOOooooooooo. :vfunny:

There's a shocker. Just read an article in Quality Digest (perhaps) about the push for the big guns to crack down on shoddy registrars to bring credibility back to the entire ISO experience. This is a good thing.

BY THE WAY... good to be back at "The Cove." I used to spend a lot of time here and post quite often. My apologies for vanishing for about a year or so.

No ... QS-9000, ISO/TS 16949 and AS9100 all require some level of certification which does not include "provisional".

In the case I speak of the registrar did not even follow their own internal procedures for qualification of a few of their auditors.

There is no loophole in that regard.

And as far as I have read the RAB is not accepting "provisional" for active participtaing auditors on certification audits.

Per an earlier lead contacted the IAF and the organization has progressed with their investigation.

Can someone show me where is says PJ is suspended?

And as far as I have read the RAB is not accepting "provisional" for active participtaing auditors on certification audits.
.

Where did you get this? I've participated in QMS audits and I'm not a RAB QMS anything. I have however met the requirements for the applicable registrars.

Randy, for the standards ISO Druid listed, it's true. Both the automotive and aerospace industries have clearly defined what qualifications auditors need. ISO 9001 is not so clearly defined though...

Can someone show me where is says PJ is suspended?
AFAIK it doesn't say it anywhere now. PJ did get their hands slapped a while back though and had to pull a couple of certificates.

No ... QS-9000, ISO/TS 16949 and AS9100 all require some level of certification which does not include "provisional".

Per an earlier lead contacted the IAF and the organization has progressed with their investigation.

Druid, in case you have evidence a Registrar did not use properly qualified auditors for ISO/TS 16949, bring this to the attention of IAOB - www.iaob.org - The ANSI RAB is out of the picture for TS 16949 certifications.

In the case of the same happening in an AS9100 audit, you should also bring this up to the attention of the Registrar Management Committee (RMC) of the AAQG and/or ANY Aerospace OEM, since they are responsible for maintaining an oversight process. You can find contacts at www.sae.org/aaqg

Keep us posted on your dealings with the IAF and good luck

Auditor's for registrar's are required to be certified to ISO/TS 16949 and AIAG offers the only acceptable course.
The course grade consists of;
-written exam - 100 questioins,
-participation,
-oral exam.
An auditor cannot participate in an audit process until they have satisfactorily completed the course.

So, Iso Druid. Any news to report?

I checked - out of curiosity - ISO Druid hasn't been by here since last November 24th. Maybe he'll get an e-mail re this thread and reply. I guess we'll soon see.

Can someone show me where is says PJ is suspended?
I thought there was a thread here somewhere with details, but I couldn't find it when I looked. Maybe it never really happened.

Anyone know for sure and where the evidence :evidence: / details (and any followup) can be found?

The PJR suspension for AS9100 certificates is documented on page 6 of the April 2003 issue of Quality Systems Update. Since the publication is copyrighted, I can not copy the article here.

But I just found this link with information, publicly available on the case:
http://www.insidequality.com/index.v3page?v2_group=0&p=5229&ct=cdisplay&nt=true&cd_eid=17354


But what I was asking ISO Druid about was his allegations of Registrars performing AS9100 and TS-16949 audits without properly qualified auditors. He stated that he was bringing that to the IAF and the issue was under investigation. I had suggested for him to bring the issues to the AAQG and IAOB as well.

Mark,
When Perry Johnson was suspended, it was listed on the IAOB site as being suspended. Now that they have it back, it no longer states suspended. That can be used to someones advantage. Once they are off suspension, the list goes away. I verified with my own eyes some time back that Perry Johnson was on suspension. Somehow they got it back.

I also do not thing they contacted their customer while they were on suspension. My brother-in-law's company uses them, and he was surprised when I mentioned that they were on suspension.

Cindy

I also do not thing they contacted their customer while they were on suspension. My brother-in-law's company uses them, and he was surprised when I mentioned that they were on suspension.
Is/was his company AS or TS Certified by PJ? If not there wuld have been no reason for PJ to notifiy them.

Mark,
When Perry Johnson was suspended, it was listed on the IAOB site as being suspended.

Cindy

Cindy, you must be mistaken because PJR, to the best of my knowledge, was never approved for TS 16949. The IATF/IAOB list of approved Registrars is for ISO/TS-16949 ONLY

Cindy, you must be mistaken because PJR, to the best of my knowledge, was never approved for TS 16949. The IATF/IAOB list of approved Registrars is for ISO/TS-16949 ONLY

Sidney, you are right, it was RAB. Sorry.

Cindy

And another Registrar, based in TX, has had it's QMS accreditation suspended by the RAB on May 21st.

And another Registrar, based in TX, has had it's QMS accreditation suspended by the RAB on May 21st.
From the RAB Database

The Registrar Company
Jennifer Sherman
PO BOX 803432
Dallas TX 75380
United States
Phone : 972-931-3492
Fax : 972-931-0367
Other qualifications :
QS-9000
E-mail : jenni@theregistrarco.com (jenni@theregistrarco.com)
Effective 21 May 2004 TRC's ANSI-RAB NAP QMS Accreditation has been suspended. While suspended TRC is not able to issue any new ANSI-RAB NAP QMS accredited certificates.

From the RAB Database

The Registrar Company
Jennifer Sherman
PO BOX 803432
Dallas TX 75380
United States
Phone : 972-931-3492
Fax : 972-931-0367
Other qualifications :
QS-9000
E-mail : jenni@theregistrarco.com (jenni@theregistrarco.com)
Effective 21 May 2004 TRC's ANSI-RAB NAP QMS Accreditation has been suspended. While suspended TRC is not able to issue any new ANSI-RAB NAP QMS accredited certificates.Help me put this in perspective:
So this firm or this individual is suspended - do we know why?
For nonpayment of fees?
Fouled up paperwork on continuing education credits?
Cause (collusion, corruption, incompetence)?
Any other reasons a registrar can be suspended?

What is the responsibility of RAB to current holders of registration issued by this company? Do those companies have to count on suspended registrar to tell them now (or when they call up wondering why no auditor showed up for scheduled audit)?

Does RAB also cover QS9000? If so, I note the registrar still has QS-9000 ticket - perhaps the registrar is changing focus of business and seeking TS16949 or AS9100 registrar status.

Golly - this secrecy hiding behind the "privacy mask" is really frustrating sometimes.

How about just ask the major customer who they want and you can use? Cost is probably comparable. Surely not a total answer, just something to think about!

Al...

Does RAB also cover QS9000? If so, I note the registrar still has QS-9000 ticket - perhaps the registrar is changing focus of business and seeking TS16949 or AS9100 registrar status.
No it/she doesn't as there was no reference to an individual std like the Eagle listing does.

EAGLE Registrations Inc.
Jim Lee
40 North Main Street
Suite 402
Dayton OH 45423
United States
Phone : 937 293 2000
Fax : 937 293 0220
Other qualifications :
AS9100
TL 9000
QS-9000
QS-9000 TE Supplement
Web site : www.eagleregistrations.com (http://www.eagleregistrations.com/)
E-mail : jim.lee@eagleregistrations.com (jim.lee@eagleregistrations.com)
Effective 27 February 2004, EAGLE has voluntarily suspended their ANSI-RAB NAP QMS QS-9000 TE Supplement accreditation. While suspended EAGLE will not be able to issue any new ANSI-RAB NAP QS-9000 TE Supplement certificates.

It states that TRC is not able to issue any new ANSI-RAB NAP QMS accredited certificates.

:lol: C'mon Al,


More info and be clear!!!!!!!!!!!!

Al...

C'mon Al,


More info and be clear!!!!!!!!!!!!

Al...
Al:

I don't have any more 411. And, I thought it was clear. Here is the source of my info. RAB QMS Registrar Database (http://www.rabnet.com/rab/regSearchQMS.do?action=showSearchForm&registrarType=QMS).

Curious about Eagle......if they have voluntarily suspended their RAB accreditation.....are they currently accredited by anyone else? UKAS? NABL? SCC? RvA?

If you read the info, Eagle has voluntarily suspended only their QS-9000 TE supplement accreditation. I think you'll notice that several other registrars have done the same thing.

As far as TRC, I have some information about their suspension, but I'm going to hold off on posting it for a little while until I can discuss it with them directly. This much I can say: It is NOT due to incompetence, conflict of interest, or any kind of unethical behavior. The suspension only affects new registrations, and all currrent certificates continue to be valid, and they can continue to do surveillance audits.

As a side note, one of TRC's competitors has apparently sent out letters to TRC's clients telling them that they need to choose a new registrar. In my opinion, this is unethical behavior...

Good Morning!

It was brought to my attention that not only are our customers curious about our suspension, but the general public and our competitors.

Let me begin by introducing myself to you. I am Jennifer, Director of Business Operations and Registration Programs for The Registrar Company, Inc. And allow me to be the first to set the record straight about TRC's current situation. I would like to add that generally speaking, just asking is the best route over speculation and assumptions.

First of all, the RAB does post partial suspensions; they post any suspension. While we are not thrilled that they would post this supsension as it has a lot of people concerned over our future. We are not losing our accreditation! TRC is just fine. If you review the RAB website, you will see the reasons for suspension includes financial obligations. We do the same with our clients, if they don't pay their invoices, the registration is suspended. This is the case with us. We are late paying our bill and will take care of this issue and there will be no suspension.

Our customers are happy with the services they receive from us and have voiced this directly and through renewing their registration's each term. It was our clients that began notifying us regarding an unsolicited fax that told them about our suspension and leads them to believe the registration is in jeopardy, which it is not. There is plenty more than enough business out there for all of the registrars to provide registrations for, without resorting to unethical tactics to gain business. As TRC is still quite small, some registrars would likely label us as being vulnerable. We are not.

So, now you have it from the source. I am more than happy to answer any questions or concerns that anyone has, however, I think this should suffice in informing everyone the reason for our suspension.

Jenni S.

Thanks Jenni and welcome to the Cove. It was nice of you to give us the straight information. I think with this bunch, we try to do a bit of research before we run off blindly spreading rumors so I don't think TRC has suffered with our members. I have heard nothing but good things about your company and can readily understand the circumstance you outlined. Please continue to contribute posts as we are always interested in the input from a registrar.

Dave

Thanks Jenni and welcome to the Cove. It was nice of you to give us the straight information. I think with this bunch, we try to do a bit of research before we run off blindly spreading rumors so I don't think TRC has suffered with our members. I have heard nothing but good things about your company and can readily understand the circumstance you outlined. Please continue to contribute posts as we are always interested in the input from a registrar.

:agree1:

Thanks for addressing the issue and please continue to visit the cove and share with the members. This in a great resource for people in the quality field and I am sure that we could all benefit from your involvement.

Good Morning!

It was brought to my attention that not only are our customers curious about our suspension, but the general public and our competitors.

Let me begin by introducing myself to you. I am Jennifer, Director of Business Operations and Registration Programs for The Registrar Company, Inc. And allow me to be the first to set the record straight about TRC's current situation. I would like to add that generally speaking, just asking is the best route over speculation and assumptions.

First of all, the RAB does post partial suspensions; they post any suspension. While we are not thrilled that they would post this supsension as it has a lot of people concerned over our future. We are not losing our accreditation! TRC is just fine. If you review the RAB website, you will see the reasons for suspension includes financial obligations. We do the same with our clients, if they don't pay their invoices, the registration is suspended. This is the case with us. We are late paying our bill and will take care of this issue and there will be no suspension.

Our customers are happy with the services they receive from us and have voiced this directly and through renewing their registration's each term. It was our clients that began notifying us regarding an unsolicited fax that told them about our suspension and leads them to believe the registration is in jeopardy, which it is not. There is plenty more than enough business out there for all of the registrars to provide registrations for, without resorting to unethical tactics to gain business. As TRC is still quite small, some registrars would likely label us as being vulnerable. We are not.

So, now you have it from the source. I am more than happy to answer any questions or concerns that anyone has, however, I think this should suffice in informing everyone the reason for our suspension.

Jenni S.Thanks, Jenni. I tried for clarification in my earlier post http://elsmar.com/Forums/showpost.php?p=79213&postcount=80, but I was clumsy in how I asked.

I agree it is better to ask and get answers straight from the horse's mouth. It's always good P.R. to address a rumor directly and defuse a ticking bomb.

Oh, yes - now that you've visited under stressful circumstances, don't be a stranger. Drop by anytime to lend your expertise. Welcome to the Cove:bigwave:

Good Morning!

I would like to add that generally speaking, just asking is the best route over speculation and assumptions.

Jenni S.

Knowing the "why" is important. Without that knowledge, all that is left is to speculate and assume. Good point, Jenni..."just ask".

I too, would like to say "howdy" :bigwave:

Now that you've posted, we expect to see future posts, on a variety of subjects. Input from vantage point will add much to most of the registration-based questions.

Many thanks!!!!!!

Knowing the process really helps when we are trying to formulate responses to the various "types" of posts. My hats off to you!!!:applause:

Al...

To all who have urged it .. I am happy to keep up a posting and address issues of concern or relevance with regard to quality, quality management systems, and registration. With the exception of registration, I am sure any response that I provide will likely be of contradiction to someone elses "view point", so please be aware that the response you get will be from the biased response of those here that are experienced, but obviously geared to see things in one view or perspective. All of us will provide you a response based on best practices of companies or best practices we have seen or witnessed.

Please feel free to direct anything you like in my direction. Short of reading every post from the past year, I am not sure there is anything immediate I could comment on. My main goal was to clear the air so to speak. I am sure there are many other locations where rumors are running rampit and I am sure a few of our competitors are dancing in the streets at the thought of our overly exaggerated demise.

On a small note regarding the RAB. While we can name numerous instances where we disagree with their motives, madness or methods, reform is not far off. The IAF and MLA have together made great strides in bringing together a standardized expectation of accreditation bodies. In the US, we have a very unique situation where the accreditation body is a private entity rather than a government agency as it is it about every other country out there. The question would be whether or not it matters. We choose to maintain only RAB accreditation and are therefore subject to much tighter inspection. And, as you can see, publication of hiccups in meeting their requirements.

Again, I am happy to be a part of your group and happy to contribute in any way I can.

Jenni

Welcome aboard Jenni. :)

Has anyone had any exprience with STR-R?

Just noticed that ZSQ had their contract terminated with the IATF.

Just noticed that ZSQ had their contract terminated with the IATF.

http://elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?t=8523

Dear Scully:
Quite a few months ago I took someone's suggestion (the smoking man?) to contact the secretariat at IAF regarding complaints against RAB and a certain registrar. Talk about a beaurocracy. That system does not work.
A second complaint through RAB agaisnt another registrar found that they enjoy exposing "whistleblowers". So a word of caution ... RAB's confidentiality requirements are not worth the paper they are written on.
A follow-up complaint against the RAB unfortunately verified that the RMC has no requirements for complaint confidentiality.
So I sit here and rip up and burn and shred my RAB certifications.
Perhaps the lawyers will have better luck with these turkeys. :bonk:
Anyone interested in a class action suit against RAB?

Quite a few months ago I took the suggestion (the smoking man?) to contact the secretariat at IAF regarding complaints against RAB and a certain registrar. Talk about a beaurocracy. That system does not work.
A second complaint through RAB against another registrar found that RAB enjoys exposing "whistleblowers". So a word of caution ... RAB's confidentiality requirements are not worth the paper they are written on.
A follow-up complaint against the RAB unfortunately verified that the RMC has no requirements for complaint confidentiality. And because RMC was involved IAF walked away from the issue. Have not heard from those beaurocrats since. Pure incompetence :bonk: if you ask me.
So I sit here and rip up and burn and shred my RAB certifications.
Perhaps the lawyers will have better luck with these turkeys.
Anyone interested in a class action suit against RAB?

I also sent a "note" to the RAB. There response was that my input was unfounded and unworthy of further consideration.


2 possible outcomes,

1: I had not written well enough with the propoer documentation,

2: I had stepped on some toes!!!

Either way, I was shut down?

Al...

Dear Al:
I really feel for you and others like us that have been burned by the RAB and "Bad" (evil?) registrars, especially when RAB covers up. :whip:

"1: I had not written well enough with the propoer documentation,"
In my humble opnion I doubt this very much ... I had also sent comprehensive information to RAB and the same result. Hmmmm, let's see ... we turn a confidential complaint against the registrar and then get a complaint through the client that we violated confidentiality? And RAB states they never violated confidentiality and the complaint is unfounded. Common logic would even tie the two events together. We did try to find an attorney to go after RAB, even contacted RMC (there's another ineffective organization for addressing c/a) to no avail. :bonk:

"2: I had stepped on some toes!!!"
No doubt, but a "mature" organization would have addressed the issues. A biased and in my opinion "corrupt" organization would react much in the manner as you describe. Perception is that RAB persctribes to what is know as the "Good Old Boy Club". Cover up. A shame since the new standard very clearly requires an effective customer satisfaction management system. RAB does not even appear to perscribe to this requirement. :mad:

One good piece of news ... the IAF Secreteriat indicates that they have reassigned someone on my RAB/Registrar complaint and that RAB has now reopened their investigation of the registrar from pressure from from the IAF. :applause:

My only suggestion - keep after them. Escalate. Consider legal action. My complaint is over two years old but I feel the violations warranted an investigation. The FBI even turned deaf ear. Have also written to my government representatives but no action so far.

Have dropped all my RAB auditor cerifications as well this year in protest.

If enough people react like you have, RAB will need to take notice.

I have had to endure retaliation through the RAB during witness audits. One client even stated at the conclusion of one bloodbath that to them it appeared that the witness auditor was out to get me. And complaints to the RAB regarding this auditors unprofessional and vindictive conduct? Nothing!

Hope we can talk more .... cheers .... it is great that you took action :agree1:

In the US, we have a very unique situation where the accreditation body is a private entity rather than a government agency as it is it about every other country out there.
Jenni

Jenni,

The other bit of that is that there is only one accrediting body in the U.S. that is a major AB for 9K and related registrars. There are a number of other ABs (IAS, A2LA, NVLAP, etc) but we all accredit laboratories (and inspection bodies also for IAS) and religously stay away from 9K and related registrars.

Why?

The credibility issue as has been related here and in other forums.

Hershal

I see "the registrar company" is now back in good graces wirth the RAB. Congrats.

Also there were four registrars that had voluntarily given up their QS 9000 TE supplement; Now they are required to recall previously issued certificates.
Does this mean they also have to return the money?

Just a quick update on the IAF investigation of RAB. Seems like the Good Old Boy club is alive and well:
RAB News & Notes Summer 2004 states that Mr. Randy Dougherty has been named chair of the IAF Technical Committee. Curious since Mr. Dougherty was the principal in several complaints issued through IAF against the RAB. Unclear now how this organization change within the IAF effects the IAF's investigation of complaints against the RAB. :argue:
And my complaint versus RAB through IAF still remains open after over two years.

Thank you for the words of advice. A number of people in our company were considering filing 2 complaints to RAB.

1. There is a certified lead auditor in our company that doesn't know his head from a hole in the ground. He bullies his way onto contracts through the “Old Boys Club.” He recommends changes that have resulted in nonconformities. He never presents anything that could constitute an audit plan or schedule prior to the opening meeting. He can't write a decent audit report to save his life. I'm out with him on subcontractor audits for my primary contract, and anything that he doesn't understand relating to production (his experience isn't in our business area), he will not write-up. He makes irrational statements. He will leave an audit without discussing findings, or he will change the findings after we leave. When I told him that neither of these could every happen again, he threw a fit about it in front of the next 4 subcontractors. Doesn't understand the new standard and misquotes it. Doesn’t understand ISO 19011 at all. I file all of our plans, schedules, write the reports, and manage all aspects of the subcontractor's compliance other than his rubber stamp on the final report. :mad:

If I can’t locate another witness auditor, I might have to use him to get him off of my contract. He’s not going to rate me well because I am his primary competition for work. Obviously, if I or some of my contemporaries file a complaint, RAB can’t be trusted not to tell him. Great, just great…

2. Most of my experience is from subcontractor and internal to my company audits (not involved in the setup). The requirement for 2 audit days in order for the primary 3 audits of concern to count in ridiculous. If you are prepared, plan well, have enough staff, etc there is no reason for an audit to disrupt a small company (less than 30 employees) for more than one day. This requirement keeps people like the auditor above in business because he has time to shmooze the big boys, while the rest of us, who are doing the work (including his), can’t get in 2 day audits because he’s taken them all.

Ann

Hi Ann:
Sorry you are having such a bad go at it. :eek:

So is this an internal auditor, or an auditor you have hired to do internal audits or a registrar auditor? In either case, from your complaint, he must be RAB certified so you can issue a complaint to RAB. I can really sympathize ... its a shame that auditors like this have not been properly screened out yet. :mad:

He is a member of my company, but from a different unit. So, he doesn't really consider himself to be an internal auditor.

I am starting to form the opinion that RAB will keep him as long as he pays dues and get his hours no matter the lack of contribution to any efforts
:(

:topic: He can't even get his own directions from his hotel to the audit site. I have to do it too. We wrote a procedure on how we conduct audits, and I found out then what he thinks he does. If we were audited against the procedure he wrote, we would have had a major nonconformity, easy.

Give him directions to another hotel and say you made a mistake :lol:

Are you doing 9K or 14K?

I agree with Randy, make it a hotel in another state and see where he ends up.

Cindy

Tell him you moved the site to Iraq :rolleyes: ... get him his camos and a one way ticket. No live ammo though. :agree1:

Hi Ann:
Seriously though ... :bonk: the manday issue should really be worked out. I know when I was doing internal audits on a contract basis I tried to especially work within the client's timeframe. The audit plan became more involved but the client was happy that production and schedules were not disrupted. Technically this could hold true for a registrar auditor as well but they typically have time contraints and other clients to visit. The two - three day timeframe per Guide 62 is more for the registrar as a guide. Many companies may have tried to use the same guideline but you really can't. The organizations that I audited typically audited more than what the guide 62 suggested. Not sure what processes and systems your auditor is auditing but he/she needs to be flexible and be aware that customer satisfaction also applies to he/she as well. Especially within the organization.

As far as directions ... just a minor courtesy. Many organizations go as far as making the reservations as well ... because there are internal department charges that may be incurred and this is a means to assure that motel and other expenses are not overbilled.

Not sure why the organization has another division auditing. With today's economy and the move towards lean manufacturing it would be a cost savings to qualify your own auditors at your site. One of the eight management principles ... basing decisions on facts. I would ask management what value-add the auditor from the other division brings to the table. There may also be a question about cost effectiveness ... shoot ... if I'm in the area we could work out some cost figures for internal audits for you. Plus having a diverse audit background in most of the EACs and hundreds of audits .... I'm sure there would be some value-add in the process.

Just my humble opinion. :thanx:

Hi Ann:
So sorry .... also to your other point ... yes he would be considered an inernal auditor:
From RAB's Certification Criteria for Qality Management Systems (QMS) Auditors – Maintenance Supplement:
"1. Only independent audits satisfy the auditing experience requirements.
The auditor and the auditor’s organization shall have a management and operating structure independent from the audited organization.
Examples of relationships that may be acceptable are:
• A head office audit of a plant or division,
• One division or plant auditing another division or plant,
• A customer organization auditing a supplier,
• A third-party registration audit,
• A consultant contracted to provide an independent
conformance audit."

He certainly is not a third-party registrar nor a customer organization nor a consultant (such as myself). :bigwave:

Now if we only had a Body to oversee Consultants.

Consultants, and I am partly one myself seem to run a bit like teachers.

There is the common phase that "Those who can't do, teach." However, every once in a while, you get a really good one.

However, every once in a while, you get a really good one.

Where did you meet me? :lol:

Now if we only had a Body to oversee Consultants.

Perhaps a consultant who wants to do audits should be accredited to ISO/IEC 17020? Then there is forced oversight of the consultant.....

Just throwing some gas onto the fire....

Hershal

The RAB Directory of accredited QMS Registrars has new suspensions listed. A couple of them are relatively old suspensions.

Hi Sidney and my friends at Elsmar .. hey there Marc... Happy Thanksgiving ...

Sorry had not been getting email notifications of post replies. Should have visited here more. Probably my only support in this long battle.

IAF was to have met in October 2004 over the registrar complaint I had registered as well as the complaint vs RAB. No new news and this is the end of November 2004. Prior to October 2004 IAF pressured RAB into reopening their investigation into the complaint vs the registrar. So far nothing new from RAB.

RAB has apparently retaliated (in my opinion) and delayed my lead auditor re-cert as well. We are considering issuing complaints through the State Attorney General's office as well as the BBB against RAB as my credit card was charged almost three months ago and they had agreed that I had accepted at least two audits I led of two days min and two auditors. They have not replied to emails for weeks now. And the IAF apparently did not want to get involved with any issues about auditor certifications through the RAB. Very disappointing.

To answer an earlier question (sorry for the delay) QS-9000, 3rd edition clearly states in Appendix G "QS-9000 Accreditation Body Implementation Requirements", "A. Qualified Certification Bodies/Registrars shall:" bullet #12 "Utilize auditors that a) are recognized and qualified as ISO 9000 auditors, which does not include "Provisional" auditors, per the accreditation body's criteria..." I did not include the full requirement here however skipping forward within the same bullet #12 "c) have relevant industry experience as determined by the accreditation body's current SIC/NACE qualification process. ..." Also, Appendix I "Additional QS-9000 Registration Requirements" states in bullet #35 "Automotive Experience For the purpose of QS-9000 the definition of an acceptable minimum criteria will remain with the accreditation body, but must address the areas of work experience, audit experience, and education relative to the automotive industry." And part of my complaint to RAB dealt with direct references to registrar's misconduct (opinion - fraud) in not consistently following their internal procedures regarding auditor assignment. RAB had stated after their initial investigation (now reopened) that my complaint was unfounded.

And I will not quit until this is resolved.

After delaying their investigation of RAB repeatedly and significantly - the IAF stated:
"These had been carried out by RAB in good faith even though the original events covered by the complaint were now several years old and it had been difficult to obtain the required information.
The Executive Committee, noting the requirements of IAF PR 1:2004 Procedure for the Investigation and Resolution of Complaints, Section 7 which deals with appeals, has now decided that irrespective of whether you, the complainant, accept the results of the investigation, the matter has been properly dealt with, has been reinvestigated and will now be considered to be closed
I have been requested to convey this to you and to advise that the matter will not in way be considered further by IAF."

Opinion - This is a classic example of how the 'Good Old Boy' club operates.

The IAF that has been advised that an attorney was hired and is pressing with a lawsuit against the registrar.

Opinion based on method IAF used for their investigation and the outcome - you cannot depend on the IAF for a competent investigation of your registrar or accrediting body complaints. :mad: