Not sure about this but something I read here recently has it buzzing in the back of my mind.

A letter from a customer states:

(regarding certification to QS/TS or ISO 9000:2000)
If you are not certified under the above programs, please provide details on your plans to become certified. Please be aware that TS 16949 requres Company suppliers to be certified to ISO 9000:2000, QS 9000, or TS 16949. If suppliers are not currently registered to any of these quality system standards, documented plans and a timeline achieving registration must be submitted, yadda yadda.

Is it true that a company registered to TS 16949 is required by that standard to have suppliers who are all registered to ISO 9k2k, QS, or TS?

what do you make of this letter in terms of self-declaration?

regards

7.4.1.2 Supplier quality management system development

"...Unless otherwise specifiec by the customer, suppliers to the organization shall be third party registered to ISO 9001:2000 by an accredited third-party certification body."

Two keys here: 1) "Unless otherwise specified" and 2) "by an accredited third-party certification body".

Self-declaration is not an option.

Please refer to p. 18 in the IATF Guidance to ISO/TS 16949:2002. It states, " 'Supplier' in this clause (7.4.1.2) refers to sites where production and service parts specified by the customer are manufactured. See also the definition of 'manufacturing' in IS/TS 3.1.6."

I suspect this letter you received is a low-level clerk's poor interpretation of the actual rule. The letter errs by not telling you that the OEM at the top and all suppliers down the supply chain MAY make exceptions to the "general" rule that the members of the supply chain be registered to a Standard.

Once stating the possible exception, the letter should have gone on to direct the reader where to apply for the possible "exception."

This is really more an example of "laziness" on the part of the folks who sent the letter. They simply don't want to make the effort to do their own qualifying and approval of a supplier and so they conveniently ignore the exception.

That said:
The supplier's choice is to decide if his own cost and effort of achieving registration to an applicable Standard is justified by the business he receives from the supply chain requesting registration.

There is no shame in taking the path of least resistance by achieving registration rather than trying to educate the folks higher in the supply chain about the nuances of TS16949 and the "exception."

We have discussed this all before
Here are some threads
Interpretation for supplier development clause 7.4.1.2? (http://elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?t=9444)
Non-ISO 9001 Suppliers - Customer approval letters to use (http://elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?t=9716)
Customer's Interpretation vs. TS16949 clause 7.4.1.2 Supplier Development Requirement (http://elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?t=9311)
7.4.1.2 Supplier Development (http://elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?t=6043)
The gebneral consensus is that the producer who could in fact not be the supplier needs to be certified. The supplier could be a broker and thus does not affect the product