Certificate issued by QMS International PLC in 2001 and it expires in 2011

I am auditing a supplier who claims to be accredited to ISO 9001:2000. I have a copy of their certificate which was issued by QMS International PLC in 2001 and it expires in 2011.

The certificate does not contain the UKAS logo and I assume that the assessing company are not actually a third-party accreditation body. The cert actually says that our supplier has 'approved quality administration systems'.

In this case, can our supplier claim to be 'accredited'? Is this actually common, and is it allowed?

Welcome to the Cove .

Your supplier might be "registered" but it's registrar might not be "accredited," in which case your copy of the certificate is just as good as the original, because both are essentially worthless. Have a look at this thread (found using the fourm search function): Non UKAS / EA / IAF accredited certification bodies - Certification company QMS

Welcome to the Cove.

I certainly agree with Jim in the case of an automotive supplier. In the case of a certification of compliance to ISO 9001:2000 though I know of nothing requiring an "accredited" registrar. A statement or certification of compliance can be made by pretty much anyone. It is up to the customer whether to accept the certification or not. The company who certified them is within their right to issue a certificate based on their assessment and can issue the certificate based on their contract date of whatever length they want. There is no requirement to have a logo or mark on the certificate. It is simply a third party certificate of compliance.

The question is, what requirement do you impose on your supplier. Do you require they are compliant with ISO 9001:2000, or do you require they be certified by an accredited/approved 3rd party. As you audit the supplier, are your quality requirements being met? Are there gaps in their system that are causing quality issues? Are you finding that they do not, in fact, comply with ISO 9001:2000 requirements?

There is no definition of accredited in the text of ISO 9001:2000 or 9000:2000 so interpretation of the word can be taken from American Heritage (or other) - "to attest to and approve as meeting a prescribed standard". I don't see a problem with "International PLC" issuing a certificate. If your customer specific requirements require something different, then it is a problem. Until then judge the supplier on how he meets your requirements.

Dave

Bulbo Bulger said:

In this case, can our supplier claim to be 'accredited'? Is this actually common, and is it allowed?

Click to expand...

Point your browser to ***LINK REMOVED***

It is more common than many people realize. And, not only it is allowed but there is nothing illegal about it.

Harmony on 12 May 2014 said:

Hi,

My name is Harmony and I am working on behalf of QMS International PLC.
I am dealing with an unnatural links penalty and as a result I need to remove as many unnatural links as possible, I was hoping that you would be able to help me out in removing these from your website.

I understand that this takes time and I am willing to offer you payment for link removal from your website. Please email me to discuss prices. We are very keen to get these removed as soon as possible.

I would like any links on your site that point to http://xxxxxxx.com removed, please.

There are links on the following page(s):
http://elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?t=14486


Please know that your website’s business practices are not in question here. I am simply doing all that I can to get the penalty removed. Business is suffering because of this penalty and I would greatly appreciate if you could do this for me!

Thank you so much!
Harmony

Click to expand...

My reply:

Harmony,

One link from a post in a forum thread from 2005 recommending your company is NOT why you were penalized. Think about it. Not to mention the link was a rel="nofollow" link.

Not to mention – Elsmar is focused on the field your business is in – Quality Assurance, ISO 9001 Implementation. You should look it as a GOOD link. Not at all "unnatural".

Obviously you did Black Hat SEO. That is why you are being penalized.

As to charging you, why would I? No big deal to me.

Link removed.

Regards,

Marc T. Smith

If their QMS is registered under an accredited scheme, there should be accreditation marks on their certificate. UKAS is not the only one, but whichever one it is, it should be identified.

A quick check on their website brings up some interesting info. Here's a brochure: http://www.qmsuk.com/9000.pdf

Some interesting excerpts:

ISO 9000 in 30 days? How?
QMS has developed a unique approach to ISO 9000 (BS 5750) Certification by effectively eliminating the need for you to employ a consultant. Our proven method combines the task of preparing the manuals and undertaking the assessment at the same time. We have brought the ‘one-stop shop’ concept to ISO 9000.

Click to expand...

This method of certification would certainly not be accredited.

About QMS
QMS Quality Management Systems (a division of QMS International plc) is an International Organisation specialising in ISO 9000 Assessment and Certification. We have issued more than 11,000 Certificates in 53 countries.
We have been inspected and accredited by a third party International Accreditation Board.

Click to expand...

I could never find what "third party International Accreditation Board" they are talking about.

On Certification, you will receive the following:
Registration Certificate
Quality/Procedures Manual
Client Club Membership
Publicity Advice
Artwork for Logo

Click to expand...

You receive your quality manual and procedures upon certification?

Maybe your supplier has an effective quality system, and maybe they don't. I don't have a high comfort level with their certificate though.

I may be going out on a limb here.........

but I seem to remember (about 1-2 years ago) a registrar in England being taken to court over claims like this and having it's accreditation withdrawn by UKAS. Basically, it wasn't an 'on-site' audit of the implementation/operation of the QMS but a desk type audit of documentation that they have completed!:mg:

The information was in 'Informed Outlook' (at the time) but I can't recall the precise details. Does anyone remember? This could be the phoenix or legacy of that organization's 'registration'.

Andy

Bulbo Bulger said:

I am auditing a supplier who claims to be accredited to ISO 9001:2000. I have a copy of their certificate which was issued by QMS International PLC in 2001 and it expires in 2011.

The certificate does not contain the UKAS logo and I assume that the assessing company are not actually a third-party accreditation body. The cert actually says that our supplier has 'approved quality administration systems'.

In this case, can our supplier claim to be 'accredited'? Is this actually common, and is it allowed?

Click to expand...

They can "claim" anything they want, but it doesn't mean anything. If they would like, I can draw up a cert they can buy for $100 USD less than whatever they paid, but it won't mean anything either.

However, I can get them one of those shiny gold seals on it, and make it look real purdy...

Welcome to the Cove, Bulbo

Bulbo Bulger said:

In this case, can our supplier claim to be 'accredited'? Is this actually common, and is it allowed?

Click to expand...

I see that your questions have been answered already, and we have discussed similar events several times before. I agree with the others, except for one detail:

I consider the certificate in question a bit worse than worthless, due to the fact that it raises so many questions and suspicions. Imo, they would be better off without that piece of paper.

/Claes

Claes Gefvenberg said:

Welcome to the Cove, Bulbo I see that your questions have been answered already, and we have discussed similar events several times before. I agree with the others, except for one detail:

I consider the certificate in question a bit worse than worthless, due to the fact that it raises so many questions and suspicions. Imo, they would be better off without that piece of paper.

/Claes

Click to expand...

I am not disagreeing with this statement but I would like to play Devil's Advocate for a moment.

Certification outside the "normal" recognized accreditation method may certainly be frowned on but it is certainly very legal and COULD be an effective tool as an alternative to expensive registrations.

Auditors used by accredited registrars have no monopoly on ethical auditing and are sometimes a lower standard than those outside their profession. It is very possible for a third party to assess the conformance of a company's quality system against a standard. It is also possible for that assessment to be more critical and more honest because there is no conflict caused by continuing contracts. The non-accredited assessment has no stake in the consequence of "failing" the audit and no pressure of maintaining an account. Under the circumstances I feel it would be wrong to dismiss the certificate as worthless and can see an argument for placing it above a certificate issued with possible conflicts of interest.

I suggest that if such a certificate exists, rather than scoff we should accept the word of the assessor until such time as his judgment can be proved worthless. If the quality system in question meets the requirements of the customer and there is no reason to doubt the validity of the assessment, what gives us the right to assume the certificate is worthless?

If this is to become a method for future certification of conformance, I say give it a chance. It could turn out that this type of independence in assessment is exactly what we need to bring credibility back to ISO certification. Maybe more companies would buy into a quality system if it didn't carry the heavy cost of certification and surveillance contracts. This may be a solution to "interpretations" and "micro-management" as tools to justify on-going contracts.

The worth of the certificate is dependent on the integrity of the assessor. I don't think I have to argue the point that registrars don't control the market on integrity. There are some members here at the Cove who, if they said a quality system complied with a standard, I would accept their assessment without question - accredited or not.

OK, off my soapbox.

Dave

D.Scott said:

The worth of the certificate is dependent on the integrity of the assessor. I don't think I have to argue the point that registrars don't control the market on integrity. There are some members here at the Cove who, if they said a quality system complied with a standard, I would accept their assessment without question - accredited or not.

Click to expand...

Well said, and I agree of course .

What puts me off is when someone gets a grade without doing the homework (implementation). Now, I'm not saying that this is the case here, because that, I cannot know. It seems likley enough though, and there we have that doubt I mentioned earlier...

/Claes