Internal Auditing - AS9100 Followup Audit Requirements

We are an ISO9001:2000 company working to achieve AS9100. In my previous life, I worked for a QS9000/(later)TS16949 tier 1 automotive manufacturer. Our requirement there was that in the event of a found nonconformance (either from an internal audit or by our registrar), verification of corrective action effectiveness was required, but we did not necessarily need to conduct a complete re-audit of the section. The company I now work for has a similar requirment, stating that all corrective actions must be verified, and the area may be reaudited at the disgression of the Management Rep. My interpretation of AS9100 is that this requirement will meet the standard. However, we are being told that AS9100 requires that whenever there is a non-conformance, verification of corrective action effectiveness alone is not sufficient; that a complete reaudit of that section is required is all cases. If anyone has any opinions or experience with this topic, I'd appreciate hearing from you. Many thanks!

Welcome

Great post number 1

Based on my experiences, I am not aware of the re-audit requirement that you speak of either from an internal or third party audit perspective. We have never been subjected to a "re-audit" following C/A verification. I don't see any language in the standard beyond the normal corrective action verification requirement. Who is telling you that a complete re-audit is required?

adirondackman said:

However, we are being told that AS9100 requires that whenever there is a non-conformance, verification of corrective action effectiveness alone is not sufficient; that a complete reaudit of that section is required is all cases.

Click to expand...

Welcome to the Cove.
Who is telling you this? Ask for him/her to show you the "shall" in the standard. It's not a matter of opinion.

Thanks for the quick responses, folks! This opinion is coming from the consultant we're working with, but I was a little cynical on this one. Verifiying that the corrective action is effective is all we required for ISO/TS and meets those standards. I couldn't see where the bar is raised in AS9100 in this area. I was afraid I was missing something.

From my involvement in the AAQG/RMC, I can only imagine that the message you are getting is the result of an ongoing effort by the AAQG leadership to make the corrective action process performed by aerospace suppliers, more robust.

There is downwards pressure through the ICOP Scheme to enhance the effectiveness of corrective actions, including improvement of root cause analysis. This message was probably twisted and turned and a lot of "noise" was probably inserted into it.

Another possibility is the fact, when CB auditors perform surveillance audits of 9100 certified organizations, they have to re-determine the scores for each assessed clause of AS9100, via the AS9101 checklist. In order to determine the new scores, the CB auditors have to perform a thorough re-assessment of the system, process and/or clause being verified, during the follow up activities. But that would apply to the CB auditors, not your internal auditors. Check ANAB's Heads Up # 82. Aerospace - Verification of Root Cause Analysis and Corrective Action Related to Scoring of Surveillance Audits.

These are two possibilities. But, like Jim said, you should go to the source and ask where this is coming from.

Welcome to The Cove.