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

[Bulbo Bulger]

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?

[Jim Wynne]

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

[D.Scott]

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

[Sidney Vianna]

In Reply to Parent Post by Bulbo Bulger

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

Point your browser to http://www.ukas.com/about_accreditation/default.asp

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

[howste]

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.

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.

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

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.

[AndyN]

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!

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

[Helmut Jilling]

In Reply to Parent Post by Bulbo Bulger

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?

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...

[Claes Gefvenberg]

Welcome to the Cove, Bulbo

In Reply to Parent Post by Bulbo Bulger

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

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