QS suppliers can not force any of their requirements on the 9002 supplier

[CarolX]

Jim,

I assume prime holds the contracts with the 9002 supplier. If so, Prime maintains control. QS suppliers can not force any of their requirements on the 9002 supplier.

But if Prime has mandated the use of certain suppliers to their QS supplier, then yes, QS can force the tighter requirements on the 9002.

In other words, who ever cuts the check to the 9002 supplier gets the last word.

[David Mullins]

Easy,

1. Each companies contracts lawyers rub their sticky little hands together.

2. Company 9001 is getting supplies from company QS9000. The fact that company 9002 used to supply direct to company 9001 is mute. If company 9001 is buying from company QS9000, and the contract requires QS9000 systems and reporting, then company 9001 expects QS9000 compliance, regardless of the registration/certification level of company QS9000's sub-contractors. Conversely, if the contract doesn't require QS9000 compliance by company QS9000, then it doesn't matter that their new sub-contractor (company 9002) isn't QS9000.

CLEAR? Probably not.

------------------

[Jim Biz]

Marc- Group - read this close it gets tricky...

Does anyone have a "reasonably good" way to handle the following situation??

A Prime first line customer is ISO-9001 registered - some of their suppliers are registered 9002 some are QS9000

9001 customer has now forwarded requests to 9002 suppliers that products be "drop shipped" for assembly functions to QS9000 registered companies..

At that point - which standard applies??

Especially with the newest 900/200 standards draft? AND QS PPAP-APQP planning document report SYSTEMS ETC..?

Which customer should be satisfied? - the prime 9001 regestered contracting customer
( who is totally satisfied with 9002 supplier).

Or the customers QS assembly supplier? who embraces the additional documentation and task support functions - not required by 9001/9002?

[This message has been edited by Jim Biz (edited 16 August 2000).]

[Jim Biz]

Carol/David - adequate approcahes to a "customer" driven complex concept so far - but add this to the mix.

Carol: Prime holds similar but separate contracts in Both situations -- They continue to recieve simple parts From 9002, PLUS are requesting that 9002 contract sales and delivery of the same items to QS assembly oerations at the same cost input.

David: Prime is "hedging the legalieze (SP?)contractual issue by leaning on a Po statement -- "Prime requires suppliers to produce product using ISO-900 or higher Quality systems.

At this point 9002 has little choice upgrade to full QS standards task & documentation practices or reduce business product volume and allow 9001 to find a new supplier for parts that have had a very good Quality history.

Prime "By satisfaction default - has effectivley driven up the cost (in tasks and document administration) they are currently paying X ammount for the parts - have told Qs what the cost is and where to purchase plus identifying a new customer for 9002.
Essentially maintaining control of design/price - expecting additional administrative task/documentation inputs.

The fact that Prime is currently 9001 is mute - the same situation could be driven by a non-registered customer. -

My concern is that "customers - will be enabled to use various standards requirements that will do little more than drive up lower level supplier costs - regardless of currently accceptable quality levels.

[David Mullins]

Jim,
1. What if company ISO 9002 is the only company that has the capability to manufacture the components (let's say the only other world-wide supplier is in Europe, and is 4 times the price, and also ISO 9002 registered/certified)?
2. ISO 9002 might apply for an exemption from ISO 9001's policy!
3. ISO 9002 might buy a majority share in ISO 9001 and sack the bum that came up with the policy!
4. The easy answer is that ISO 9002 get in a typically dodgy QS9000 auditor who gives them their registration for no actual effort. This is a big problem with quality system's and why they are getting a bad name. Automotive suppliers who are now QS9000 registered frequently produce the same old crap they did 20 years ago, except now the stylists and engineers make the components more complex, so that manufacturing processes are less capable than ever!

------------------

[Jim Biz]

Is there a "Formal" means - to apply for an exemption to QS requirements? - If so where would I find them written?

Or does one just call & beg the 9001 customer to not forward 9002 quotation information to QS assembly plants?

Looks like the situation is a candidate for use of Marc's cattle prod

[This message has been edited by Jim Biz (edited 31 August 2000).]