ISO 9001: 2000 Upgrade from QS after 12/15/03

[tomvehoski]

I just had an interesting question about the following situation.

* Company is currently QS-9000 certified.
* QS certificate is valid through 2004.
* Not eligible for TS 16949: 2002 because they do not produce/service parts.
* Waits until after 12/15/03 expiration of ISO 9001/2:1994 to upgrade.

Can a company in the above situation get an upgrade audit to 9001: 2000 at a reduced number of days, or do they have to have a complete new audit, even though they are upgrading from a valid QS certificate.

So far we have asked three registrars and gotten three different answers. I'm not going to post the registrar names since this is 2nd hand information and I am not positive it is official policy.

Registrar 1: Must do a complete new audit at full audit days.
Registrar 2: Can still upgrade at reduced audit days.
Registrar 3: Can do a one day "assumption" since QS covers all 9k2k requirements (except possibly process interactions)

Anyone know the official RAB or registrar specific standing on this?

[howste]

The rules the registrars have to live by are in ISO/EIC Guide 62. I reviewed Guide 62 and the guidance document for it, and the way I read it the registrar decides. Here are a few excerpts from the guidance document. First from Annex 2 that has the guidelines for auditor time onsite:

The total amount of time spent performing the re-assessment will depend upon the findings of the review as defined in paragraphs G.3.6.6 and G.3.6.7. The amount of time spent at re-assessment should be proportional to the time that would be spent at initial assessment of the same organization and should be about 2/3 of the time that would be required for initial assessment of the same organization at the time that it is to be re-assessed. Re-assessment is time spent above and beyond the routine Surveillance time, but, when re-assessment is carried out at the same time as a planned routine Surveillance visit, the re-assessment will suffice to meet the requirement for Surveillance as well. Regardless of what conclusion is made, the guidance in G.3.3.1 applies.

Then G.3.6.6 & G.3.6.7:

G.3.6.6. Reassessment is a requirement of Guide 62. The purpose of re-assessment is to verify overall continuing effectiveness of the supplier’s quality system in its entirety. In most cases it is unlikely that a period greater than three years for periodic re-assessment of the supplier’s quality system would satisfy this requirement. The re-assessment should provide for a review of past performance of the system over the period of certification. The re-assessment program should take into consideration the results of the above review and should at least include a review of the quality system documents and a site audit (which may replace or extend a regular surveillance audit). It shall at least ensure
a) the effective inter-action between all elements of the system;
b) the overall effectiveness of the system in its entirety in the light of changes in operations;
c) demonstrated commitment to maintain the effectiveness of the system.

G.3.6.7. If, exceptionally, a re-assessment period is extended beyond three years, the certification / registration body should demonstrate that the effectiveness of the complete quality system has been evaluated on a regular basis, and should have a surveillance frequency that compensates for this in order to maintain the same level of confidence. However, periodic reassessment shall be conducted, regardless of the surveillance regime used.

And finally, G.3.3.1:

G.3.3.1. Certification / registration bodies shall allow auditors sufficient time to undertake all activities relating to an assessment or re-assessment. The time allocated should be based on such factors as the size of the organisation, number of locations and the standards which apply to the certification / registration. Annex 2 provides guidance on Auditor Time. The certification / registration body shall be prepared to substantiate or justify the amount of time used in any assessment, surveillance or re-assessment.

From what I read, there is no hard, fast rule. I think maybe the last sentence quoted there is the key. They will decide what they feel is right - or at least what they can justify. The fact that you got three different answers doesn't surprise me at all.