TS 16949 Registration - 90 day sister company registration requirement?

All,

We are cuurently going through a preassessment audit with our registrar. We have just been informed that if we distribute fully assembled "pass through" parts, the sister company we get them from must be registered to TS within 90 days of us. Of course they may be shipping "pass through" stuff from another sister company which would then have to be registered within 90 days! This could have a HUGE domino effect possibly meaning that 40 companies worldwide would have to be registered within 90 days of one another!

Is this really correct? Is there no way around this????

Please help!

[Randy Stewart]

Who is doing your preassessment? It sounds to me like your customer is talking. I would ask to see the written requirement for the 90 time limit and what happens if your sister company doesn't make it.

[howste]

I agree with Randy. Find out where the requirement is. TS 16949 requires that suppliers be certified to ISO 9001:2000, not TS. Really it sounds to me like this should fall under outsourced processes, but I don't see a 90 day requirement anywhere. I even checked Ford, Chrysler, GM, and Delphi customer-specific requirements...

Our registrar is UL. Our auditor called back to her office to confirm the 90 day rule and was told that this is indeed the case. It seems almost impossible to comply with!

[howste]

To me that's not an acceptable answer from them. Their office doesn't make the rules - they need to show you the where exact requirement is. It needs to be in the standard, the customer-specific requirements, or in UL's contract with you.

[Cari Spears]

Originally Posted by howste

To me that's not an acceptable answer from them. Their office doesn't make the rules - they need to show you the where exact requirement is. It needs to be in the standard, the customer-specific requirements, or in UL's contract with you.

No kidding!! As she stated in her first post - this could be a huge issue with 40 companies worldwide!

Josianna - is it possible that some misunderstanding is happening? Did she perhaps get the impression that they are multiple sites under the same registration?

Howste - does the 90 day rule apply to that scenario? I have been away from the automotive industry for the last three years.

If TS requires suppliers to be ISO - maybe the auditor meant that the supplier/sister company would need to be ISO registered within 90 days.

[howste]

Originally Posted by Cari Spears

No kidding!! As she stated in her first post - this could be a huge issue with 40 companies worldwide!

Josianna - is it possible that some misunderstanding is happening? Did she perhaps get the impression that they are multiple sites under the same registration?

Howste - does the 90 day rule apply to that scenario? I have been away from the automotive industry for the last three years.

If TS requires suppliers to be ISO - maybe the auditor meant that the supplier/sister company would need to be ISO registered within 90 days.

I couldn't find any 90-day rule, unless it's talking about the 90 days in which corrective actions must be resolved? This is specified in the IATF "rules" document.

Here's about the only scenario I can think of that might apply here: They perform the audit and find that supplier(s) are not 3rd-party registered to ISO 9001:2000. They write a nonconformity, which must be resolved within 3 months (90 days). The only way to resolve it would be either certification of the supplier(s) or to have waivers from all customer(s) involved with the affected product(s).

If this is the situation, then the only "out" is an agreement from the customer(s) that supplier certification is not necessary.

From TS 16949:

7.4.1.2 Supplier quality management system development
The organization shall perform supplier quality management system development with the goal of supplier conformity with this Technical Specification. Conformity with ISO 9001:2000 is the first step in achieving this goal.
NOTE The prioritization of suppliers for development depends upon, for example, the supplier’s quality performance and the importance of the product supplied.
Unless otherwise specified by the customer, suppliers to the organization shall be third party registered to ISO 9001:2000 by an accredited third-party certification body.

From the "Rules" document:

For each nonconformity the Organization shall perform a root cause analysis and define corresponding corrective actions to be implemented as soon as possible, in any case within three months from the end of the site visit.

[Cari Spears]

Originally Posted by howste

Here's about the only scenario I can think of that might apply here: They perform the audit and find that supplier(s) are not 3rd-party registered to ISO 9001:2000. They write a nonconformity, which must be resolved within 3 months (90 days). The only way to resolve it would be either certification of the supplier(s) or to have waivers from all customer(s) involved with the affected product(s).

Thanks howste. Because they are a supplier, not because they are sister co.'s. And registered to ISO - not TS? That would make sense then.

josianna - be sure to let us know how this unfolds! And if you don't mind - could you post the exact wording of the finding from the auditor when it is written up? This would help anyone who may be able to help you to answer a corrective action request if howste's scenario is what has happened. Good Luck!