QS para 4.6.2.1 and SI para C9: D1-9000 and AS-9100 NOT acceptable?

[Paul O]

I've read through the threads here regarding QS para 4.6.2.1 and SI para C9 and it sounds like everyone is having as much fun as I am with this requirement.

I recently passed my audit but had a minor nonconformance for using a supplier that is neither QS or ISO. The supplier is D1-9000 and AS-9100 certified so it seems ridiculous to impose another quality system on them.

The easiest solution seems to be assessment by an OEM-approved second party.

Does such an animal exist?
How do I find one?
Does anyone know of any?

Also, has anyone out there ever used this option?

Please help.
Paul O
Huntington Beach, CA

[SilverHawk]

It's truly silly of the auditors to ask you to get OEM 2nd party audit. If you happen to read the GM's TS2 CSR under 4.1.11.2 "Customer Acceptance of 2nd. party audits...", it has been mentioned that GM-approved 2nd. party requirments :-

(1) The supply organization (2nd. party) must be ISO/TS 16949 certified and registered by the IATF.
(2) The supply organization (2nd. party) cannot be on ISO/TS 16949 probation or suspension.
(3) The supply organization (2nd. party) must utilized a qualified ISO Lead Auditor, or a qualified Internal Audiotr with evidence of their successful completion of training, such as AIAG "Internal Auditing for ISO/TS 16949", etc. etc. etc.

Under the microscope view, to get a 2nd. party audits, you may as well get back to the 51 CBs appointed by IATF.

Is the CBs asking you to go back to them for OEM 2nd party audit as an easy way out?

That's worrying!!!

[Cari Spears]

Originally Posted by Paul O

...I recently passed my audit but had a minor nonconformance for using a supplier that is neither QS or ISO. The supplier is D1-9000 and AS-9100 certified so it seems ridiculous to impose another quality system on them...

*disclaimer* I may be off base as I have not worked in a QS or automotive environment in a while, but....

AS9100 encompasses ISO9001 in it's entirety, so I don't understand why this was even written up. It is ISO9001 with a bunch of stuff added to make it aerospace specific. If your supplier is registered to AS9100, then that means they are complying with all ISO9001 requirements plus more. I would "not concur" with this minor and contact the technical guy at your registrar.

[Paul O]

Originally Posted by Cari Spears

*disclaimer* I may be off base as I have not worked in a QS or automotive environment in a while, but....

Cari,
I dont think you're off base at all. You are correct that both of their certifications are ISO-plus which is why I'm having so much trouble requiring them to get officially ISO certified. It should be a relatively easy step, since they're already compliant, so it boils down to the additional cost. And, I'm not sure the volume of business we do with them is enough to justify that.

I believe the reason it was written up is that QS explicitly requires suppliers to be QS or ISO. There is no provision for any other quality systems. However, I think I will follow your advice and challenge the finding.

Paul O

[Paul O]

Originally Posted by SilverHawk

If you happen to read the GM's TS2 CSR under 4.1.11.2 "Customer Acceptance of 2nd. party audits...", it has been mentioned that GM-approved 2nd. party requirments :-

Is the CBs asking you to go back to them for OEM 2nd party audit as an easy way out?

That's worrying!!!

Silverhawk,

Thanks for the reply, but I'm not familiar with the document "TS2 CSR". Is that the new GM customer-specific requirements for TS16949? If it is, I'm still working to (and audited to) QS-9000 so I don't think it would be applicable.

And, no....the CB was not asking me to go back to them for the OEM 2nd party audit, that was just me trying to find a way out for my supplier.

Thanks again,
Paul O

[Al Rosen]

Originally Posted by Paul O

Cari,
I dont think you're off base at all. You are correct that both of their certifications are ISO-plus which is why I'm having so much trouble requiring them to get officially ISO certified. It should be a relatively easy step, since they're already compliant, so it boils down to the additional cost. And, I'm not sure the volume of business we do with them is enough to justify that.

I believe the reason it was written up is that QS explicitly requires suppliers to be QS or ISO. There is no provision for any other quality systems. However, I think I will follow your advice and challenge the finding.

Paul O

I wouldn't think there is any additional cost. Just adding ISO 9001 to their certificate. The've already been assessed to the requirements as part of their AS audit.

[Paul O]

That's a great thought, Al, I'll look into that.

[Cari Spears]

Al - that is a good idea to check on.

Paul - I do hope it's that easy to fix so you can make it go away. But, ooohh , it just irks me anyway. It's a ridiculous minor, not at all value added.

Thanks for sharing your problem. I am going to contact the technical guy at our registrar because we are working toward AS9100 registration, but we still have many automotive customers. I'll work with our registrar to word the certificate and scope(s?) to avoid any issues we may have with our TS customers before they arise.

BTW - welcome to the cove.