AS9100 Interpretation - Delegation of Verification Activities to the Supplier

E

Eloy Gomez

During our surveillance audit we were given a minor finding on AS9100 section 7.4.3

Requirement: Where the organization delegates verification activities to the supplier, the requirements for delegation shall be defined and a register of delegations maintained.

Nonconformance: There is no evidence of a register of delegations.

We told him that we do 100% inspection and we do not delegate verification activities to our suppliers to which the auditor stated that calibration and outside special processes such as anodize and NDI are us delegating to our suppliers, then we mentioned that yes we verified special process to the certifications but he said that those are considered verfication delegation activities to our special process suppliers.

Now 7.4.3 is verfication of purchased product -- where does calibration and special processes comes to play here? Can someone shed some light here?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Sidney Vianna

Post Responsibly
Leader
Admin
Re: AS9100 7.4.3 Interpretation

but he said that those are considered verfication delegation activities to our special process suppliers.
The auditor obviously does not understand what delegation means in this context. Appeal to the CB. And, to be sure, claim that part of the standard as an exclusion to your QMS, in the manual, as you mentioned never delegating responsibility for product verification to a supplier.
 
E

Eloy Gomez

Re: AS9100 7.4.3 Interpretation

The auditor obviously does not understand what delegation means in this context. Appeal to the CB. And, to be sure, claim that part of the standard as an exclusion to your QMS, in the manual, as you mentioned never delegating responsibility for product verification to a supplier.

He did mention he has yet to be disputed and all disputes go thru the executive committe review from which he is part of. :frust:
 

Sidney Vianna

Post Responsibly
Leader
Admin
Re: AS9100 7.4.3 Interpretation

He did mention he has yet to be disputed and all disputes go thru the executive committe review from which he is part of. :frust:
Do you play poker?:tg:

On a more serious note, this alleged process would contravene the principle of objectivity and impartiality CB's are expected to adhere to and, if true, this could be brought up to the Accreditation Body. The auditor is obviously trying to intimidate you and make you believe that an appeal would be a wasted effort. There is an escalation process for the appeal, outside of the CB, which could trigger a complaint to the AB.

In the end, it is up to you to decide if you want to fight or not. But CB's operate in a competitive marketplace. If one does not believe their CB is reasonable, there is always a choice.
 
J

Jason PCSwitches

Re: AS9100 7.4.3 Interpretation

He did mention he has yet to be disputed and all disputes go thru the executive committe review from which he is part of. :frust:


If he truly stated that, then you should appeal (he should not be on the committee if he conducted the audit, conflict of interest) and take his ego down a few notches. If this is true its unbelievably unprofessional. I wasn't there, so IMHO, if it's true, in my experience people like this have never been in a position with given authority for very long, and lack the skills of true leadership. Knock him down.:whip:
 
E

Eloy Gomez

Re: AS9100 7.4.3 Interpretation

Let me just clarify that he did not stated that he had yet to be disputed when we were discussing the finding, he brought it up during the opening meeting when he was explaining if there were any findings that we had the right to the appeal process.

The finding of delegations was brought up on the second day. The auditor was real knowledgeable and as you mentioned he thought highly of himself.:notme:

I will appeal the finding because I truly believe that this statement has to do with delegations given to a supplier and has nothing to do with special processes or calibration.
 

Big Jim

Admin
Re: AS9100 7.4.3 Interpretation

The auditor obviously does not understand what delegation means in this context. Appeal to the CB. And, to be sure, claim that part of the standard as an exclusion to your QMS, in the manual, as you mentioned never delegating responsibility for product verification to a supplier.

Sidney,

Can you elaborate on why requiring certifications of conformance for special processes would not be a delegation of inspection?
 
J

Joy

Re: AS9100 7.4.3 Interpretation - Delegation of Verification Activities to the Suppli

Here is a situation where the auditor is raising one NCR without being able to convince the auditee.Sidney's suggestion to exclude the requirement was great and that could be a great way to handle the auditor.:biglaugh:

Could he raise few more NCRs? I think he could not do that and got a chance here.

Don't hesitate to appeal.Appeal and challenge is not same.By appealing you will help auditor community to be more flexible.:)

Don't forget to post the appeal result.
 

Sidney Vianna

Post Responsibly
Leader
Admin
Re: AS9100 7.4.3 Interpretation

Sidney,

Can you elaborate on why requiring certifications of conformance for special processes would not be a delegation of inspection?
I suggest you familiarize yourself with AS9015 as a way of understanding what a formal delegation process entails in the aerospace sector.

No wonder the IAQG wants to test all AS auditors prior to allowing them to audit against AS9100C.
 

Big Jim

Admin
Re: AS9100 7.4.3 Interpretation

I suggest you familiarize yourself with AS9015 as a way of understanding what a formal delegation process entails in the aerospace sector.

No wonder the IAQG wants to test all AS auditors prior to allowing them to audit against AS9100C.

Thanks Sidney,

I'll get a copy and study it. I wonder why it wasn't referenced in AS9100.
 
Top Bottom