That being the case, you should ask yourself what is the value of such supplier surveys. I have ranted (more than once) about such surveys, because I have NEVER EVER seen a supplier answering those surveys in a way that could disqualify them from being a supplier.
If you have other means of "assuring" the supplier's ability to satisfy your requirements, I would drop the (self imposed) supplier survey bureaucracy. As for what to do when you have suppliers in a "conditional" status, typically (and from a risk management perspective) you should increase the level of scrutiny of products coming from those suppliers. Most organizations that I have worked with, tighten the checks for "conditionally approved suppliers", until they reach confidence in the supplier's capabilities.
Buckyb, this all relates back to paragraph 7.4.1 which says,
"The organization shall ensure that purchased product conforms to specified purchase requirements. The type and extent of control applied to the supplier and the purchased product shall be dependent upon the effect of the purchased product on subsequent product realization or the final product."
Here this paragraph is allowing your organization the flexibility to do whatever is justifiably reasonable to ensure the quality of raw materials coming in (and finished goods eventually going out). It doesn't prescribe the use of a survey for evaluation purposes (per se), but your organization or your customers might require it. If I were you and I found out that wasn't the case, as an auditor I would be tempted to rule your findings simply as an opportunity for improvement (OFI).
In our current Approved Supplier List (ASL) all suppliers are identified with status, product type (raw material, hardware, special process, other) and last review date.
The problem: I have a number of suppliers who are statused as "conditional" because I don't have a current survey on them. I have already generated a nonconformance against the management of the ASL. As part of the corrective action each have been contacted requesting surveys or updated information.
The question: Can I order parts or materials from these suppliers as long as I have evidence that I'm attempting to correct the conditional status? My assumption is that ordering from them would be our call based on the guidance of 7.4.1c in the Standard. Did I answer my own question?
So you've already determined the status of each existing supplier you work with (with qualifiers like OK - Conditional - Not OK, what have you...). That's good. So, for these "conditional" suppliers: wouldn't "tightening" the samples at the incoming inspection phase (or auditing the supplier at their location, if applicable) be a more reasonable solution here than simply prohibiting the ordering from that particular supplier?
Besides, who's to say your "conditional" suppliers aren't already capable of supplying you with top-notch materials or hardware?
Your incoming quality control and supplier audits (where intended) would no doubt be two of the best opportunities to evaluate and weed out the riff-raff. What if, in the process of doing this, you actually end up determining whether or not your "conditional" suppliers are actually capable of sending your organization the high quality stuff? And what if, based on those results, you end up minimizing the negative effects that a "conditional" supplier could have on the bigger picture? Food for thought...
If they were brand new suppliers, or if there were other special conditions prevailing to that supplier, then I could see something like a supplier survey being of some help in determining whether or not they are capable, but if you have already had previous business with an existing supplier, your incoming quality control and supplier audits could make a survey seem trivial by nature.
Brian
