Using Certified Results from your Supplier - Chemistry report and Tensile results

S

SteelWoman

If I purchase material from say Supplier X and I require him to supply me with the mechanical/chemical specs (ie, chemistry report and tensile results) with the delivered material, it is my understanding that I have to have some kind of "verification" process set up to verify that the material I receive truly IS what my supplier says it is. I've always thought that meant that we have to have a way to verify the mechanical/chem results, right?

WHAT IF you have no in-house lab? Does that only leave you with having to do occasional "verifications" through an outside lab, or maybe an "inside" lab at another division? Can I "certify" the material that I supply to my customer using the results supplied to me from my supplier ONLY, without me having to re-test it to verify their results? I can't "inspect" the material to verify it meets chem/mechanical specs, obviously, so it seems to me that I can ONLY verify using another lab somewhere, right? I do see the "out" in the standard about using a lab that is "acceptable to the customer." My question is speculative - we actually have an inhouse lab, but I'm having a philisophical discussion with someone about this point who has been around steel since it's inception (!) and he says it is "common practice" to "certify" material to a customer based solely on the results supplied to you by your supplier. I'm thinking the standard doesn't allow that without some kind of verification process?
 
M

mshell

I have seen organizations develop a specification for the product, require a certificate of analysis for each shipment, compare the requirements of the specification with the data on the certificate of analysis and use that as proof of verification. I have never had an auditor question that verification as we relied on our supplier to perform the analysis and we just verified that the analysis data was within our tolerance. I hope this helps.

If during the verification, we determined that the product did not meet the requirements defined in our spec, we handled it as nonconforming product.
 

The Taz!

Quite Involved in Discussions
Believe it or not, this is one area where TS is more flexible than ISO is.

Subsection 7.4.3 of ISO states:

The organization shall establish and implement the inspection or other activities for ensuring that purchased product meets specified purchase requirements.

Subsection 7.4.3.1 of TS states:

The organization shall have a process to assure the quality of purchased product (See 7.4.3) utilizing one or more of the following methods:

- receipt of, and evaluation of, statistical data by the organization

I only listed one method, but my interpretation is that you can accept based on the statistical data (Doesn't mean SPC data) provided by the supplier. This would include the original raw material certification containing the required specifications, actual chemical analysis of the material and any required mechanical test results.
 
S

SteelWoman

Taz, that's where I was starting to go, was looking around to find an "interpretation" of "statistical data" in that phrase. I suppose then the only thing would be to show that you met the "and evaluation of" section of that statement - provide evidence that you LOOKED at the cert when it arrived and evaluated, as suggested by mshell, against what it was supposed to be.
 

The Taz!

Quite Involved in Discussions
You got it! That has been the norm for any company I have worked with for over 30 years. The Certs are generated from the Mill. . . and usually verified along the way.

The only afterthought I have, is that perhaps once per year, select a sample from a supplier and have it tested by an accredited lab to verify the composition and mechanical properties. That is doing due dilligence.

Of course, I HAVE seen suppliers sending in copies of the identical certs with material lot after lot. Not a sound practice . . and not good if they or you get caught. There is too much at stake. Coming out of 15 years in the fastener industry (Engineering and QA). . . lives, ships, planes, trains, subs, missles, and such are at risk.
 

The Taz!

Quite Involved in Discussions
SteelWoman said:
Taz, that's where I was starting to go, was looking around to find an "interpretation" of "statistical data" in that phrase. I suppose then the only thing would be to show that you met the "and evaluation of" section of that statement - provide evidence that you LOOKED at the cert when it arrived and evaluated, as suggested by mshell, against what it was supposed to be.

As signature and date by the reviewing (authorized) party on the cert should suffice there.
 
M

Mike Smith

Similar situation

I have a very similar situation. We are a electronics remanufacturing firm. We buy repair parts from distributors. This means they are our supplier. We do not have the purchasing power to buy direct from the manufacturer. Does this mean that these distributors must be certified to TS16949 as we are? The distributor states that these certifications are not for them, only for the manufacturers of the part. Example, Motorola must be TS certified as the original manufacturer. Can anyone clear this up for me or am I missing something?
 

The Taz!

Quite Involved in Discussions
Mike,

My understanding when I went through ISO transition training a few years ago was that the standard is "generic" enough to be used in any industry. This even includes software manufacturers and also distributors.

They should also be certified UNLESS you get a waiver from the customer. TS Paragraph 7.4.1.2 states at the end, Unless otherwise specified by the customer, suppliers shall be third party registered to ISO 9000:2000 by an accredited third-party certification body.

Further definition in the CSR's excludes logistical suppliers (Freight companies). In the definitions section in the 11/03 Ford release under "subcontractor" it states, Provider of production material, or production or service parts, DIRECTLY to an organization complying with ISO/TS-16949:2002. Also included are providers of heat treating, painting, plating or other finishing services to the organization.

I think the letter of the standard includes the distributors also. . .The operative words are underlined IMHO
 
M

Mike Smith

I was just reviewing the IAOB website and it has more information on suppliers and whether or not they should be certified to ISO9001: 2000 or TS16949. Look at FAQ. It seems that only suppliers performing value added manufacturing is eligible for TS, but according to the standard, the organizations suppliers must be at least ISO certified with the ultimate goal of suppliers to become TS. The question is, distributors do not perform value added manufacturing, therefore they are not eligible for TS. Is ISO 2k good enough? My distributors are saying they do not even need ISO9001: 2000. I tell them they at least need a plan to get that way until the next thing comes along.
 

The Taz!

Quite Involved in Discussions
i think we have another case where TS/ISO and CSR's don't jive. The question here is, does the ISO Sanctioned Interpretation over-ride the CSR's, do the CSR's need an interpretation.

I have reviewed the FAQ's in the past, and in this case, I believe the Ford CSR's post-dated the Sanctioned Interpretations.

I think this is one case where some registrar input is in line.
 
Top Bottom