Search the Elsmar Cove!
**Search ALL of Elsmar.com** with DuckDuckGo Especially for content not in the forum
Such as files in the Cove "Members" Directory
Social Distancing - It's not just YOUR life - It's ALL of OUR lives!
Me <——————— 6 Feet ———————-> You

Approved Supplier List and Subcontractor Development

J

JSmith

#1
I have two questions regarding subcontractors:

1. Do subcontrators supplying prototype materials / product need to be listed on our approved supplier list?

2. Do these subcontractors that supply prototype materials / product fall under the sanctioned interpretations: Purchasing
C9 - Supplier Development (4.6.2.1)"goal of subcontractor compliance" requires subcontractors to achieve compliance within a defined period not to exceed 18 months from the effective date of this sanctioned interpretation.

I am aware that the definition of subcontractor in the Glossary is of one providing production materials, or production or service parts.

Could this be considered an "out" for my subcontractor?

Thanks in advance
 
J
#2
Please define "prototype materials/product". Are these materials used in any product you manufacture? Are these prototypes of items you may be intending to purchase?

Just from what you have stated I think these vendors do have to be on the approved vendors list.

James

------------------
Low tech is better than no tech.
 
J

JSmith

#3
This particular subcontractor machines some of the components that make up our prototype parts. They do not supply us with any production materials or products used in production. I hope this clarifies.
 
T

tim banic

#4
They are performing service for you, so I would say yes they need to be on the list.

tim

"if it moves, train it...if it doesn't move, calibrate it...if it isn't written down, it never happened"
 
L

Linda Jurasin

#5
We are QS9000 w T/E certified company, regarding the interpretations dated 7/1/01, if some of our subcontractors are distributors, (the products they distribute are manufactured by ISO certified companies) do the distributors need to be ISO certified within the next 18 months? Also since we are T/E, do our subcontractors need to be ISO within the next 18 months or can we continue developing the subcontractors as we were doing in the past?
 
T

tomvehoski

#6
Originally posted by Linda Jurasin:
We are QS9000 w T/E certified company, regarding the interpretations dated 7/1/01, if some of our subcontractors are distributors, (the products they distribute are manufactured by ISO certified companies) do the distributors need to be ISO certified within the next 18 months? Also since we are T/E, do our subcontractors need to be ISO within the next 18 months or can we continue developing the subcontractors as we were doing in the past?
To answer your second question first, you will have to comply with the 18 month rule - the interpretations apply to QS and QS/TE requirements.

I would also lean towards saying that you will have to have distributors ISO certified. Even though the product may be made by an ISO company, the distributor is still affecting the quality (delivery, undamaged, correct parts, etc.). Even if the manufacturer has the best quality system in the world and has never made a bad part, it does you no good if the distributor sends you a box of broken parts three weeks late.

Tom
 
M

monkey

#7
So what's everyone's opinion of this change?
Do they really expect all the little companies to not say "bite me"? This is going to raise the cost parts, which the automotive companies will end up paying for.
Do you all think that things might change for the better over the next 18 months, especially with everybody screaming about this? Any input is appreciated.
 
M

matthew evans - 2002

#8
santioned interpretation

It sounds like we are all in the same boat. We have a number of small one-man compamy's that we contract design hours too. I doubt weather they will go the expense of gaining accreditation to ISO 9001:2000. The problem being that we rely on them at times if we get busy.

What is the answer?
 
J
#9
Second Party

****************

“Goal of subcontractor compliance” requires subcontractors to achieve compliance within a defined period of time not to exceed 18 months from the effective date of this sanctioned interpretation. Minimum subcontractor compliance shall be certification by an accredited certification body to a current version of the ISO 9000 Quality Management Series of Standards, excluding ISO 9003; plus any requirements specified by the customer. Assessment by an OEM or an OEM approved second party will be recognized as meeting subcontractor compliance requirements to 4.6.2.1.

*******************

I look at the last sentence as the "out" Obviously the OEM can't register someone, so if I am approved by the OEM as a supplier, and registered QS-9000, shouldn't the OEM let me audit the small fry?

James
:D :D :D
 
D

D.Scott

#10
I am sure you have all seen by now the latest letter from Ford stating that ALL their tier 1 suppliers are authouized to approve their subcontractors under this clause in the requirement.

The way the IASG interpretation is worded, the approval by any one of these suppliers would satisfy the requirement regardless if the subcontractor supplied Ford or not (the only requirement is approval by any OEM or approved 2nd party).

This appears on the surface to open the gates. If QS requirements say the 2nd party approval meets the requirement, why would I need to be certified? All I need is a 2nd party approval. I could bring in an independent auditor to verify my compliance (for my own knowledge), let the OEM approve us and save a huge amount of money.

Obviously, if one of those tier 1 suppliers insists you are certified to QS-9000, you are stuck, but at least you can now consider the customer and not the entire automotive industry.

The economy is demanding a lot of cuts and registration is one that is waving a red flag. Once our system was in place, we found the continued involvement of the registrar added nothing but expense to the process. Nit-picking, off the wall interpretations, and wasted audit days have been the norm.

Our auditor's opening statement is the same every time. "This is not a pass/fail exercise - You will pass". Then we go through some flippant remark about "how slow the auto industry is, but his business is picking up". "With the latest IASG ruling we are going to be real busy".

Needless to say, management here is very interested in freeing up his schedule so he can accomodate all that new business.

Insight from others on this latest development would be greatly appreciated.

Dave
 
Top Bottom