Approved Vendors List - Excluding office supplies, housekeeping services, consulting

J

JRKH

Humble and other opinions requested.

It is my plan to create a Approved Vendors List for:
"all vendors supplying materials effecting the quality of products manufactured for sale."

This list would not include office supplies, housekeeping services, consulting services, etc.

Will this fly with the auditors?

Regards

James
 
S

Sam

Depends on your auditor and how your list indicates approval. I use an approved vendors list, but not once has an auditor asked for it. An approved vendor list, in itself, is not a requirement.
Subcontractor development and subcontractor evaluation is a requirement. Your vendors should be approved based on development of there quality system and a rating system.
 

barb butrym

Quite Involved in Discussions
Are consultants critical commodities? Some are, some not...LOL.

Most MRP systems have a module that allows a field for Approval codes, which works nicely...and doesn't add a new thing/list to control. Sam is correct........the approval plan and records are much more important than the format of a "list'...although sometimes a list is the auditor friendly way to go.........but tends to be a useless activity....who actually pulls out a list every time they buy something???
 

Mike S.

Happy to be Alive
Trusted Information Resource
Re: Approved Vendors List

JRKH said:

Humble and other opinions requested.
It is my plan to create a Approved Vendors List for:
"all vendors supplying materials effecting the quality of products manufactured for sale."
This list would not include office supplies, housekeeping services, consulting services, etc.
Will this fly with the auditors?
Regards

James
James,

This is exactly what I've done. So far, no customer auditors have complained. Registrars? From what I see they can be a tough bunch to predict. Common sense would say it should be okay, but some Cove members seem to have run into some auditors who seem to have no common sense. I'd go with it and make them explain why it isn't okay if they ding you.

Mike S.
 

E Wall

Just Me!
Trusted Information Resource
That is what we do too

Additionally we categorize the suppliers based on classification:

Following are six classifications utilized for categorizing suppliers:

5.1 Class I
Parts or subassemblies made to Company X drawings and/or specifications, which if defective, may cause equipment failure or malfunction when used in Company X end item products.

5.2 Class II
Services used which, if incorrectly applied or performed, may contribute to failure or malfunction of affected Company X end item products.

5.3 Class III
Raw materials, which are used as basic materials in the fabrication of Company X battery cells.

5.4 Class IV
Materials, parts and services that are considered non-critical to end product performance or are certified as conforming to established industry standards.

5.5 Class V
Chargers and peripheral equipment which can directly affect the performance or life of Company X cells and/or batteries.

5.6 Class VI
Resin/material suppliers for resin/material specific to Company X Products.
 
D

db

Approved vendor list

Everything I've heard (read) so far sounds good, but I would like to remind you that there is no requirement for an approved vendor list.
 

Mike S.

Happy to be Alive
Trusted Information Resource
Re: Approved vendor list

db said:

Everything I've heard (read) so far sounds good, but I would like to remind you that there is no requirement for an approved vendor list.
_____________________
db,

You're right of course, 9001-2000 doesn't say "make an approved vendor's list". However, I think James looks at an AVL as a way of meeting 7.4.1 which is certainly one way to skin that cat.

9001-1994 says in 4.6.2c "establish and maintain quality records of acceptable subcontractors" and I think the majority of companies decided an AVL was the best way to satisfy this requirement. Therefore, anyone transitioning from 1994 to 2000 would probably at least consider keeping the AVL or using it because it is familiar.

I think the statements in both standards about the "extent of control...dependent on the effect of the purchased product" etc. on your products gives you the option to exclude things like office supplies, cleaning services, or a consulting service. However, if the auditor balks at complete exclusion or one is nervous about doing that, perhaps you could put a "weasel statement" in your document something like "vendor control for the following goods/services, which have little or no impact on XYZ's products, shall be limited solely to the real-time decision of the Purchasing Department for each purchase order based on their knowledge and experience and requires no formal record-keeping".

Anyone see any holes?

Mike S.
 
D

db

AVL

Mike I agree that an AVL is one way (perhaps the best way) to achieve control over suppliers. Notwithstanding that, I would never argue with James. Afterall he is within easy B-17 distance to Detroit. :biglaugh:
 
J

JRKH

Thanks everyone for your input.
At this point I beleive I'll look at dropping the AVL altogether. We have our approved vendors in a comuter database, and as others have pointed out I just need some verbiage to clear up the extent question. Something like Mike's idea.

db: I'd never bomb Detroit.....It's the home of Motown......
YYYAAAAYYYY 60's music...... Peace Bro'. :bigwave:


James:vfunny:
 
Top Bottom