Auditing of Supply Department



Please, give me a help in two questions.

1) During an internal audit in supply department I have noted that one firm, which had been executing the large and regular supplies to us by the international contract, had not been listed in the list of suppliers and its activities had not been reviewed. I put the question to manager of Supply Department about the absence of that supplier in the list of suppliers. The manager answered that this particular supplier was not reviewed and listed because firstly- it is not supplier it is seller, and secondly-because it is not a manufacturer it is a middle firm. I tried to explain that ISO 9001 makes no difference between supplier and seller, but could not succeed. Please, tell me whether the separation in suppliers and sellers should take place or ISO 9001 definition of “supplier” embraces the sellers too. I can not truly realize the deference between “supplier” and “seller” in international contract for large batches of metal . Please, help me.

2) In the same international contract I noted, that in condition of supply (in that case, FOB (Free or Board)) was not concretized by INCOTERMS’ year of issue. I heard in a short talk, that in international contract parties should exactly determine INCOTERMS’ year of issue, whether it is 1990 or 2000 or something else. Please, tell me about possible consequences of missing of INCOTERMS’ year of issue mention in the text of international contract. Or this mention is not always necessary ?

Al Dyer

Let's go with this train of thought:

If they supply you with a product or service that might affect your company or the customer, they should be on some type of continuous improvement program directed by you.

The one problem I have dealt with is that the customer is also the supplier. In a case like this you should make every effort to comply with your supplier policy. If the supplier refuses to respond, document that fact and have it ready for the auditor.

Say you are a small company dealing with a supplier that is much larger than your. Leverage might be possible only through the intervention of the customer.

Whatever the situation, keep written proof!!!!!!!!!!!!



We have encountered "sellers", we refer to them as "distributors". They distribute for 2 or more manufacturers. Since the distributors don't have the system the manufacturers do, the manufacturer has to provide certifications & all other system improvements needed for evaluations by the you , the customer. But the point is the seller still has to be on the supplier list and be held accountable (even if he defers to the manufacturers).
We have made some distinction in what supplier supplies dictates what controls we put on the supplier. If a supplier supplies something that goes directly into the final product, they get the strictest controls. But some supplier who supplies some cleaning material to only clean the machine that produces the part that supplier doesn't have as strict controls.


lou hannigan


Regarding your point 2, I believe that for shipping transactions there is sufficient international understanding and acceptance of shipping terms such as FOB, CIF, and so forth, negating the requirement to specify "INCOTERMS."

Nevertheless, if the legal department wanted the INCOTERMS reference in the boilerplating, the traditional assumption is that, unless the revision date is specified, the most recent INCO TERMS issue is governing.

I suggest your marshall your resources for your point 1 and let point 2 slide.

Top Bottom