Can an AS9100 auditor issue an NCR a month after the audit?

[dsanabria]

Hi;

Had an auditor that finished an AS9100 D audit a month ago....

We just received a notification that he was issuing another NCR - one in which we (Registrar, auditor and consultant) agree that it was OK - not an issue.

The NCR is on having 8.5.5 Post Delivery as an exclusion not applicable in the Quality Manual.

We do not - we do make statements in the actual section of the QM - 8.5.5 of items that are not applicable to us as a company.

I though that AS9101 gave instructions:

4.2.2.7 Conducting the Closing Meeting

The requirements of ISO/IEC 17021-1 clause 9.4.7 and 9104/1 clause 8.5 apply.

In addition, at the closing meeting, the audit team leader shall, at a minimum, provide the organization with any applicable
NCRs (see Form 4) and PEARs (see Form 3) associated with those NCRs.


So how should I answer this!

or do I have the right to complain to AIQG / ANAB about the auditor / registrar...

 

[Sidney Vianna]

The IAQG has made clear, via the clarifications document, that AS9100 8.5.5 can not be excluded in it's totality and we have discussed this a couple of times, here at The Cove. Has that clarification been communicated to all the CB's and their respective auditors? Apparently not.

So, I am sure that, during a technical review of the audit report and the identification of the "excluded sections" which must be identified in OASIS, a technical reviewer noted the problem and instructed the auditor accordingly to issue a NC.

Any lead auditor worth their salt know that NC's should not be issued outside of an audit event. Sure, you can complain, and using common sense and the escalation process, you should start with the CB first. But, keep in mind, that, very likely, the CB was the one that mandated the auditor to issue the untimely NC.

 

[dsanabria]

The IAQG has made clear, via the clarifications document, that AS9100 8.5.5 can not be excluded in it's totality and we have discussed this a couple of times, here at The Cove. Has that clarification been communicated to all the CB's and their respective auditors? Apparently not.

So, I am sure that, during a technical review of the audit report and the identification of the "excluded sections" which must be identified in OASIS, a technical reviewer noted the problem and instructed the auditor accordingly to issue a NC.

Any lead auditor worth their salt know that NC's should not be issued outside of an audit event. Sure, you can complain, and using common sense and the escalation process, you should start with the CB first. But, keep in mind, that, very likely, the CB was the one that mandated the auditor to issue the untimely NC.

Agree... yes, we did clarified that to the auditor and share the AIQG clarification statements on the AIQG website. Showed him that we are not taking an entire exclusion on the scope (does not show up) and clarified that if any exclusion is taken for any of the singular letter - it will be clarified on clause 8.5.5 - not part of the scope.

I gave instructions that the NCR will be challenged and that part of the answer is to review previous approval by the registrar NXA.

 

[Mjtaur]

Ah, I think I see what happened. You made the section non-applicable in the Scope, but specified in section 8.5.5? That might be his/her reasoning. Almost like your CB looked at the Scope, you made it non-applicable, so therefore it no longer exists, which is your CB's argument. I see the point, but you clearly address it later in your QM. Yea, I think bogus write up.

Maybe just change what you have in 8.5.5 and put that verbiage in your Scope?

 

[Big Jim]

Sidney nailed it when he suggested that it didn't pass the technical review and the auditor was ordered to write up the nonconformance after the fact.

I have seen this happen.

My understanding is that the auditor is obligated to present the nonconformances he has identified at the closing meeting. Even this isn't always followed though, and closing meeting comments usually include that the auditor is recommending registration / continued registration, but the final decision is made by the executive committee after they review the auditors report.

Auditors may be required to write a nonconformance when they improperly called it an observation (referred to as soft grading) or anything else found that needed correcting during the technical review.

Auditors that have problems with accurate audits don't tend to stick around very long.

 

[Kronos147]

So how should I answer this!

RC - minor disconnect was overlooked by the internal audit after transition due to assessors focus on new requirements rather than typos.

Correction - more assessor training on process audits

Correct the issue, move forward.

 

[Mjtaur]

RC - minor disconnect was overlooked by the internal audit after transition due to assessors focus on new requirements rather than typos.

Correction - more assessor training on process audits

Correct the issue, move forward.

I agree, your last statement is spot on.