Dealing with Procurement Documentation and an Industry Conglomerate

Douglas E. Purdy

Quite Involved in Discussions
#1
I did not know where to generate this thread. Reasoned that I ran into this situation during the follow-up of a Nonconformance Report (NCR) - a kind of spot audit. There were a number of issues dealing with our procurement, engineering, and inspection processes, but the Materials Manager and Purchasing Manager think that I am not being reasonable with the procurement issues. [In reality all the managers think that I am unreasonable concerning this procurement and inspection activity!] The PO was to a particular supplier (Name - Address in Dallas, TX) , it had multiple line items, and "Certs Required" at the end of the PO. The packing slip was headed with the Conglomerate (Name - Address in Victoria BC) and a source (Name - Address in Rogers, AR). The packing list indicated that a Certification of Inspection would be with the product, and a Certification of Compliance for Material. We only received a Material Certification with the product and it had a different name than that on the PO or Packing Slip in Rogers, AR. To top it off - the product Name/Number and Description is not the same on all three documents.

My points are:
1) just stating "Certs Required" is not specific enough - as evidenced by the packing list listing two types - but only received a Material Certification.
2) Who is the Supplier of the product - The Conglomerate or the entity where the PO goes, or the entity where the product comes from, or the entity where the Material Certification comes from (ALL Different Names and addresses)?

How would an ISO-9001 registration auditor handle this confusion?

Thanks,
Doug
 
Elsmar Forum Sponsor

Jim Wynne

Staff member
Admin
#2
Douglas E. Purdy said:
My points are:
1) just stating "Certs Required" is not specific enough - as evidenced by the packing list listing two types - but only received a Material Certification.
2) Who is the Supplier of the product - The Conglomerate or the entity where the PO goes, or the entity where the product comes from, or the entity where the Material Certification comes from (ALL Different Names and addresses)?

How would an ISO-9001 registration auditor handle this confusion?

Thanks,
Doug
I understand your concern, and I don't understand why other people don't understand it, even after it's been explained in infinite bloody detail. You should be specific about the type of documentation you expect to receive. You're right--"Certs required" is functionally meaningless. The solution would be to put together a document (a standard, or procedure--call it what you want) that explains your specific requirements, control the document in your system, make sure that suppliers get controlled copies, then reference the document in all applicable POs.
 

Wes Bucey

Quite Involved in Discussions
#3
This can be a confusing situation, but it doesn't have to result in a hissy fit among your own people.

There is a simple adjustment you can make to your purchase orders to clear up ALL ambiguity and be seen as a great "compromiser" rather than an "obstructionist."

Add a text box to your Purchase Order which describes what you expect in the way of a material cert and make this one modification by adding:
"For traceability purposes, please show the chain of custody from the original producer supplying the material certification."

If a supplier asks "What does that mean?" (You hope he does ask, because that means he is engaging in Contract Review!), you can then respond,
"We simply want to know how much material was in the original batch covered by the cert and how much of the batch we receive. If our receipt is MORE than the original batch, it means there is high probability of "mixing." Above all, we want to be sure the certs are for the material on our dock and not some material on someone else's dock. If the material started out as 5X tons, but goes through 3 separate storage facilities, are the 5X tons we receive the same 5X tons or did they get mixed? What documentation is available to show no mixing?"

:topic: I hope this never applies to any of you, but I was witness in the early 90's to a supplier who Xeroxed a 4 year old material cert time after time and shipped it as documentation with EVERY batch of 12L14 steel he sent out, regardless of where he had obtained the 12L14 stock he used for the order. When I questioned the practice, he replied, "Hey, man! 12L14 is 12L14 and those jerks in receiving only look to see there is a cert. So what if I used an Inland Steel cert when the actual steel came from a broker who got it as an overstock from a Brazilian mill?"
 

Jim Wynne

Staff member
Admin
#4
Wes Bucey said:
There is a simple adjustment you can make to your purchase orders to clear up ALL ambiguity...
Which is reference to a controlled document.

Wes Bucey said:
If a supplier asks "What does that mean?" (You hope he does ask, because that means he is engaging in Contract Review!)

I hope he doesn't have to ask, which would mean that I had given him clear specifications to begin with. If he was given an opportunity to review the specifications and accepted them, then his fulfillment of them is the only evidence of contract review I need. If he doesn't understand, it means that my specifications were ambigous, the supplier isn't especially bright, or he's just being difficult. In any case, I've learned something.

Wes Bucey said:
you can then respond,
"We simply want to know how much material was in the original batch covered by the cert and how much of the batch we receive. If our receipt is MORE than the original batch, it means there is high probability of "mixing." Above all, we want to be sure the certs are for the material on our dock and not some material on someone else's dock. If the material started out as 5X tons, but goes through 3 separate storage facilities, are the 5X tons we receive the same 5X tons or did they get mixed? What documentation is available to show no mixing?"

This conversation, which invites more confusion imo, doesn't have to take place if the OP has already specified the requirements and referenced the specification properly.
 

Helmut Jilling

Auditor / Consultant
#5
Douglas E. Purdy said:
I did not know where to generate this thread. Reasoned that I ran into this situation during the follow-up of a Nonconformance Report (NCR) - a kind of spot audit. There were a number of issues dealing with our procurement, engineering, and inspection processes, but the Materials Manager and Purchasing Manager think that I am not being reasonable with the procurement issues. [In reality all the managers think that I am unreasonable concerning this procurement and inspection activity!] The PO was to a particular supplier (Name - Address in Dallas, TX) , it had multiple line items, and "Certs Required" at the end of the PO. The packing slip was headed with the Conglomerate (Name - Address in Victoria BC) and a source (Name - Address in Rogers, AR). The packing list indicated that a Certification of Inspection would be with the product, and a Certification of Compliance for Material. We only received a Material Certification with the product and it had a different name than that on the PO or Packing Slip in Rogers, AR. To top it off - the product Name/Number and Description is not the same on all three documents.

My points are:
1) just stating "Certs Required" is not specific enough - as evidenced by the packing list listing two types - but only received a Material Certification.
2) Who is the Supplier of the product - The Conglomerate or the entity where the PO goes, or the entity where the product comes from, or the entity where the Material Certification comes from (ALL Different Names and addresses)?

How would an ISO-9001 registration auditor handle this confusion?

Thanks,
Doug
As a ISO 9001 and TS registration auditor: In the scenario you described, if these certs were accepted as evidence the incoming material was acceptable product, it should be a nonconformance. Further, I would audit the process deeply, to ascertain whether the people responsible for making these decisions understood the process adequately. I would also link to purchasing, because as JSW05 said, the "certs required" statement is generic and meaningless.

A cert is just a piece of paper with ink on it. The information on it is what matters. The info might be useful and meaningful, or irrelevant, inadequate or useless, as this example appears to be. If it is inadequate, then the cert is incapable of certifying anythng.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
G Dealing with non conformity caused by Supplier Components detected in the production line IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 14
K Tips for dealing with third party auditors General Auditing Discussions 11
Q Dealing with a forgetful Special Processor AS9100, IAQG, NADCAP and Aerospace related Standards and Requirements 13
C Specification + MU - Dealing with reported MU Values Measurement Uncertainty (MU) 6
F Dealing with, and Analysis of, Data Statistical Analysis Tools, Techniques and SPC 6
R Dealing with Device/Design changes by a "Letter to File" vs. 60601 Retesting IEC 60601 - Medical Electrical Equipment Safety Standards Series 10
Sidney Vianna Cleaning up the Global Compact: Dealing with Corporate Free Riders Sustainability, Green Initiatives and Ecology 2
J Integrated Management System - Anyone with experience dealing with ISOQAR? ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 2
R Transforming or not Transforming - Dealing with Non-Normal Data Statistical Analysis Tools, Techniques and SPC 10
G Dealing with Excessive Within-Part Variation when doing MSA and Cpk studies Gage R&R (GR&R) and MSA (Measurement Systems Analysis) 3
S Auditing Career: Dealing with Mentally Unstable Managers Career and Occupation Discussions 7
K Has anyone had experience dealing with SEDEX (Supplier Ethical Data Exchange)? Customer and Company Specific Requirements 4
P Hard Milling Process - Dealing with Within Part Variation for SPC Statistical Analysis Tools, Techniques and SPC 18
optomist1 Real World SPC Dealing with Outliers Statistical Analysis Tools, Techniques and SPC 22
P Advice on dealing with difficult Colleagues Career and Occupation Discussions 24
R Effects of Dealing with Out of Tolerance Monitoring Equipment General Measurement Device and Calibration Topics 4
Z Dealing with a defiant Operations Manager Quality Manager and Management Related Issues 41
ScottK Are any other USA manufacturers dealing a lot with ARRA requests? Various Other Specifications, Standards, and related Requirements 6
N Nissim Shaked is dealing with these topics at his desk Imported Legacy Blogs 14
D Dealing With a Chinese Supplier to follow up on quality problems Quality Manager and Management Related Issues 26
D Dealing with pesky telemarketers Coffee Break and Water Cooler Discussions 4
B Dealing with Outsourced Processes in a DMR ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 7
Marc Government of Mozambique - Dealing with Lions Funny Stuff - Jokes and Humour 14
P Dealing with Second Party Audits Quality Manager and Management Related Issues 6
R Service Company dealing with FAI requirements - Small stocklist broker AS9100, IAQG, NADCAP and Aerospace related Standards and Requirements 8
A Is zero defects possible? We are dealing with 25 to 30 parameters Quality Tools, Improvement and Analysis 21
Marc Advisory Notices - Who is responsible for dealing with Advisory Notices? ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 7
S Process of dealing with the Customer - PRRs, GQTS Nonconformance and Corrective Action 5
samer Oracle computer records - Special procedure for dealing with non-paper Records? Records and Data - Quality, Legal and Other Evidence 2
A Capability Analysis - Dealing with non-normal data in Minitab Using Minitab Software 8
P Dealing with recruiters: What if a job is listed after.... Career and Occupation Discussions 17
P Recently Certified!! One minor finding dealing with Dock Audits IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 11
T Industrial Belt Sander Systems - Dealing with chatter marks Manufacturing and Related Processes 5
B Dealing with dishonest customers - One customer who is a supplier - Bad Material Supplier Quality Assurance and other Supplier Issues 16
A Dealing with Possible Alcohol Use by Employees in the Work Place Misc. Quality Assurance and Business Systems Related Topics 23
B Published standards dealing with calibration of pressure and vacuum gauges? General Measurement Device and Calibration Topics 5
M Who should receive the bills from suppliers and vendors, account payable or procurement? Consultants and Consulting 4
M Informational EC – Guide for referencing standards in public procurement in Europe (JIS Action 11) Medical Device and FDA Regulations and Standards News 0
Marc Definition PEPPOL - Pan-European Public Procurement Online Definitions, Acronyms, Abbreviations and Interpretations Listed Alphabetically 0
G Procedure to define Signing Authority for Procurement Limits ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 2
N PFMEA for Non-Manufacturing Processes such as audits, direct procurement, etc. FMEA and Control Plans 5
G Is Sourcing & Procurement Process required in ISO/TS 16949? IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 2
M 7.5.2 Exclusion in a Contract Procurement Service Company ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 1
M AS9100 Requirements for Direct and Indirect Procurement AS9100, IAQG, NADCAP and Aerospace related Standards and Requirements 10
L How to Audit Procurement and Maintenance Scheduling Activities General Auditing Discussions 5
S Job Duties: Quality vs. Procurement Supplier Quality Assurance and other Supplier Issues 4
B Manufacturing company Purchasing/Procurement turtle diagram Process Maps, Process Mapping and Turtle Diagrams 4
A Procedure for procurement (purchasing) wanted ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 3
J Procurement Cost Saving Report template Document Control Systems, Procedures, Forms and Templates 8
N Quality Plan template for Engineering, Procurement and Construction Business ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 5

Similar threads

Top Bottom