Does a distributor have to have an ISO 9001 cert to sell to a TS 16949 company?

[Bag Boy]

In the TS2 verbiage, I know that it is stated that suppliers must have at a minimum an ISO 9001 certification. We are a small company that cannot purchase from steel mills direct. If a distributor of raw material that does not manufacture (in my case bar stock) has no certification at all, but the mills they distribute for do have ISO and QS certifications, does this qualify as my supplier having a cert or does my distributor have to have one as well?

Thank you in advance!

Bag Boy

 

[RoxaneB]

Sorry for being off topic here, but I'm curious as I work for a steel mill. Why can you not purchase directly from the mills?

 

[Bag Boy]

There are minimum quantities we must purchase, and our cash flow situation does not allow us to carry that much inventory that the minimum quantity would require (so I'm told).

 

[Mike Smith]

Distributor Certification

We are in much the same situation as you. We can not buy directly from the manufacturer because of minimum quantities. We discussed this in another thread titled:
Using Certified Results from your Supplier - Chemistry report and Tensile results.

I did call my registrar and they said yes, distributors must be at least ISO9001: 2000 certified as they are a supplier to the organization.
I would also like to hear more opinions on this, as I expected my registrar to say this. It keeps them in business.

 

[Sidney Vianna]

I would also like to hear more opinions on this, as I expected my registrar to say this. It keeps them in business.

Mike, this is no opinion. This is a requirement of the STANDARD. Not the Registrar.

Check TS paragraph 7.4.1.2

 

[Jan T]

If you refer to the IATF guidance to ISO/TS 16949:2002 para 7.4.1.2 states that the supplier refers to sites where production and/or service parts specified by the customer are manufactured. It then refers you to the ISO/TS 16949:2002 para 3.1.6
manufacturing
process of making or fabricating
- prodcution materials
- production or service parts
- assemblies, or
- heat treating, welding, painting, plating or other finishing services

Jan

 

[Sidney Vianna]

If you refer to the IATF guidance to ISO/TS 16949:2002 para 7.4.1.2 states that the supplier refers to sites where production and/or service parts specified by the customer are manufactured. It then refers you to the ISO/TS 16949:2002 para 3.1.6
manufacturing
process of making or fabricating
- prodcution materials
- production or service parts
- assemblies, or
- heat treating, welding, painting, plating or other finishing services

Jan

You are correct. I was wrong. From what we read in (broken link removed) it seems that distributors (not doing any value added work) would be exempted from the requirement of being certified.

 

[Howard Atkins]

We have been having a similar discussion here.
https://elsmar.com/elsmarqualityforum/threads/8445/

The distributor can not be TS but must be ISO 9001

This is a problem in a lot of companies there is a difference between supplier and manufacturer
Some manufacturers will be suppliers, but as in this case not all suppliers are manufacturers.
What really matters is the manufacturer and according to the standard he does not have to be registered to any thing!!!!!

This appears to be a hole where by the standard writers from the ultra large companies think about their way of doing things and not the logic of the standard.

I don't think that they realized this difference

 

[Wes Bucey]

We have been having a similar discussion here.
https://elsmar.com/elsmarqualityforum/threads/8445/

The distributor can not be TS but must be ISO 9001

This is a problem in a lot of companies there is a difference between supplier and manufacturer
Some manufacturers will be suppliers, but as in this case not all suppliers are manufacturers.
What really matters is the manufacturer and according to the standard he does not have to be registered to any thing!!!!!

This appears to be a hole where by the standard writers from the ultra large companies think about their way of doing things and not the logic of the standard.

I don't think that they realized this difference

That seems like an excellent insight to me. Good job, Howard!

How would you propose our original poster proceed? Should he just get his cooperating supplier to get certified to ISO9k2k? If he is too small for a mill-size purchase, he may still represent a significant annual sale to the distributor. Would the subtle threat of "register or we will find a distributor who is already registered" work in this case?

After all, OEMs already use such coercion against his company, why not have a little bit of similar "persuasion" to get a distributor who fits the bill?

 

[Sam]

We have been having a similar discussion here.
https://elsmar.com/elsmarqualityforum/threads/8445/

The distributor can not be TS but must be ISO 9001

This is a problem in a lot of companies there is a difference between supplier and manufacturer
Some manufacturers will be suppliers, but as in this case not all suppliers are manufacturers.
What really matters is the manufacturer and according to the standard he does not have to be registered to any thing!!!!!

This appears to be a hole where by the standard writers from the ultra large companies think about their way of doing things and not the logic of the standard.

I don't think that they realized this difference

Howard,
If the term supplier is meant to mean "where production and/or service parts are mnufactured", why would a distributor even need ISO9K2K?