Does ISO 9001 Require control C of C (Certificate of Conformance) Signature

[Al Rosen]

I guess my is not worth much.:mg:

 

[Wes Bucey]

I guess my is not worth much.:mg:

 

[Al Rosen]

well, we finally agree on something.

 

[Helmut Jilling]

The fact is that a blanket certificate of conformance signed by the janitor has the same value legally as one signed by the CEO, which is to say, no value whatsoever. It's long been established in commercial law that shipment against a valid purchase order is de facto "certification" that the PO (contract) requirements have been met.

Amen...a C of C isn't worth the time it takes to fax it. I have repeatedly encouraged clients to either get a C of A, or not bother with anything at all.

Now, while it pains me to use this phrase you all throw around so frequently, in this case it fits...show me the "shall," or show me objective evidence it isn't effective, or it's just an OFI...

 

[Sunday]

Thanks All!

Thanks for the additional perspective!

In an effort to keep things simple and practical, we have modified our vendor qualification survey to include a question regarding the certification and control of individuals signing CofAs.

We'll see how the auditors respond....

 

[pbro757]

I think a C of C is important because of the roll it plays for the customer. that is the documentation that they need to ensure conformity to all the different standards, (i.e. DFARs, RoHS, etc.) as well as the purchase order requirements. Our C of C and packing slip are the same document. It states all the applicable compliances as well as any Mil Spec requirements. I agree that in most cases it seems irrelevant but not all cases. When you are dealing with parts that could have huge ramifications (loss of life) based on the quality of the product, wouldn't you rather the customer be minding their p's and q's by verifying the requirements via a CofC?

In regards to the parent post, sounds like they just want the procedure for ensuring the "qualified personnel" to be defined. That could be as simple as adding a Purchase Order requirement to your POs. We dealt with a similar non-conformance a few years ago and that was sufficient.

 

[tono80]

So, even with parts that may affect loss of life (e.g. aerospace, medical), would you be considered a diligent buyer by selecting a supplier, or even grading them, based on whether they supply a CoC?

If you are purchasing components that have high human impact, you better have a great supplier quality and supplier auditing and selection system. Banking on CoCs is not only non-value, but also dangerous.

 

[normzone]

Re: Thanks All!

In an effort to keep things simple and practical, we have modified our vendor qualification survey to include a question regarding the certification and control of individuals signing CofAs.

Simple and practical ? Oh boy...I have seen a Terms and Conditions callout that required Quality Assurance management to be the person signing the C of C, but it was a rare instance.

In our organization, our C of C prints as default on the packing slip, and the guy doing the shipping signs it. No value added, but meets the usual customer requirement that a C of C accompany the shipment.

 

[kzachawk]

I know this is after the fact however for educations sake, lets look at the non-conformance. It was written against the ISO requirement 7.4.2 (not the procedures of the company being audited), What is left out of this conversation is the severity of the risk of the product being supplied. That would determine the argument with any auditor as to the validation of the finding they had written. If the supplied product is not significant and poses no severe risk, then the auditors position is most likely not valid, However if the product is for medical devices or aircraft then defining certification expectations, might be in order.