Eagle Registrations and CwC Registrar - I no longer recommend either.

[Marc]

I have hesitated to post this, but I have been getting more and more negative feedback.

I no longer recommend Eagle Registrations (Dayton, Ohio) or CwC Registrar (Cincinnati, Ohio).

I apologise to those who in the past have taken my recommendation over the years and contracted with either company. Technically Eagle has purchased CwC, as I understand it, and is trying to charge a significant 'change over fee'. One former client of mine recently wrote "Eagle is now wanting to hit us with $1225 in application and transfer fees in addition to the normal $1500 for the surveilance audit. I am feeling a bit bent over about it since we did not request any such change."

There is much more to all of this than what I'm posting here but I will not go into details because I don't want to end up in a legal pissing match with Chris Shillito. I am simply stating my opinion.

Bottom line - My advice is to avoid Eagle Registrations.

 

[AllanJ]

The whole matter about registrars is a thorny one.

I am sure most of the "covers" and others have got their horror stories about registrar performance, costs and effectiveness. Indeed, other threads have or are discussing the issue about value for money.

But, one can be confronted by a professional dilemma.

Last year I was assisting a client with its business improvement program. As part of that exercise, I was asked to look at one of the client's factories. It was registered to ISO 9001:1994 and needed to update to the 2K version.

When looking into various business systems and the matter of avoidable costs, I naturally looked at supply chain management (among other things). The firm had never visited any of its suppliers (key or otherwise), had no records of any supplier evaluation beyond a one page questionnaire that had been sent out in 1997; did not track supplier defects; did not demand any C/A for problem supplies and so forth. Yet, it had been assessed by its registrar on a 6 monthly basis since first becoming "certified". Similar situations were extant in the control of the manufacturing processes and so forth: even a rookie familiar only with the typical "docs and stickers" types of audit would have found problems immediately.


I felt the registrar's pure incompetence should be reported but, because of the strict non-disclosure clause of my contract could not do so.

All I can do is to advise other clients along the lines of "While XXX registrar in one possibility, perhaps you might wish to revisit your decision, and consider the level of service others may offer." And, only on an off the record basis state, "I would not go near them!" without breaching those strictures about client confidentiality.

 

[Marc]

Yes - I understand. I made this post because it goes beyond the 'usual' complaints. What I cited above was just the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back.

I was on the phone this morning with a client who was complaining that their registrar (not Eagle) would not accept a root cause on several corrective actions. I asked what they were, etc. And I explained I wouldn't take them as root causes either. So yes - There are complaints and there are complaints.

My 'problem' is that, as the old timers here know, I never specifically recommended a registrar. However, I did provide a listing of those I felt were 'good' in my opinion. For years I included Eagle Registrations on my recommendations list and, because they were small (I'm a sucker for the underdog) after a conversation with Roland Kelly (who I believe is no longer associated with Eagle Registrations) I did push Eagle in my verbal recommendations discussions with clients.

Of the registrars on the list I gave clients, I have to date heard very few valid (my opinion) complaints - except for - Guess Who.

There is more to it than this but as I mentioned I'm not going to get into a legal squabble. Some of it is personal and some of it is what I know about Eagle on the inside. I am just letting people know that while I did recommend Eagle Registrations I emphatically no longer do.

NOTE: Roland Kelly is one heck of a nice guy and this has absolutely nothing to do with him. I mentioned Roland only because at that time he was involved with Eagle and had it not been for our discussion I would not have included Eagle on my 'recommended' list.

 

[Wes Bucey]

Yes - I understand. I made this post because it goes beyond the 'usual' complaints. What I cited above was just the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back.

I was on the phone this morning with a client who was complaining that their registrar (not Eagle) would not accept a root cause on several corrective actions. I asked what they were, etc. And I explained I wouldn't take them as root causes either. So yes - There are complaints and there are complaints.

My 'problem' is that, as the old timers here know, I never specifically recommended a registrar. However, I did provide a listing of those I felt were 'good' in my opinion. For years I included Eagle Registrations on my recommendations list and, because they were small (I'm a sucker for the underdog) after a conversation with Roland Kelly (who I believe is no longer associated with Eagle Registrations) I did push Eagle in my verbal recommendations discussions with clients.

Of the registrars on the list I gave clients, I have to date heard very few valid (my opinion) complaints - except for - Guess Who.

There is more to it than this but as I mentioned I'm not going to get into a legal squabble. Some of it is personal and some of it is what I know about Eagle on the inside. I am just letting people know that while I did recommend Eagle Registrations I emphatically no longer do.

NOTE: Roland Kelly is one heck of a nice guy and this has absolutely nothing to do with him. I mentioned Roland only because at that time he was involved with Eagle and had it not been for our discussion I would not have included Eagle on my 'recommended' list.

In my opinion (personal, not legal), anyone has the right to state an opinion, backed by an explanation of the circumstances leading to the opinion, regarding the relative value of doing business with an organization.

The key is including the circumstances which lead you to the opinion. With that information, the target of the opinion can

• challenge the opinion,
• give his explanation of the circumstances,
• change his way of doing business and invite you back for another try, or
• just steal away like a thief in the night.

Recently, we had an issue where one Cove poster linked to a RAB report removing registration powers from a registrar. At the time, we had no details. Eventually, a principal from the Registrar came to the Cove and gave her side of the story. It seemed to me everyone here was satisfied with the explanation.

Thus said, it is important to note that Eagle certainly has the right to post its side of the issue here and let Covers decide which side of the issue is more convincing.

In summary - I ignore anyone who says, "X automobiles are crap." with no further explanation.

I pay a lot more attention when a guy says, "I bought a 2004 X automobile and the windshield and trunk leak water, but dealer and manufacturer refuse to acknowledge the problem and won't accept responsibility."

 

[Marc]

Thus said, it is important to note that Eagle certainly has the right to post its side of the issue here and let Covers decide which side of the issue is more convincing

By all means. But because I cannot discuss privilaged information I cannot go into details. If they want to, that's fine and I can respond from there.

At this point this is simply a public notice to those who may have one of my old recommendation sheets, for example, that my position has changed.

 

[terryd]

EAGLE and CwC Registrar

After reading this posting, I feel that there has been a misunderstanding
that needs to be corrected about the relationship between EAGLE Registrations and CwC Registrar. CwC Registrar decided to cease operations as a result of many of its clients' customers requiring them to attain
accreditation, which we did not offer. CwC Registrar was not purchased by any Registrar.
As the former president of CwC Registrar, I recommended EAGLE Registrations to my former clients, because they were a local registrar and would not be charging my ex-clients travel, hotel and airfare as out-of-state registrars do. I had observed some of their auditors in the past and decided they could offer the highest quality services at the best value. As a result, all registrars accepting these clients would be within their rights to charge a transfer fee for a new client as part of the integration of the former registrar's files. Over a three year period I don't think my ex clients will find a great deal of difference in the fees charged byCwC and EAGLE for similar services.
Marc, before publishing one side of a story it is incumbent on you to try to get the other. Although my e mail has changed, you still had my telephone/fax numbers.

Terry Dipple FIQA, MASQ

 

[Marc]

What I posted was because of complaints I have received. These forums are open forums and you have been welcome to comment, and you have.

As to the 'right' of a registrar to charge a 'transfer' fee, I do not dispute that. A registrar has a 'right' to charge anything they want to charge whether it be travel, meals, tips, a 'brokers' fee or a 'nice guy' fee. It's up to the hiring company to decide whether they want to pay those 'fees'.

Personally I wouldn't pay a 'transfer' fee. I'd look for another registrar.

As to whether CwC was sold or not, my understanding is CwC essentially transferred the client list to Eagle and you recommended Eagle to those clients. I also understand, from those unhgappy clients who have spoken to me, part of that agreement was that Eagle utilize you as an auditor.

I still do not recommend Eagle Registrations and apologise to those whom I did recommend to Eagle in the past.

 

[ISO Druid]

Hi Marc:
Thanks for the head's up on your advice (your opinion based on fact) - "My advice is to avoid Eagle Registrations."
Shame since they had such high marks (scuse the pun) in Quality Digest's "Rate the Registrars".
There are very few resources, in my opinion, in the way of fully and objectively evaluating the services and performance of a registrar, especially since Quality Digest ceased the ratings, apparently they told me because of a lack of interest (?). I respect Quality Digest and encourage them, as well as Elsmar (thanks Marc) to bring forth candid facts and reviews and comments and opinions about registrar performance and conduct. It helps one make a more educated decision in registrar selection. And, granted, it may be one or two rotten apples that tarnish an organization's reputation.
Perhaps one day Elsmar may be able to perform such an objective poll?
By the way ... positive feedback from a relative in CA ... their company is happy with TUV Essen. Found that the auditor was objective and helpful (not consulting) ... a value add.

 

[Marc]

My understanding is the Quality Digest evaluations stopped because of Eagle. If you read the 2001 rating, you will see they note in it that Eagle did a 'push' poll. As I understand it, there were so many complaints from the other companies that QD simply quit doing a rating. I'm not convinced it was a 'lack of interest' issue.

As to rating registrars, people can read through the threads here and get some ideas from those that name their registrars. But I doubt there will ever be a rating anywhere near as compprehensive as the one QD used to do.

 

[ISO Druid]

Hi Marc:
I had heard the same ... that other registrars had complained ... especially those with low ratings. Some questioned the source of the data ... ironic since had an organization been audited it would have been required by the registrar to do a full root cause analysis and corrective action. Appears that what is good for the goose is not applicable to the gander. I was not aware that Eagle had done a push poll - that's sleazy. But again, QD indicated only that it was a lack of interest issue. On 11/20/02 QD (Dirk Dusharme) wrote to my query:
"No, the messenger was not shot, although many flaming arrows were fired in our direction, hot oil poured over the parapets, trebuchets firing dead cows over the castle walls, etc.

Actually, it was because there was a perceived lack of interest from the readers after the third one. I say perceived, because after we didn't do the survey this year THEN we got a lot of letters.

Also, we felt it was important to the industry to see where the ISO 9000:2000 transition was at. I seemed appropriate to poll all registered companies to see where they were at in the process. It was interesting, although not as interesting as the customer satisfaction survey.

Thanks
Dirk"

Cheers and Happy Thanksgiving


Hey Scully ... is there any truth to the rumor that the Mob is running ISO?