Search the Elsmar Cove!
**Search ALL of Elsmar.com** with DuckDuckGo including content not in the forum - Search results with No ads.

IATF 16949 Clause 8.4.2.3 - Justification for non-certified suppliers

#1
How would you justify to an auditor using a supplier who is not ISO 9001 nor IATF 16949 certified? In what scenarios would this be allowed (other than the directly mentioned ones you have customer approval to use)?

TYIA!
 

Johnnymo62

Haste Makes Waste
#3
I think a robust receiving inspection of that suppliers parts can be helpful.
Your company auditing theirs on a regular basis.
Good corrective actions from them for any parts, OTD or other issues caused by your supplier.
If they are the only supplier that makes the parts you get from them will help.

Good Luck.
 

Howard Atkins

Forum Administrator
Staff member
Admin
#4
Certain customers allow you to have non ISO 9001 certified suppliers
Check your customer CSRs-- these do not have to be individually approved suppliers:

Ford:
Sub-tier supplier quality management system requirements
• Where a sub-tier supplier is not third party certified to ISO/TS 16949, Ford reserves the right to require the organization to ensure sub-tier supplier
compliance with the “Minimum Automotive Quality Management System Requirements for Sub-tier Suppliers” available through
International Automotive Task Force – The IATF is an "ad hoc" group of automotive manufacturers and their respective trade associations, formed to provide improved quality products to automotive customers worldwide.. Evidence of effectiveness shall be based on having a defined process and implementation of the process including measurement and monitoring.
• Where any organization has sub-tier suppliers not third party certified to ISO/TS 16949, the organization is encouraged to require sub-tier supplier
compliance with the “Minimum Automotive Quality Management System Requirements for Sub-tier Suppliers”.
GM
When a supplier to an organization is so small as to not have adequate resources to develop a system according to IATF 16949:2016 or ISO 9001:2015, certain specified elements may be waived by the organization. The organization shall have decision criteria for determining “specially designated small suppliers”. Such decision criteria shall be in writing and applied consistently in the application of this provision. The existence and use of such decision criteria shall be verified by 3rd party auditors.
NOTE 1: ISO 9001:2015 and IATF 16949:2016 Minimum Automotive Quality Management System Requirements for Sub-Tier Suppliers contain fundamental quality management system requirements of value to any size of provider of production materials, production, service, and accessory parts, or heat treating, plating, painting or other finishing services. There are a number of methods to implement a compliant system, so it is recognized that a simpler Quality Management System approach could be used for the smaller suppliers of organizations to which IATF 16949:2016 clause 8.4.2.3 applies.
NOTE 2: “Small” may also refer to volume supplied to automotive.
All the reasons that others have given are excuses and could be used to mitigate from a major to a minor but none would be acceptable as per the standards as this says shall

Using a risk-based model, the organization shall define a minimum acceptable level of QMS development and a target QMS development level for each supplier.​
Unless otherwise authorized by the customer a QMS certified to ISO 9001 is the initial minimum acceptable level of development. Based on current performance and the potential risk to the customer, the objective is to move suppliers through the following QMS development​
progression:​
 
#5
The last part of Howards post is the most important one. What you do to protect your customer from potential nonconformances from this supplier will be the critical factor.

An option which nobody else has suggested yet is (if it's feasible, and if you want to pursue it) to seek approval from your customer to use this supplier 'as-is'.
 

Ninja

Looking for Reality
Trusted
#6
FWIW...it is a common thing. Not the majority I think, but common all the same.

My company has no formally documented QMS, and no formally documented processes...I'm just too small to justify doing it.
All the same, I sell to quite a few Automotive, aerospace, medical and governmental agencies on a weekly if not daily basis.
They all have to answer that same question to their auditors...and about once a year I get a questionnaire from someone looking for answers to feed an auditor.

My advice for any question from an auditor...just tell the truth, plain and simple.
You have a reason for buying from a non-ISO house...a reason you are comfortable with, else you would change suppliers.
It is YOUR reasoning (risk/reward/responsibility) that makes you OK with continuing...share that...don't try to invent some other reason. K.I.S.S.
 
#7
If you are being audited, you need to have approval from your customers to use non-iso certified suppliers. That much is clear. That approval can come from customer specific requirements (such as GM above) or a direct "sure go ahead an use them" letter from the customer. Some auditors are better than others -- we have had some accept an old email regarding a small legacy supplier, and others push back on it as not being "official." The justification really needs to be given to your customer so they will approve their use. Good luck.
 

Ninja

Looking for Reality
Trusted
#8
If you are being audited, you need to have approval from your customers to use non-iso certified suppliers. That much is clear.
That is not my experience, having supplied 4 Tier I & Tier II automakers...not a lot, but more than one...

With a customer auditor? Sure, you need customer signoff, we got ours from the auditor himself.
With a contract internal auditor...it took a lot of discussion, but it passed.
With a CB auditor for surveillance audits? We had incoming validation of parts purchased, from a non-cert company with no issues from the auditor.

Curiosity...can you reference the "shall" that makes it "clear" to you?
 
#9
That is not my experience, having supplied 4 Tier I & Tier II automakers...not a lot, but more than one...

With a customer auditor? Sure, you need customer signoff, we got ours from the auditor himself.
With a contract internal auditor...it took a lot of discussion, but it passed.
With a CB auditor for surveillance audits? We had incoming validation of parts purchased, from a non-cert company with no issues from the auditor.

Curiosity...can you reference the "shall" that makes it "clear" to you?
Sanctioned interpretation no. 8 with regard to 8.4.2.3: "Unless otherwise authorized by the customer, a QMS certified to ISO 9001 is the initial minimal acceptable level of development." The note further clarifies -- ISO compliance with second party audits, if authorized by the customer.

IATF 16949:2016 Sanctioned Interpretations (SIs) – International Automotive Task Force
 

Ninja

Looking for Reality
Trusted
#10
a QMS certified to ISO 9001 is the initial minimal acceptable level of development
Thanks...appreciated. I learned something.

Curiosity remains, however, as to why they would use the term "initial minimal acceptable level"...does that mean that "we asked them to be, they said no, so it isn't initial anymore and OK that they aren't" ? Probably not...just thinking out loud...
 
Top Bottom