ISO/IEC Guide 62 (QMS) & 66 (EMS) has been changed - 3 Year Reassessment Required

gpainter

Quite Involved in Discussions
Just received a letter from our registrar. The just of it was that ISO/IEC Guide 62 (QMS) & 66 (EMS) has been changed and effective July of 2002, a reassessment will be required every 3 years. More $$$$$$$$. Who was that in a previous thread wanted to start a registration company?????
 
R

Roger Eastin

I am not sure what you mean by "reassessment" but if you mean re-registration, that's pretty standard now. However, by the looks of your post, you probably mean that the registrar wants to do a complete and full-blown (including doc review) registration-type audit every 3 years. That's the first that I've heard of that, especially based on a change to ISO guide 62!
 

gpainter

Quite Involved in Discussions
From my understanding it is a reassessment of the entire system. This applies to ISO 94, 00 and 14001.
 
D

db

Reassessments

Historically, you could meet this requirement by scheduling surveillance audits so that the entire system is audited within 3 years. I’ve not heard anything from any of my registrar contacts that this has changed. I will ask them at the next opportunities.
 

gpainter

Quite Involved in Discussions
Yes db, thats what we had been doing. I had heard in May that some changes were coming. This is a result of the ISO/IAF teaming to crack down to clean up registration process?
 
D

db

Don't scare me like that

I hope you are not referring to the Internal Automotive Task Force, the mere thought of the IATF getting involved in ISO stuff frightens me to no end!:eek:
 

Randy

Super Moderator
I just finished auditing a full system reassessment after the initial 3 year cycle under 14K.
 
D

db

I know, but I have been doing a lot with 16949 lately, and I misread it the first time. It still is a scarey thought.
 
R

Roger Eastin

Like db, I have not heard that a full-blown reassessment is necessary. They may jumping the gun a little bit. Again, like db, I think the norm is to consider the reassessement like another surveillance if the other surveillance audits have covered the other elements of the standard. It doesn't make much sense to me to do the full-blown reassessment if the entire system has been checked over the 3 year period. This seems like unnecessary money paid to the registrar for little added value.
 
Top Bottom