ISO/TS 16949 Pre-Audit Requirement

[Crimpshrine13]

Did the CB send you in advance this form? It is a common practice they accomplish to together with indication of indices, trend of RMAs, list of automitive customers etc. etc. as usual.

The form was sent to me by the auditor in advance along with the questionnaire that I used to receive before the audit, but this was the very first time the form Annex 1.1 was sent to me. This was never requested in the past. There was also no instruction on how to fill it out, it just said to complete it, so I filled out the questionnaire without Annex 1.1 filled out and sent back to the auditor, and he had no response. A few weeks later, he sent me the audit timeline schedule with all the processes being audited, apparently knowing our processes.

When the auditor arrived, that was when I finally understood why he wanted it filled out, so I did fill it out with the processes on the left column and check marked the elements (he let me fill it out), but then he rejected the one I gave him because I checked mark on "too many elements." Nowhere on the questionnaire had instruction on how to fill this out, and nowhere on Automotive Certification Scheme for ISO/TS 16949, Rules for Achieving and Maintaining IATF Recognition, Fourth Edition says how to fill this sheet out, and the auditor rejected the one that I filled out because it had "check marks on too many elements per each process."

What I was looking into is, whether this is a common practice or not, could the auditor write up 2 major NCs based on this? Like I said initially, nowhere on Automotive Certification Scheme for ISO/TS 16949, Rules for Achieving and Maintaining IATF Recognition, Fourth Edition says that this is a mandatory requirement for clients, but it does say that the auditor must complete the audit and report per Annex 1.1 to cover everything. When I challenged the auditors boss during the conference call about this, where I can see it in the book that says that this Annex 1.1 is a mandatory requirement by the client, and he could not direct me to the paragraph in the book, but kept saying that it's in the client's responsibility prior to audit.

It is the client's responsibility to provide information on things such as the previous customer complaints, corrective actions, performance analysis, processes, QMS and procedures, but the book does not mention for the client to provide Annex 1.1 prior to audit. I do not believe the auditor has the basis to write 2 major NCs and call off the audit. If he did, I want to see some explanation to us that is convincing.

 

[AndyN]

This is much like the AS "PEAR" form and is to be completed by the AUDITOR - NOT the client! May I suggest that, if the auditor got it wrong and their management supported them in their error, you should transfer - as soon as possible!

 

[Crimpshrine13]

This is much like the AS "PEAR" form and is to be completed by the AUDITOR - NOT the client! May I suggest that, if the auditor got it wrong and their management supported them in their error, you should transfer - as soon as possible!

That's how we read it, too! It is the form to be used by the auditor to complete the audit report, not the client.

To my surprise, the report that was submitted is currently under a review by their upper management as of today. I did not say anything about transferring or not, I just told them last week and yesterday that I could not respond immediately on what to do about the current situation, but I think it got them speculating things and now they are taking this as a serious issue.

I'm just waiting on the result of the review. At the same time, I requested that although it should not be the mandatory requirement for the clients to fill out Annex 1.1, if this registrar wanted us to complete it for them, they should provide the instruction on how to fill this thing out because nowhere on the book explains how to fill it out. The auditor rejected the one I filled out while he was here because I put check marks on too many elements.

As far as the transfer is concerned, if the same registrar can offer sooner dates with a different auditor, it may be worthwhile staying with the same registrar for now than having the certificate expire or go from stage 1 with transferred registrar. It really depends on how they are going to review this report and take our complaint seriously. We'll have to see.

Thank you all for your insights and comments.

 

[Reg Morrison]

To my surprise, the report that was submitted is currently under a review by their upper management as of today.

As I said, miracles happen when someone in the registrar is a cove voyeur and recognizes the situation. A lot of registrar lurkers here. And auditors too. Maybe it will be a complete miracle, the two major NC's rescinded, a new auditor assigned and a happy ending.

 

[Ron-T]

Could you give an update on if/how the issue was resolved?

 

[Crimpshrine13]

Well, after all these stuff happened, the registrar reviewed the case, decided to invalidate the audit because there was no opening or closing meeting. I do not know exactly what was discussed behind the wall, and I will never know, but that was the only way the client relations manager could make things work out. They invalidated it, rescheduled the audit 2 weeks later, then the second audit worked out fine. We were charged for the travel expense for the first auditor, but that was part of the whole negotiation. Technically, if they invalidated the audit, I didn't think we had to pay for the travel expense either, but I didn't want to push them either. My initial thought was that we would be having to pay for this audit, then for another audit as a followup, but since they invalidated the audit, the second audit was not a followup, so they charged us the travel expense of the first auditor and the fee for the second audit, and that was the end of the story. The second audit resulted in 2 minor NCs, which we're working on corrective actions right now. But, the second auditor had a different opinion about the Annex 1.1. When he came in, he did have us re-do it anyway, but from the beginning, he said that even if it was not filled out properly (in a way they wanted it to be filled out), it should not be a show-stopper, he said. I still believe that the first audit should have not resulted in 2 major NCs. On a positive side, I take it as that we didn't have to be stuck with the first auditor for the next two years, so in a way, I was glad.

 

[Bjourne]

In the first place it is the registrar that has erred in this. Your further actions (you got them scared or perhaps have considered that what happened may affect how they are perceived) prompted them to "invalidate" and then "re-audit". Good for your team!

 

[LUV-d-4UM]

At recent 3rd-party audit, an auditor said that we had to have Annex 1.1 matrix form (page 55 of Automotive Certification Scheme for ISO/TS 16949, Rules for Achieving and Maintaining IATF Recognition, Fourth Edition) turned in prior to the audit. It wasn't there, but we had our processes laid out on our flow chart showing each processes interacting with other processes, so it was not that we did not identify our processes, but the auditor said that because Annex 1.1 form was missing, the audit could not be continued, and wrote up a major NC.

Nowhere on Automotive Certification Scheme for ISO/TS 16949, Rules for Achieving and Maintaining IATF Recognition, Fourth Edition mandates this Annex 1.1 filled out by client, but it only says that the auditor must make sure that all processes must be audited and reported per Annex 1.1 form.

While I accept the fact that I did not turn in the form prior to the audit, I do not understand why this could have been a major NC, since we have identified our processes (not on the matrix sheet, but in a different format), and that it was not a total absence from our quality system. Because all the processes have been identified, I do not believe this is a complete system failure and why this can be a major NC?

Does anyone have any idea?

OMG! I might have escaped this issue. During the last TS16949 audit, the auditor was auditing our IA process. I do not know all the IATF rules but I included a matrix similar to page 55 of this rule book showing that the processes were all covered by all the clauses of the TS standard. I think I got that format from Elmar cove. Thank you Consultants, and super moderators for making it easier for me to pass this audit and prevent any appeals and lawsuit.

 

[LUV-d-4UM]

Praise the Lord Elsmar Cove is back!!!!!!