Non UKAS certification bodies - reasons for their avoidance required...

[nomisd]

I need some advice.

I am currently going through an exercise checking all of the sub-contractors that we use for site works on our behalf. As part of this, I have asked for them if they have any certifications to provide us with evidence. One of them has sent us their ISO 9001 certificate. Only it is issued by a non-UKAS registered body, who on their website offer the "one stop shop" brand of certification where they will write all of the manuals and procedures then certify your system.

I have explained to the person responsible for the sub-contractors why this means, in my opinion, they are not ISO 9001 certified and have explained the reasons behind why I have reached this conclusion (not following ISO Guide 62, no independence between consultancy and certification) but he does not seem to be able to understand it.

"Is offering certificates without being UKAS registered illegal?" he asks me.

"No" I reply.

"So why can't we accept it as a certificate?" he retorts.

"Because they are getting their certificate from an organisation that does not follow the rules in the same why that the body who issues our ceretifcate does" I try desperately.

"So?" he comes back

And indeed so? I know why this is "wrong" but don't seem to be able to explain it to him. Does anybody have any advice for how I should put this over?

BTW I have been right through all the stuff in the Cove about non-accredtied registrars. Any help would be gretfully received........

 

[jmp4429]

Maybe you could compare it to hiring an employee who got his degree online from one of those diploma mill websites that says "No books! No exams! No studying!"

It's not illegal to get your cert from a certificate mill, but it doesn't mean squat either.

 

[Jim Wynne]

Here's a Quality Digest article on the subject: Accreditation: Don't Select a Registrar Without it.

 

[Wes Bucey]

I'd be interested in boss's response after he reads the article.

I'd also like to know whether the supplier in question meant to deceive by selecting the auditor he used or whether he was merely duped by the auditor and the supplier thinks he has a valid certificate equal to UKAS-accredited registrar's certificate.

There's also the question whether the supplier is worthwhile to keep despite the hokey certificate or whether he should be put in abeyance until he gets a certificate of registration from a UKAS-accredited registrar.

It would be a shame to punish a duped supplier who is otherwise good. Please keep us informed of what you ultimately decide to do.

 

[Cari Spears]

There's also the question whether the supplier is worthwhile to keep despite the hokey certificate or whether he should be put in abeyance until he gets a certificate of registration from a UKAS-accredited registrar.

It would be a shame to punish a duped supplier who is otherwise good. Please keep us informed of what you ultimately decide to do.

What do they supply? How long have they been a supplier? How is their performance to date?

Do you require ISO registration of all suppliers of their product/service?

FWIW - I'm the Purchasing Agent here; I do not require ISO registration of any of our suppliers. :mg:

 

[db]

Okay, on the other end, I offer a service called the Self-Declaration and Certification Assessment Center (SDCAC). This is a non-accredited service that only double-checks a company’s self-declaration or self-certification. They will not get a certificate; they get a “Letter of Participation” instead, based on maintaining certain metrics. I totally agree with Wes. If the supplier is trying to deceive you, by passing their certificate as “accredited”, then there is a problem. If they are using a non-accredited registrar because they want the unbiased eyes looking over their system, without the expense of a high-price registrar, then there may not be a problem.

The part I really don’t like is the comment: “Only it is issued by a non-UKAS registered body, who on their website offer the "one stop shop" brand of certification where they will write all of the manuals and procedures then certify your system.” To me, this sounds more like deception, than assistance.

 

[Howard Atkins]

Please remember that even though you are in the UK there can be registrars that have their accreditation from other bodies which are equally acceptable as UKAS
See hereINTERNATIONAL ACCREDITATION FORUM

For those involved in ISO/TS 16949 the issue is more important as their is a requirement for 3rd part registration by an accredited third part certification body (7.4.1.2) and I know of auditors that especially examine certificates and the scope of the registration bodies to ensure this.

And of course without impeaching UKAS see this thread

ISO 9002:2000 - I did not know it existed - Not to mention QS-9000:2000

 

[nomisd]

Thank you all for your input. Firstly, I want to clarify that I do not operate a “you must be 9001 certified if you want to work for us” type of system. I am a great believer in using a suppliers past history as a way of deciding if they are a suitable supplier. I think that this is a much better indicator of them as a company than a certificate. For the record, the supplier is a cabling company who puts network cabling in on our behalf.



My problem with this is more of a philosophical problem of the company in question insisting that they are ISO 9001 certified when in my (and I would assume many other people here) opinion they are not. What irks me is that people like us spend a lot of time running QMS’s to the spirit of the standard, badgering reluctant managers, producing documents everybody can use and understand, begging forgiveness of our auditor etc etc. Yet there are companies like the one in question who will offer certification without the pain – we’ll write it and certify it for you, no need to go through the hoops that BSI, BVQI, Lloyds et al will make you jump through; all the glory without the agony. WELL ITS WRONG. I have checked out the organisation that the certifying body is accredited to. It is not one of the non-UKAS accrediting bodies that hold equal status to UKAS.



Personally, I don’t think that the supplier in question is an innocent party in this. All of their paper work has the ISO 9001 logo of a reputable registrar on it. When they were questioned about this their reply was “They were our old certifying body and the paper work is old and we haven’t got round to changing it yet”. I have spoken to the reputable company and they have no record of the supplier ever knowing them. I’m very tempted to turn over the offending paper work to the registrar.



As I have said to the manager who has responsibility for the sub-contractors, I am not making any judgments on the company in questions QMS – for all I know it may be the best system known to man. My point is that we can not take accept the fact that this certificate that they have sent us is a valid ISO 9001 certificate. And to me, doing this knowingly makes me dubious of the way the company operates. Another thing that we asked all of the subbies to provide was details of their health and safety systems – I have to say that what was provided by company X doesn’t fill me with confidence.



I think that all I can do is offer my opinion and give the reasons why I have offered it. I can not make the manager in question stop using the subbie, I can just explain the way I see it. I have a meeting with the manager this morning – I’ll let you know what happens.

 

[Claes Gefvenberg]

Yet there are companies like the one in question who will offer certification without the pain – we’ll write it and certify it for you, no need to go through the hoops that BSI, BVQI, Lloyds et al will make you jump through; all the glory without the agony. WELL ITS WRONG.

Absolutley, no queston about it.

Personally, I don’t think that the supplier in question is an innocent party in this. All of their paper work has the ISO 9001 logo of a reputable registrar on it. When they were questioned about this their reply was “They were our old certifying body and the paper work is old and we haven’t got round to changing it yet”. I have spoken to the reputable company and they have no record of the supplier ever knowing them. I’m very tempted to turn over the offending paper work to the registrar.

Warning bells ringing all over the place, eh? If they are in fact bluffing about that previous registration one can only assume that they are fibbing about other things as well.

My point is that we can not take accept the fact that this certificate that they have sent us is a valid ISO 9001 certificate. And to me, doing this knowingly makes me dubious of the way the company operates. Another thing that we asked all of the subbies to provide was details of their health and safety systems – I have to say that what was provided by company X doesn’t fill me with confidence.

You can say that again. They do not seem trustworthy in any way. I would be wary too. Very wary. I would say that if you have to use them they have certainly earned a very sharp eyed visit.

I have a meeting with the manager this morning – I’ll let you know what happens.

Please do. This is very interesting.

/Claes

 

[Craig H.]

Assuming for a minute that the sub indeed has nothing but a "window dressing" certificate, and they knowingly have falsified a connection with a reputable registrar, I can only come to one conclusion.

That is, I would rather deal with someone who refuses to have anything to do with the ISO standard, but also refuses to try to feed my company a rather large baloney sandwich.

If the people at the sub in question are willing to go to the trouble of building such an elaborate ruse, what other tricks involving smoke and mirrors would they be willing to try? And, what happens when our customers' wheels start falling off?

Of course, I am not right there in the situation, but from the information supplied I would say its time to bail out, if possible.