Search the Elsmar Cove!
**Search ALL of** with DuckDuckGo Especially for content not in the forum
Such as files in the Cove "Members" Directory

Purchasing 4.6 - Statement on purchase orders: QS-9000 compliance preferred



I just recently went through a surveillance audit and received a nonconformity for the following statement on our purchase orders. QS-9000 compliance preferred. We are a small company and I knew we could not back up a statement that said, QS-9000 required. When I asked the auditor what was the middle ground between these two statements, he could not answer. Any suggestions?


Captain Nice
Staff member
More details please. There is no prohibition against placing that statement on your PO.

I can only guess the auditor is thinking it does not adequately state requirements.

Christian Lupo

I think Mark is correct, the auditor must have felt that you did not meet the intent of the standard. The auditor probably had the subcontractor development subclause in mind, the part that requires you to use part one of QS-9000 to develop your subcontractors. A statement on a PO does not meet the intent of the standard.

Requiring PPAP or certain parts of PPAp from your subcontractors is a step in the right direction and may be all you need to do. It's hard to say without all the details.


Captain Nice
Staff member
On a PO you place your critical (and other) requirements. Many companies include type and extent of control (we can audit you when/if we want and such) as well as things like (if it IS a requirement) ISO9001 registration required. And things like type of material, dimensions - what ever is appropriate.

You said the auditor could not tell you the difference in the two statements - s/he must be stupid to cite you when s/he couldn't rell you the difference - which is what the nonconformance was for. Really strange,

However - I will say that as I thought about this putting "QS9000 registration preferred" on the PO does not state a requirement - the word 'preferred' is the key. But then again, inclusion of the statement should not be prohibited as far as I can see. If QS9000 registration is *required*, 'preferred' will not do.
Top Bottom