QS-9000 Interpretations - July 2002 and the Official Announcement of the Death of QS

Howard Atkins

Forum Administrator
Leader
Admin
The interpretations have been "updated" and on the last page there is the offical announcement of the death of QS
 

Attachments

  • 07-01-02final.pdf
    54.7 KB · Views: 984
R

Randy Stewart

Thanks Dave,
I'll talk that over with our registrar and see how they take it.
 
D

db

Dave, how does you quote of QS-9000 4.6.2.1 relate? I see that as meaning nothing more than if you use a subcontractor on the customer mandated list, YOU are still responsible for quality. I had one client that had an unacceptable "required" subcontractor. It took three years for them to get the subcontractor removed. The entire three years they were on continual probation.

As far as Stew's situation. If they buy the product from their customer, then I think the rule applys. 2nd party audits might not be required IF the customer/subcontractor meets the registration requirements.

I don't know of any QS requirement for you to conduct a 2nd party audit on suppliers who aren't ISO accredited.

Dave the Sanctioned interpretation gives this an either/or:

“Goal of subcontractor compliance” requires subcontractors to achieve compliance within a defined period of time not to exceed 18 months from the effective date of this sanctioned interpretation. Minimum subcontractor compliance shall be certification by an accredited certification body to a current version of the ISO 9000 Quality Management Series of Standards, excluding ISO 9003; plus any requirements specified by the customer. Assessment by an OEM or an OEM-approved second party will be recognized as meeting subcontractor compliance requirements to 4.6.2.1.

If they are ISO 9001 or 9002, then 2nd party audits are not required. TS allows for a waiver, QS does not. I attached some additional information in an earlier post that gives more information.
 
D

D.Scott

Dave - My point is - you have a third option - don't buy from them. You are not required to audit them. In Stew's case, he is stuck with using the supplier but I still think there may be a conflict.

I agree with you on 4.6.2.1 - That was my point - you are still responsible for the quality. You can't just say "I was directed there by the customer so I don't have to worry about their quality"

Dave
 
D

db

When does it apply?

In Stew's case...

The subcontractor (customer) is not registered to anything. So, if the customer (subcontractor) is not registered, does any of QS rules apply to product being sent to that customer? Can Stew formally exclude that customer's products from the QMS scope? Remember, the customer is not QS.

Wrench....Stew, does this unregistered customer require you to be QS? Where does your QS registration requirement come from?

Can Stew find a way out of his deli mina? Will the auditor buy his story? Will Luke and Laura show up again? Tune in next time for “As the QMS turns”
 
D

D.Scott

Hmmmm - I guess I mis-read some of this. My assumption was that Stew was buying from his parent company (unregistered), making a product and selling to another customer (Big 3). The Big 3 customer is the one requiring him to buy from the parent company and the C-9 ruling would require him to ensure the subcontractor (parent company) is registered (or 2nd party audited).

I guess I am getting too old to follow these complicated plots. Every time I figure out what is happening in one of the Mission Impossible movies, someone pulls their face off and I have to start thinking all over again. Wow, does that remind me of our registrar!!!!!!

Dave
 
R

Randy Stewart

You're both right.
Case 1) Parent company (working with them is like trying to teach a pig to whistle - hint, hint!!) directed us to use a supplier of door reenforcements (inverted delta parts) that is not registered to QS or ISO and is not planning to becoming registered.

Case 2) We buy stampings from one of our Parent Companies stamping plants, restrike it, add an assembly to it and sell it to one of our Parent Companies assembly plants in Brazil. The stamping plant isn't registered or compliant and neither is the assembly plant.

Our registrar said we should not incur costs for the 2nd party audit on behalf of our customer. So here we sit, waiting for the judges decision.

:bonk: :ko:
 

Marc

Fully vaccinated are you?
Leader
Continued from last years interpretations: (broken link removed)
 

xfngrs

Quite Involved in Discussions
Subcontractor work around?

My manager wants to propose to our OEM's that we will internally PPAP all new parts from our non QS9000 vendors....

Otherwise, if we have to switch vendors on all of them we'll have to redo verification/validation testing, etc.

What do you think an OEM's response would be to this proposal?
Or your third party auditors response to this?:frust:
 
Top Bottom