The interpretations have been "updated" and on the last page there is the offical announcement of the death of QS
QS-9000 Interpretations - July 2002 and the Official Announcement of the Death of QS
- Thread starter Howard Atkins
- Start date
Elsmar Forum Sponsor
R
Randy Stewart
Thanks Dave,
I'll talk that over with our registrar and see how they take it.
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.
Dave the Sanctioned interpretation gives this an either/or:
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.
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.
Dave the Sanctioned interpretation gives this an either/or:
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
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”
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
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.
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.
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?
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?
Similar threads
