QS Sanctioned Intrepretations of May 29, 2001

[Jaycee]

Hello Folks,

Are you aware that there is a new QS sanctioned interpretation - released on 29th May 2001! You can download it from www.qs-9000.org.

And everybody says that QS is dead!!!!

 

[Spaceman Spiff]

Jaycee, living in central Florida, even the old junkers in someone's front yard gets washed once in a while.

 

[Laura M]

Thanks!

Ya know - I just checked earlier last week, so I wasn't likely to find this out for a while. Score another one for "the cove."

 

[Sam]

Now that we have had a chance to read the change, it will be interesting to hear the input.

Does this mean that every Mfg in the country that supplies to the automotive industry must become ISO certified within the next 18 months? Or am I over reacting?

" “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.

Note: The second note under 4.6.2.1 referencing “prioritization” does not negate this requirement."

 

[Marc]

Originally posted by Laura M:

Score another one for "the cove."

Score one for Jaycee! Credit where credit is due!

 

[Roger Eastin]

I read the sanctioned interpretations and it sure looks like the B3 are asking for 3rd party certification to ISO9001 for subcontractors. I suppose "certification by an accredited certification body" = 3rd party registration? If this is so, then 18 months is not much time!! This sounds like the same sort of requirement as labs being accredited to Guide 25! Look how the B3 had to back-track on that one!

 

[BigEasy Chemist]

Anyone want to venture a guess as to how many tiers down this 'should' (in the eyes of a registrar) go?

 

[Brad]

I wonder what a company will do if their "customer approved" subcontractor says no. On one hand, they must use that subcontractor, on the other their subcontractor won't participate!

 

[Al Dyer]

Originally posted by Brad:
I wonder what a company will do if their "customer approved" subcontractor says no. On one hand, they must use that subcontractor, on the other their subcontractor won't participate!

Brad:

Would not a "customer approved" supplier already be registered?

Communication and Documention of the situation.

ASD...

 

[Marc]

Also see: http://Elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?threadid=465