Responsibilities between government owner and private subcontractor of a power plant seeking ISO 9001 certification

sunrizenew

Involved In Discussions
Dear friends

I have some questions regarding ISO 9001:2015, where there is a governmental body own a power planet station.

The station is operated by a subcontractor who hires stuff and do all the operation and maintenance activities and submit report to the owner.

The governmental body need to get ISO 9001 certificate

Now my questions:
There are some task required in the standard such "control of documents, internal audits, corrective action, monitoring of the performance ....etc."

Is it applicable that this procedure is written by the subcontractor stuff who is work in the station? And is it applicble that the subcontractor stuff participate in QMS activities such as monitoring the performance of QMS, risk and opportunitie activities ...etc?
 

Jen Kirley

Quality and Auditing Expert
Leader
Admin
Welcome to the Cove!

Yes it is permitted for subcontracted entities to develop and use their own processes for control of documents, internal audits, corrective actions etc. The outcomes are the responsibility of the contracting organization, so a program of oversight and surveillance seems reasonable so the outcomes will be favorable.
 

sunrizenew

Involved In Discussions
i didn't know if you understand me or not, i will repeat my question

the governmental body they will obtain ISO 9001 certificate and they only have two or three employees, and the power planet is powered by the contractor

and as per ISO 9001 the governmental body shall have procedure for document control and internal audit and management review ...etc

so is it applicable that
1. document control officer and document control process and distribution of documents as an example will be from the contractor side or it should be the governmental body responsibilities

because the standard always said the organization should do xxxxxx , so is it applicable that contractor do these jobs
 
Last edited:

Jen Kirley

Quality and Auditing Expert
Leader
Admin
It makes sense for the contractor to manage their own documents, except for such things as schematics that are for the power plant itself.

The ISO certified organization is still responsible for the effectiveness of the documentation control, as this is considered an outsourced process.
 

Sidney Vianna

Post Responsibly
Leader
Admin
The whole idea of a 2-3 person team overseeing a subcontractor maintaining and operating a power plant and the governmental organization is the one that seeks certification, seems utterly bizarre and nonsensical, to me. Will the scope of certification read something like: The management of outsourced maintenance and operation of Power Plants....? With this arrangement a CB can perform the audit of the 3-man "organization" in 1 day or less and issue a certificate that misleads people thinking that the power plant is certified. If that made any sense, we should audit and certify only the top management of organizations and disregard the actual doers, the ones that perform the work where the rubber meets the road.

ISO 17021-1:2015 section 4.8 is about a risk-based approach to certification, including the need to assess perception of interested parties and misleading statements by the certified client. An interesting exercise for the scenario offered in this thread.

This seems to be a lot like the silly examples of certification found @ An organization's Internal Audit Office certified to ISO 9001:2015.

Some people make a mockery of ISO 9001 certification and then, the "leaders" of the conformity assessment sector don't understand why the commoditized market is not growing, and actually shrinking, with it's razor thin profit margins. Sad state of affairs. The IAF even boasts that at the end of the transition time frame, a "whopping" 93% of organizations had managed to make the transition. That means, around the world, 84,000 organizations let their ISO 9001 certification lapse. Wow. They (the IAF) celebrate that? Bizarre.
 

John Broomfield

Leader
Super Moderator
@sunrizenew

You say:

“The governmental body need to get ISO 9001 certificate”.

My recommendation:

Then make sure the scope of your contract includes provision for this work. If not submit a contract change order request describing the extra work and quoting your price for doing it.

Make sure you include your qualifications to act as a management consultant and the role that the government department will have to play to make the management system meaningful and effective.

John
 

Rameshwar25

Quite Involved in Discussions
The services provided by sub-contractor in your premises will be considered outsourced processes. You need to exercise same amount of control on the outsourced processes which you would have exercised had they been carried out by your organisation..
The sub-contractor requires to document the processes/ activities he carries out. If you find him not-competent in documentation ( a person doing effective maintenance may not be competent enough in documentation), you may write WIs, procedures, SOPs for your sub-contractor.
It does not matter, who controls them. It may be your organisation which controls those documents (related to outsourced activities) and included in list of other documents. you may issue a controlled copy to your sub-contractor.
Alternatively, thsese documents may also be controlled by sub-contractor. He may issue a controlled copy to you.
ISO 9001 is very flexible in this regard.
 

tony s

Information Seeker
Trusted Information Resource
The governmental body need to get ISO 9001 certificate
May we know the QMS scope of the government body? Do they want to claim "Maintenance and operation of power plant"? Because this is misleading, as pointed out by Sidney Vianna.
 

Rameshwar25

Quite Involved in Discussions
for govt agency, scope will be 'Power Generation". Govt agency which has installed full plant and owns whole infrastructure has all rights to claim this scope.
If contractor wants to get ISO 9001 certificate, scope will be "Operation and maintenance of power plant".
Will the scope of certification read something like: The management of outsourced maintenance and operation of Power Plants....? With this arrangement a CB can perform the audit of the 3-man "organization" in 1 day or less and issue a certificate that misleads people thinking that the power plant is certified. If that made any sense, we should audit and certify only the top management of organizations and disregard the actual doers, the ones that perform the work where the rubber meets the road.
Unfortunately, CB has its own rules to operate. They do not consider what is ethical or what is not? Our answer to this forum should be in the context of what CB can accept. We can raise such questions/ objections when we are part of team responsible for framing rules for CB.
 

Sidney Vianna

Post Responsibly
Leader
Admin
for govt agency, scope will be 'Power Generation". Govt agency which has installed full plant and owns whole infrastructure has all rights to claim this scope.
I beg to differ, realizing that scope of certification is a subject that is treated inconsistently all over the world. Not even the IAF is willing to address the need for clear and unambiguous scopes of certification and, at best, they were only capable of delivering an Informative Document, (broken link removed).

The 3-man governamental agency in this scenario does the oversight of the subcontracted organization, who are the ones that manage the power plant. They are the ones that really deliver the electricity to the grid. Without them, there is no power generation. Without the 3-man governamental employees, things would run perfectly.

So, if anyone thinks that auditing this 3-man organization and granting them an ISO 9001 certificate for POWER GENERATION makes sense, I repeat what I said earlier in this thread. We should all stop auditing the doers of the organizations we certify and audit solely the top management of such organizations. It would be a much more "cost effective process". Some, like me, would think would be a farce.
 
Top Bottom