Subcontractor Evaluation - Require onsite visit after the initial audit?



Subcontractor Evaluation

Is it possible to meet the standard if you do not perform on-site audits after the initial audit to approve the supplier? My company is thinking of eliminating surveilliance audits on suppliers due to resources. I have concerns that we have evidence of sufficient control over subcontractors without the audits - especially critical component subcontractors.

Kevin Mader

One of THE Original Covers!
Sure. You never have to even perform the intial audit. You define how suppliers are approved and how you evaluate their performance. The supplier audit is a great way to accomplish them both, but most organizations find this approach too costly. As a result, they look for alternate approaches to fit their means (resources included). They base their evaluation of suppliers on third party registration, quality of incoming materials, delivery performance, etc.. For your most critical of components, you may want to hire outside professionals to go in to perform audits (I have used a group who has a network of quality professionals world-wide for cases like this with success). Do this only if you feel it is necessary, but leave it as an option noted in your Quality Program. Hope this helps. Back to the group...

[This message has been edited by Kevin Mader (edited 02-23-99).]

Bryon C Simmons

Agree on all points, Kevin. What we do is an initial "self-administered" survey, asking questions about thier systems, quality programs, etc....based on that, we can do a more extensive survey, (again, self-administered), based on the QSA.

Determine your controls based on the importance of the product/service being supplied. What we do, is sometimes invite the subcontractor to our facility, for a face to face to resolve issues. Biggest thing is to DOCUMENT everything that you do with your subcontractor. THis will provide evidence of control, and also of development.



Fully vaccinated are you?
This is a bit off the original topic but close. I thought it was interesting thought food...

From: ISO Standards Discussion <[email protected]>
Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2000 20:07:46 -0600
Subject: Re: Supplier Evaluation /Giede/Ganor

From: [email protected]

> 1. Only suppliers that their supply is part of your product or service need
> to be under this supervision. Not office supplies, for example.

I must respectfully add my "two cents" to Mr. Ganor's response (which I agree with ;o)

A firm I was assisting had copy machine problems which virtually stopped output of any duplicate-required documents over, say, 20 pages, because the massive duplicating machine was "eating pages for lunch..."

The root cause analysis was detailed, and traced back to the purchase of cut-rate duplicating paper (which was purchased at 20% of nominal cost).

Responses to proposals, and major engineering studies, failed to be copied and shipped on time, severely affecting quality output and causing the additional expense of "borrowing" another company's duplicating equipment in order to reproduce vital documents and drive them to the airport for nearly missed express shipment (you can get overnight service at most airports as late as 9:00 pm with the same "tomorrow delivery" guarantee, but it really costs extra in some cases).

As a result, purchase of office supplies was put under scrutiny as to which ones may, or may not, impact on the quality output of the firm, duplicating paper being cited first on the list.

David Kozenko

Kevin Mader

One of THE Original Covers!

Good post. What do you consider, what shouldn't you?

Risk exists everywhere. Even the most thorough organizations will not uncover every preventive opportunity. IMHO, the chore at hand is to reasonably identify the opportunities for failure.


Top Bottom