TS 16949 (Ford, DCX, Toyota) Audit of an ISO 17025 (GM Only) In-House Laboratory

[Ken K]

I'll set the scene...

Currently our lab is accredited to ISO17025 for only GM testing and TS16949 for the rest of the testing we do for Ford, DCX, Toyota, etc.

Also, all of our equipment used for the GM testing is calibrated by an outside lab and verified in-house. All of our other equipment is calibrated in-house.
(don't ask...it's a complicated issue)


Tomorrow morning we will have our second TS audit. During our initial audit 6 months ago, the auditor did not know the lab was partially ISO accredited. He asked why and we explained to him it was a requirement of GM. After viewing our ISO manual and certificate, he tried to audit our GM testing to TS.

I told him since this was a TS audit, our GM stuff was off limits to him and he was more than welcome to audit the rest. Well, he went into a and I just let him rant but eventually we had a small . He ended up leaving without even auditing the lab. No mention was made of this incident in his final report.

After speaking with our ISO auditor, he assured me I did the right thing. I felt that way all along.

I feel like tomorrow is going to be Round #2.

Anyone have any suggestions or comments regarding this situation? I would be glad to hear them....

 

[D.Scott]

Ken - I am not sure I agree with you or your 17025 auditor. The lab is part of your process and registration to ISO doesn't exclude it from coverage under TS. 7.6.3.1 states in the note that ISO/IEC 17025 may be used to demonstrate supplier in-house lab conformity to the requirement but it doesn't state that if you have 17025 you don't need to have that area audited. TS would probably hold that there may be other connecting factors involved in the lab that are not necessarily covered with 17025. Just the fact that it is GM stuff makes me think it is certainly fair game for the audit under customer specific requirements. The tests you do for GM (and all the others) are either inputs or outputs of the process and therefore subject to TS audit.

Just my opinion here but I think you will lose this argument. Any other thoughts?

Dave

 

[Ken K]

I can understand what your saying Dave. In fact, I agree with some of it.

On one hand, TS was suppose to be the cure for all of the QS faults. On the other hand, GM, in their infinite wisdom, requires ISO17025 for an in-house lab which tells me maybe TS isn't all it's cracked up to be.



Gee, now I'm ready to go into a I sure would like to know where the value added aspect of this whole situation lies. I sure can't see it.