When Is It OK to Remove a Defunct Supplier From the AVL/ASL?

Michael_M

Trusted Information Resource
We are AS9100 and the requirements for us is 'active', 'in-active' or 'conditional' and a scope of approval (what can they do).

Our ERP system allows us to change a statue from active to in-active without deleting the vendor. We can only buy from active vendors but a vendor can move back and forth from active to in-active and back to active again. Within the notes of the vendor I track when/why a vendor becomes in-active (or active).

For AS9100 the specific requirement is:

a) Maintain a register of its suppliers that includes approval status (e.g., approved, conditional, disapproved) and the scope of the approval (e.g., product type, process family).

e) define the process, responsibilities and authority for approval status decision, changes of the approval status and conditions for a controlled use of suppliers depending on the supplier's approval status.

Within AS9100 it is really important to control the purchasing (vendor) selection and maintain the controls.
 
P

PaulJSmith

Same here. Our Inventory Control system has a simple check box for "Active." For a defunct supplier, we simply uncheck the box, make an entry on the Notes tab for the reason, and all of the previous records remain accessible.
 

somashekar

Leader
Admin
The main concern is that an external auditor may stumble upon them and ask why haven't they been removed and a potential nonconformance would follow.
No longer in business with you... or, No longer in existence... ?
Safe to mark "Dissolved" when no longer in existence with this same as reason.
If no longer in business with you, for what so ever reason, its apt to mark them as "To re-evaluate". You could have a status column with Active / Dissolved / Re-evaluate and any other, which can be periodically reviewed and updated.
I would not think removing in terms of erasing from the list.
 

GStough

Leader
Super Moderator
I don't know your business nature, but what is the challenge with leaving their status as active? Is there any benefit to updating it? It sounds as though there is at least a minimal cost (time, effort) to updating it.

Do different certifications require that kind of traceability? We are certified to ISO 9001 and do not keep paperwork on adding or removing. We have our criteria for keeping or removing a supplier and at the management review meeting we decide. After the meeting I just remove suppliers or add suppliers from the document. I do keep revision letters in the header but I feel like even that is overkill.

Our AVL was our ERP dbase. Once a supplier went in, tampering with that crossed lines into accounting records. We just left them all in and it was the discretion of the QA / Purchasing folks to cease using one if we chose.

" The main concern is that an external auditor may stumble upon them and ask why haven't they been removed and a potential nonconformance would follow. "

You know your business better than I do, but it's only a nonconformance if there's a requirement that you remove them.

ISO 9001 and ISO 13485 dont require a list at all.

Im not sure about any other standards.

We are registered to ISO 13485, and are also regulated by the FDA, MHLW Ordinance 169, CMDR, IVDD, MDD, ANVISA, and maybe a few others that I've missed. To say it is challenging to remain compliant to all of these, as well as our procedures, is an understatement. :mg:

We want to be careful when making changes of any kind so that we remain compliant with all of these (and any I may have missed) standards, hence my original post here. Elsmar has always been my "go-to" source for all things QUALITY. :agree1:
 

RoxaneB

Change Agent and Data Storyteller
Super Moderator
I like the idea of creating a status field/column where you can show if they're active, inactive, on probation, etc. A notes field can be used to track any changes in status.

And then you can set up the review process accordingly (i.e., leaving out the inactive organizations).
 

GStough

Leader
Super Moderator
I like that idea, too, Roxane. I will make this suggestion and see if it's something that is doable within our system.

Thanks, everyone! :agree1:
 
Top Bottom