The Elsmar Cove Business Standards Discussion Forums More Free Files Forum Discussion Thread Post Attachments Listing Elsmar Cove Discussion Forums Main Page
Welcome to what was The Original Cayman Cove Forums!
This thread is carried over and continued in the Current Elsmar Cove Forums

Search the Elsmar Cove!

Wooden Line
This is a "Frozen" Legacy Forum.
Most links on this page do NOT work.
Discussions since 2001 are HERE

Owl Line
The New Elsmar Cove Forums   The New Elsmar Cove Forums
  QS-9000
  Calibration by OEM vs Accredited Laboratory

Post New Topic  Post A Reply
profile | register | preferences | faq | search

UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone! next newest topic | next oldest topic
Author Topic:   Calibration by OEM vs Accredited Laboratory
J.R. Strickland
Forum Contributor

Posts: 24
From:Northbrook, IL, USA
Registered: Apr 2000

posted 02 November 2000 09:42 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for J.R. Strickland     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
We have an ongoing (going on 4 years now) argument with our Registrar regarding the use of OEM equipment manufacturers vs accredited labs. The note in Section 4.11.2.b.1 states that "Where a qualified laboratory does not exist for a given piece of equipment, calbration services may be performed by the original equipment manufacturer". Our Registrar has interpreted this to mean we must show evidence that a qualified laboratory does not exist prior to utilizing the original equipment manufacturer for calibration services. This issue really came to light during one of our surveillance audits when the assessor inquired as to the "accreditation" of the calibrator of a particular piece of mechanical measuring equipment. The situation is that the OEM had a local field representative that could drive in from about 50 miles away and perform the cal. The nearest "accredited" lab was on the west coast. Not needing to be a rocket scientist to determine the cost implications and assuming the OEM field representative knows his/her own equipment better than some 3rd party, we took the field rep approach. Our auditor says we should have flown the person in from CA. Our position has been,and continues to be, calibration by the original measurement equipment manufacturer should be acceptable, without searching for a "qualified laboratory".

Any comments, different interpretation approaches from different registrars, other pearls of wisdom would be appreciated.

------------------

IP: Logged

W. Kindel
Lurker (<10 Posts)

Posts: 9
From:Arvada, Colorado, USA
Registered: Aug 2000

posted 02 November 2000 11:19 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for W. Kindel   Click Here to Email W. Kindel     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Hi!

QS9000 is notorious for using terminology that isn't formally defined anywhere, and this can often be used to your advantage. The term I refer to here is "Qualified": Since QS9000 doesn't define the word anywhere, why not define it yourself in your procedures, to include close geographic proximity as one of the "qualifications" for your calibration service? Since QS9000 claims as one of its objectives the "reduction of waste in the supply chain", it shouldn't be too hard to demonstrate how it's wasteful to fly someone across the continent to perform a function that can be done by a guy 50 miles away. Just my thoughts - anyone else?

W. Kindel

IP: Logged

Ken K
Forum Contributor

Posts: 44
From:Wisconsin, USA
Registered: Jun 2000

posted 02 November 2000 11:31 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Ken K     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
You have brought up a point that is becoming increasingly frustrating for many companies, ours included. Quite simply, auditor/registrar interpretations. We have gone through the same situation regarding our 6 environmental chambers (along with other issues) We actually had to show there were no accredited labs that could calibrate/maintain these chambers. A letter from the manufacturer finally settled it in our favor.
Interpretations are a dangerous thing. Who's to judge which one is correct; yours or the
auditor/registrar? A non-conformance is one thing; a bad interpretation that lead's to a
non-conformance is evil!
Good luck.

IP: Logged

W. Kindel
Lurker (<10 Posts)

Posts: 9
From:Arvada, Colorado, USA
Registered: Aug 2000

posted 03 November 2000 10:18 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for W. Kindel   Click Here to Email W. Kindel     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Hello again!

We're fortunate to be a very small company, one in which the people who's work is being audited are the same ones who must approve the registrar's invoice before it gets paid. It's amazing how agreeable auditors can become when they realize that if they can't prove their point to our satisfaction, they won't get paid for their trouble (not to mention getting reimbursed for their hotel and airfare . . .)

Keep in mind that you're the customer, and sometimes it pays to act like it!

W. Kindel

IP: Logged

Sam
Forum Contributor

Posts: 244
From:
Registered: Sep 1999

posted 03 November 2000 11:37 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Sam   Click Here to Email Sam     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
J.R.
Refer to page 2 oh the QSR 3rd ed.;
Notes are for guidance only and therefore are not to be audited. You may want to search the IASG sanctioned interpretations for more info on this topic.

IP: Logged

J.R. Strickland
Forum Contributor

Posts: 24
From:Northbrook, IL, USA
Registered: Apr 2000

posted 03 November 2000 12:01 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for J.R. Strickland     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Thanks for everyone's response. I have already taken into consideration most of the input. I must admit though, I haven't considered holding an invoice hostage.

Well, the rest of this issue is even more interesting...We did not like our registrars interpretation and submitted a question to the IASG following the steps as detailed in the 3rd edition interpretations dated February 29, 2000, Paragraph I.B "How to Communicate". The response we received supported our position, our registrar didn't like it and I told them we following the aforementioned defined process and we expected them to comply. They then performed their own investigation which eventually ended up at RAB. RAB's position is that the standard is clear and there is not need in changing their process and will continue to audit registrars to the same "clear" interpretation of the standard which is to calibrate using 1) a qualified internal lab, 2)an accredited lab, or 3) customer recognized government agency. This strict interpretation says that you can not use the OEM if an accredited lab is available, regardless of cost impact. Thereby forcing you to prove that an accredited lab is not available. Perhaps they forgot the goal was to reduce waste in the supply chain.

When will the madness stop?

------------------

IP: Logged

BigEasy Scientist
unregistered
posted 29 November 2000 05:00 PM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by J.R. Strickland:
3) customer recognized government agency

[/B]


What are some examples of these agencies?
I'm having problems finding an accredited lab for calibrating scales, and our current lab will not meet the Jan 01 deadline. They do calibrate the state DOT scales. Would this be close enough to 'government agency'

IP: Logged

All times are Eastern Standard Time (USA)

next newest topic | next oldest topic

Administrative Options: Close Topic | Archive/Move | Delete Topic
Post New Topic  Post A Reply Hop to:

Contact Us | The Elsmar Cove Home Page

Your Input Into These Forums Is Appreciated! Thanks!


Main Site Search
Y'All Come Back Now, Ya Hear?
Powered by FreeBSD!Made With A Mac!Powered by Apache!