The AS9100 certification body IAPMO Systems Certification Body (SCB) has closed a formal complaint against it without providing official notice as required by their own internal procedures, and without any explanation. Oxebridge has now escalated the matter to ANAB.
As reported previously, during a public promotional webinar for the QMS platform ProShop ERP, two ProShop clients revealed information that suggested their AS9100 certificates were issued by SCB in violation of official AS9100 certification rules. One client revealed that SCB performed a 4-hour AS9100 Stage 2 audit, despite charging the client for a full 2-day audit as required by minimum audit day rules. The second client revealed that SCB performed Stage 1 and Stage 2 audits for AS9100 back-to-back, and then allowed their auditor, Don Tate, to appear in a video promoting ProShop ERP. This latter issue appears to violate rules against CBs marketing any specific QMS consultancy.
Oxebridge filed a complaint with SCB alleging multiple violations of ISO 17021-1 and AS9104, for conflicts of interest and failing to conduct audits per mandatory minimum audit duration requirements. SCB then worked to have the webinar video removed, thus deleting the evidence. Oxebridge kept a copy of the video, however, and has retained it. SCB representative Michael Madewell then formally acknowledged the complaint, promising a response “in a few days.” That response never came, and he ignored all subsequent email communications.
Oxebridge then sent SCB a final warning on 22 May, alerting them that the matter would be escalated for their failure to respond. It was then learned that on 29 May, Madewell closed the complaint without any explanation in OASIS. SCB never provided any formal notification or updates.
The two companies who appear to have received SCB AS9100 certifications under conflicts of interest — Novo Modo and TAKT Machining — continue to hold AS9100 certification, and the auditor Tate continues to hold official AS9100 Lead Auditor status. It is not clear if SCB performed new audits for the two companies; the issue dates of their certificates have not changed, suggesting that no such re-audits were performed.
At least one of those companies claimed, in the ProShop webinar, to have received an aerospace industry contract as a result of SCB’s allegedly inappropriate audit. This suggests the company is now producing aerospace parts despite not having gone through an audit that complies with AS9100 oversight requirements.
Oxebridge has now escalated the matter to SCB’s accreditation body, ANAB, and the IAQG itself.
The scandal reveals just how weak the AS9100 certification scheme oversight is, as companies can achieve full certification and win aerospace prime contracts despite allegedly “accredited” certification bodies ignoring the rules. The ABs then work to protect such certification bodies rather than ensure the safety of aircraft components and the flying public.
To date, the IAQG has remained silent on the matter.
UPDATE 19 June 2024: ANAB has confirmed receipt of the complaint and claims it is investigating.
UPDATE 4 July 2024: ANAB has closed the complaint, claiming it took “action” but did not provide any details or evidence. IAPMO remains fully accredited, and entries in OASIS do not show any changes to the certification or credential status of anyone involved. ANAB then tried to invoke “confidentiality” to prohibit even publishing that it had closed the complaint. Oxebridge has ignored that demand.
