- Whistleblower Hotline
- Request Quote
Welcome to The O-Forum! Read this first! Then, feel free to introduce yourself here! If you need immediate, real-time support for the Oxebridge ISO 9001 or AS9100 Template Kits, click here to join our Slack chat channel.
I asked this question on the OASIS database because currently most SAI AS9100 clients that are ‘trying’ to transfer (or get away so to speak) have not had a 2017 AS9100 audit – which usually starts a chain reaction where the certificate is suspended. The funny thing – you guessed it, the certificate on OASIS is still showing as compliant to the standard. This puts the organization in a tough spot because the new CB cannot accept a transfer who skipped a year of audits…
So here is the solution according to ANAB. The new CB cannot transfer unless they perform the following:
1 -conduct a special on-site audit for transfer
2-conduct a make up surveillance audit AND transition audit to the latest revision – BEFORE the end of MARCH
3- Recertify the organization before JULY
1-Have SAI abandon the certificate
2-Organization starts over with Stage 1 and 2 audit
3-New CB communicates with SAI as if it were a transfer
I have a few ISO 9001 (not AS9100) clients in the same boat. SAI didn’t do any audits in 2017, and now they are facing decertification in 2018 as a result. The clients were arguing with SAI to get audits scheduled, but they simply couldn’t do it.
So something’s up with SAI and it’s not just about AS9100.
I wrote to the IAQG gods today to ask why OASIS is saying SAI is still accredited, while ANAB is saying they aren’t.
Those options look right, though. None of them are desirable though. I think you can also (a) cancel the contract with SAI for breach of contract (failure to maintain accreditation) and then (b) hire a new CB to replace them, but take it on the chin as a “new” certification, not a transfer. I haven’t asked any CB reps about this, so I might be wrong.
I think the cost is close to the same between a normal transfer and starting over for AS9100. IMHO some CB’s did not manage their business properly. When the transition hit you knew there would be more audit days to schedule. Why didn’t the CB look at their audit capacity vs. the audit duration needed to complete all the transitions and see if they had enough resources to do the work – to protect clients from losing their certification?
So what did we learned so far through this mess – Transition. That all accreditation bodies are fair, understand the business, are intuitive, rule with a mighty hand to keep the standards the same across the world and their integrity. Let me explain….the CB’s that did not plan in advance for an increase in sales (audit days) because of the transition, were actually handed a gift from their AB and hence have an competitive advantage over their competition. Since they did not manage properly – had too many clients / audit days with the number of auditors available to them, (AS1900 especially) yes they were briefly suspended (not allowed any new business) – they were allowed to schedule all audits missed back to back with other future audits regardless of the ISO 17000 rules CB’s are supposed to be managed by, state that is a big no no. So the suspension was lifted and the plan for the mismanaged CB’s was they were allowed to add more new clients and schedule audits back to back with futures audits that they missed. Now on the other side, CB’s that planned, slowed the addition or stopped all together new business, took care of and protected their clients certificates, were penalized. They were given no relief from the transition schedule and not allowed (or made it very difficult) to transfer the clients held by the inadequate CB’s. So what was the lesson taught by that decision – it’s ok to not plan. That AB’s are driven by the mighty dollar first. If they were to pull the CB’s that couldn’t plan and allow all their clients to transfer then the AB would lose income. The AB’s make money on royalties off the CB’s, make money off the witness audit, and make money off the office audits. The AB’s should have allowed transfer IMMEDIATELY during the suspension, to protect the end user and the certificate, AND stopped the CB’s who did not plan a two year hiatus from adding any new business. This way a message would have been sent that a suspension is a penalty and not a reward for mismanaging a business and your customers certificates. Another example (sorry for the long reply but this is not right) of how AB’s handle rules happened in 16949 and the suspension process. One foreign AB has gone wild with the decertification process with an underperforming CB. The foreign AB decided to create their own process when suspending the CB located in their own country. They did not notify the IATF of the suspension which was made to look like they were not suspended. So what does this all mean to the end user – the one who gets the certificate? It means alot! Not only do you need to know who you are doing business with (the CB) but also who their accreditation body is and what are they like – can you trust them to do the right thing. So the rush of the transition also caused to reveal holes in the Accreditation Bodies and how they handle their business and ISO 17000.