ANSI-ASQ National Accreditation Board

Accredited Certification Bodies (CBs)  36 AS9100  12 AS9110  27 AS9120 Applicant CBs  4 AS9110 Increased Surveillance Frequency  1 CB (2+ office assessments and witnessed audits per year) Suspensions  1 nonconforming (since lifted)  1 nonconforming (current)  1 voluntary (current) Withdrawals  1 AS9120 (voluntary)  1 AS9100 applicant (voluntary)

 Revised SR001 Issued  New FAQ’s  ALL CB’s completed the transition (in OASIS)  All CB’s applied prior to 1 Jan 2011 (no suspensions)  Heads Up 170, 175, 181, 187  SR001 – Revised May 2011  SR001 FAQ – Published 

 Make sure decision making person/people are competent  SR001  9101D  Make sure audits are completed as required / scheduled.  Already heard of at least one potential issue with resources (audit being pushed out)  Three new FAQ’s  Conducting an audit to the old standards  Transfers  Special Audits  ANAB sending assessors that successfully passed the AATT training to office assessments

Vince May, 29 August – 1 Sept NCR’s, 4 Minor and 4 Major 1.Minor - Accreditation Rule 29 not including Resolutions and Supplemental Rule 2.Minor - Internal audit of AS did not include resolutions or SR001 3.Minor - Appendix F’s not completed accurately 4.Major - # of files and time spent at office assessments not accurate per ANAB’s process

8 NCR’s, 4 Minor and 4 Major 5.Major - NCR’s closed without proper responses/evidence. 6.Minor - PEAR form missing from a CB’s audit report and no NCR issued by ANAB. 7.Major - No evidence in office assessment reports that ANAB assessed the CB’s to SR001 8.Major - Findings not categorized properly

 372 (Feb 2011) – An organization is complaining about their AS9120 audit and the auditor assigned. CB is redoing the audit because of the first audit.  Details were requested, not provided.  Follow up during the next office assessment.  Closed, unable to substantiate Complaints in italics were provided previously and has no changes. Complaints in bold are new or were updated since the last meeting.

 378 (Mar 2011) – An organization is complaining about their certification status in OASIS; their status was marked withdrawn (by the CB) and it was suppose to be suspended.  Found valid, Action was taken by the CB and OASIS was updated.  Closed, with action Complaints in italics were provided previously and has no changes. Complaints in bold are new or were updated since the last meeting.

 379 (Apr 2011) – An AQMS certificate issued without an accreditation mark. The copy of the certificate was a draft and the final certificate was issued properly.  Closed, invalid Complaints in italics were provided previously and has no changes. Complaints in bold are new or were updated since the last meeting.

 380 (Apr 2011) – Questions in regards to the auditor.  Closed, partially valid  Conducted a complaint validation audit  Conducting additional witnessed audits Complaints in italics were provided previously and has no changes. Complaints in bold are new or were updated since the last meeting.

 381 (Apr 2011) – Certificate and scope of certification in OASIS not consistent in regards to inclusions/exclusions.  The items outlined in OASIS were actually sections of the standard that were not audited, not exclusions to the certificate. The CB entered them in the wrong fields.  Closed, with correction. Complaints in italics were provided previously and has no changes. Complaints in bold are new or were updated since the last meeting.

 388 (Jun 2011) – Organization continues to have AS9100 certificates referencing ISO 9001:2000  Complaint found valid, NCR issued to CB.  Closed, with correction. Complaints in italics were provided previously and has no changes. Complaints in bold are new or were updated since the last meeting.

 389 (Jul 2011) – CB transferred a client whose certificate had been withdrawn. The CB treated the client as an initial client and did not transfer the certificate.  Closed, invalid Complaints in italics were provided previously and has no changes. Complaints in bold are new or were updated since the last meeting.

 A91 – Received Dec 2010 – Closed, partially upheld  Appealing several NCR’s from an AQMS witnessed audit  NCR in regards to missing items in the Quality Manual – NCR upheld  NCR in regards to document control – NCR withdrawn  NCR in regards to auditing to sufficient depth – 1 of 4 evidence items withdrawn, 4 part of the NCR evidence upheld  NCR in regards to the accuracy of the scope statement on the certificate – NCR upheld Appeals in italics were provided previously. Appeals in bold are new.

 A103– Received Feb 2011 – Closed, appeal denied  Appealed a major NCR during an AQMS office assessment in regards to accepting poor corrective action responses from the CB’s client  The CB discussed why the acceptance of updated documentation from their client and how the results of a check of a large quantity of other data supported that the fault was an isolated incident and therefore, the CB's acceptance of that client's CA response was not an indication of major deficiencies in the CB process.  ANAB discussed the repeat nature of the nonconformity issued to the CB, the lack of objective evidence for the CA taken by the CB client, and the lack of a complete and thorough Root Cause Analysis by the CB client, even though the fault was described as an isolated incident.  Even in isolated incidents the client must still provide acceptable CA to address the root cause to eliminate reoccurrence.  Therefore the panel upholds the NCR as valid. Appeals in italics were provided previously. Appeals in bold are new.

 A108– Received April 2011– Appeal upheld, NCR’s withdrawn  Appealed two minor NCRs during an AQMS witnessed audits.  Sufficient sample to draw conclusions  Not requiring client to provide root cause to NCR’s.  The panel has found that while statements made during the appeal hearing indicated that nonconformities may have existed at the time of the audit, the documented statements of finding for NCR 01 and NCR02 were not substantiated by objective evidence. Appeals in italics were provided previously. Appeals in bold are new.

Office Assessments  45 required (9 additional)  35 completed (7 follow-up)  10 confirmed (2 follow-up) Witnessed Audits  51 required (5 follow-up and 9 AS9120)  41 completed (5 follow-ups, 7 AS9120)  7 confirmed (2 AS9120)  3 scheduling (all previously scheduled and canceled)

 Office Assessments ~ 155 NCRs  37 NCR’s to aerospace requirements during 29 office assessments  12 majors, (5 originally minor, escalated due to timing)  118 NCR’s to ISO or general requirements during 29 office assessments  20 majors, (4 originally minor, escalated due to timing)  Witnessed Audits ~ 52 NCRs  18 NCR’s to aerospace requirements during 37 witnessed audits  7 majors  34 NCR’s to ISO or other requirements during 37 witnessed audits  5 majors, (2 originally minor, escalated due to timing)

2010 Common NCR -- NCR/CA Process

 Melissa Fradkin, Client Coordinator no longer with ANAB  Actively looking for a new coordinator  Adam Strachota taking over in the interim   , ext  Ron Wilmes and John Stratton (Accreditation Assessors) no longer with ANAB  Revising many tools and procedures for Office Assessments and Witnessed Audits

 Questions / Comments