ANAB AQMS Accreditation Activity 2009

ANAB AQMS Accreditation Activity2009 Lori Scheid-Gillespie Manager, ANAB Accreditation

Oversight of ANAB (reviewed in Sept 2009) AAQG Office Assessment August 17-21 2009 • Vince May • 8 major NCRs and 4 minor NCRs • Many majors were due to the evidence being greater than a “single occurrence” • Minor – RMC chair was not notified of an appeal hearing. • Minor – An AS9120 application review was completed by a non AIEA (against ANAB’s Accreditation Rule) • Minor – Supporting records for an accreditation were not maintained (e.g. a re-audit was decided to not be required, with no evidence documented) • Minor – NCR’s issued outside of an audit were not followed up by ANAB’s team during an office assessment

AAQG Oversight of ANAB(reviewed in Sept 2009) • Major – Document control (referencing outdates documents) • Major – AAQG audit NCR closed without evidence of completing the CA • Major – OASIS was not updated to reflect a withdrawal of a CB’s accreditation • Major – The RMC was not notified immediately when a CB’s accreditation was withdrawn. • Major – Records were not in EQM per our internal process • Major – ANAB’s applications do not take into account all AS9014. • Major - Certification decisions are being made, by an ANAB accredited CB, from an office that is not accredited for Aerospace Quality Management System (AQMS) standards. • Major – NCR’s with multiple occurrences were not categorized as a major.

Oversight of ANAB (reviewed in Sept 2009) International Accreditation Forum (IAF) Peer evaluation in March 2009 • Veronica Garcia of EMA • Andrea Melo of CGCRE/INMETRO • March 23-27 • Office Assessment (at ANAB) • Witnessed Audit (witnessing ANAB conduct an office assessment at a CB) • 1 NCR, 4 concerns, and 5 comments • Comments do not have to be responded to, but ANAB is addressing all comments. • ANAB is on track for closure to all

IAF/IAAC Peer Evaluation(reviewed in Sept 2009) • NCR – • Did not complete internal audits of the entire system in 2008. • Concerns – • Do not scope for EMS (ISO 14001) which in turn questions the confidence in the ANAB-EMS accreditations. • Preventive action log includes some nonconformances. Nonconforming product log includes some incomplete actions. • our public information on who gives us our authority was not updated. • our web site is not clear when a CB’s accreditation is withdrawn.

IAF/IAAC Peer Evaluation(reviewed in Sept 2009) • Observations – • not recording all actions taken on complaints (in EQM) • There is no evidence of a systematic process to confirm the continuation of accreditation, based on the results of surveillance. • MCAA refers to an obsolete standard, ISO Guide 61 • During the witnessed audit the ANAB team did not complete a full system ISO 9001 audit when the CB was accredited for ISO 17021, option 1. • The ANAB assessors classification for minor nonconformity doesn’t seem to address only single observed lapse in the CB’s systems

AQMS 2009 Overview Accredited Certification Bodies (CBs) • 35 AS9100 • 10 AS9110 • 27 AS9120 Applicant CBs • 2 AS9100 (1 in decision) • 6 AS9110 • 0 AS9120 Increased Surveillance Frequency (2009) • 2 CB’s (twice per year for office assessments and AS9100 witnessed audits) Suspensions • 4 previous suspensions all lifted Withdrawals • One in January 2009 (DVC-USA, voluntarily)

Aerospace Complaints against ANAB-accredited CBs

Aerospace Complaints • 282 (Jan 2009) – AS client complained the CB’s NCR review was not objective. • Closed, unable to substantiate (Feb 2009) • It seemed the CB was following the process to get an appropriate corrective action response & evidence. • The NCR’s were eventually closed and the complainant would not respond to ANAB’s request for additional information. Complaints in italics were provided previously and has no changes. Complaints in bold are new or were updated since the last meeting.

Aerospace Complaints • 294 (Mar 2009) – AS client complained their CB suspended their certificate due to an issue at the CB (not client) • Closed, with correction (Jul 2009) • ANAB required the CB to suspend the client’s certificate due to the 2008 annual audit not being completed. Complaints in italics were provided previously and has no changes. Complaints in bold are new or were updated since the last meeting.

Aerospace Complaints • 299 (Mar 2009) – A CB has missed annual audits, including AQMS audits. • Closed, with correction (Jul 2009) • ANAB discovered this issue previously. • ANAB completed a complaint investigative office assessment in April 2009 to determine extent. Complaints in italics were provided previously and has no changes. Complaints in bold are new or were updated since the last meeting.

Aerospace Complaints • 301 (Apr 2009) – A CB has taken a transfer while suspended. • Closed, invalid (May 2009) • The transfer was completed prior to suspension. Complaints in italics were provided previously and has no changes. Complaints in bold are new or were updated since the last meeting.

Aerospace Complaints • 307 (Apr 2009) – An organization is claiming AS9100 certification but they are not in OASIS. • Closed, with correction (May 2009) • The organization had not entered an administrator in OASIS so their certification was not showing up. • Administrator was set up within a few days of complaint. • CB knows to not certify without an administrator in OASIS. Complaints in italics were provided previously and has no changes. Complaints in bold are new or were updated since the last meeting.

Aerospace Complaints • 309 (May 2009) – A CB completed an AS9100 transfer and the organization was complaining about the previous CBs’ auditor’s actions. Unprofessional, untimely and incomplete paperwork, etc. • Closed with correction (Oct 2009) • An onsite investigation took place during an office assessment. • Issues found were addressed. Complaints in italics were provided previously and has no changes. Complaints in bold are new or were updated since the last meeting.

Aerospace Complaints • 311 (June 2009) – An OEM issued a complaint against a CB for not closing their nonconformity(s) in a timely and appropriate fashion. • Closed, with correction (Aug 2009) • The CB provided appropriate responses and the NCR was closed. • The CB was notified to have a process in place to respond to OEM issues appropriately and in a timely fashion. Complaints in italics were provided previously and has no changes. Complaints in bold are new or were updated since the last meeting.

Aerospace Complaints • 318 (June 2009) – A CB was notified that their client was switching CB’s to avoid the rigor on audits and to go back to their “usual” auditor. • Open, under investigation Complaints in italics were provided previously and has no changes. Complaints in bold are new or were updated since the last meeting.

Aerospace Complaints • 326 (Sept 2009) – An OEM issued a complaint against a CB for not closing their nonconformity(s) in a timely and appropriate fashion. • Open, correction required • Issued an NCR, being addressed Complaints in italics were provided previously and has no changes. Complaints in bold are new or were updated since the last meeting.

Aerospace Complaints • 334 (Dec 2009) – Complaint against an AS9100 certified organization • Open, under investigation • Issued an NCR, being addressed Complaints in italics were provided previously and has no changes. Complaints in bold are new or were updated since the last meeting.

Aerospace Complaints • 335 (Dec 2009) – a non-AS CB issuing AS certificates • Open, under investigation Complaints in italics were provided previously and has no changes. Complaints in bold are new or were updated since the last meeting.

Aerospace Complaints • 336 (Dec 2009) – A CB did not update OASIS within 30 days of re-certification. • Open, under investigation Complaints in italics were provided previously and has no changes. Complaints in bold are new or were updated since the last meeting.

ANAB Aerospace Appeals • A43 – Received February 2009 - WITHDRAWN • CB appealed an NCR issued during a AS9100 witnessed audit in regards to documented justification for audit time. • CB addressed the NCR and withdrew the appeal • A46 – Received April 2009 – APPEAL UPHELD • CB appealed an NCR issued during an AS9110 initial witnessed audit in regards to the scope of the organization; exclusions were taken against 7.3 that ANAB did not agree with. • Based on information from the organization and a position statement from a Boeing representative. Note; this is from an AS9110 initial witnessed audit Appeals in italics were provided previously. Appeals in bold are new.

ANAB Aerospace Appeals • A50 – Received May 2009 - WITHDRAWN • CB appealed an NCR issued during an AS9120 witnessed audit in regards to the CB not notifying ANAB of ITAR issues (ANAB sent an assessor who was not a US citizen and subsequently we left the audit) • The CB & ANAB found evidence that the CB had notified ANAB (via e-mail) and ANAB did not follow our process for scheduling. • ANAB downgraded the NCR to an OFI since the CB did not notify ANAB on the appropriate document (notified us in an e-mail) Appeals in italics were provided previously. Appeals in bold are new.

ANAB Aerospace Appeals • A53 – Received May 2009 – WITHDRAWN • CB appealed an NCR issued during an AS9110 initial witnessed audit in regards to ITAR issues. • ANAB’s team lead spoke to the CB’s office and provided clarification and the CB withdrew their appeal. Note; this is from an AS9110 initial witnessed audit Appeals in italics were provided previously. Appeals in bold are new.

ANAB Aerospace Appeals • A54 – Received May 2009 - WITHDRAWN • CB appealed an NCR issued during an office assessment in regards to not updating OASIS in a timely fashion. • OASIS was not updated because the auditor’s information in OASIS was not correct. The CB worked the issue out with RABQSA. • The CB addressed the NCR with ANAB • A57 – Received July 2009 – WITHDRAWN • CB appealed an NCR issued during an AS9100 witnessed audit in regards to the audit day and was the audit time used appropriately (the team stayed together for ½ day). • ANAB had a teleconference with the CB and downgraded the NCR to an OFI since the team work was minimal in relationship to the full audit time and the CB’s process was explained and better understood by ANAB’s audit team. Appeals in italics were provided previously. Appeals in bold are new.

ANAB Aerospace Appeals • A58 – Received July 2009 – APPEAL UPHELD • CB appealed an NCR issued during an AS9110 initial witnessed audit in regards to the scope of the organization; exclusions were taken against 7.3 that ANAB did not agree with. • The Panel concluded that AS9110 only applies to organizations responsible for the design of modifications and this organization was not. Note; this is from an AS9110 initial witnessed audit • A59 – Received July 2009 – WITHDRAWN • CB appealed an NCR issued during an AS9100 witnessed audit in regards to the CB not having legally enforceable arrangements with the organization. • The CB provided the appropriate paperwork and ANAB withdrew the NCR. Appeals in italics were provided previously. Appeals in bold are new.

ANAB Aerospace Appeals • A60 – Received July 2009 – WITHDRAWN • CB appealed an NCR issued during an AS9110 initial witnessed audit in regards to the use of the checklist. • The CB explained their process to ANAB’s team lead and based on the information and clarification ANAB withdrew the NCR. Note; this is from an AS9110 initial witnessed audit Appeals in italics were provided previously. Appeals in bold are new.

ANAB Aerospace Appeals • A63 – Received Nov 2009 – Pending • CB appealed an NCR issued during an office assessment in regards to how they are managing 9104 requirements within one office. • ANAB is discussing the issue with the CB. Appeals in italics were provided previously. Appeals in bold are new.

ANAB Aerospace Appeals • A64 – Received Nov 2009 – WITHDRAWN • ANAB issued an NCR during an AS9100 witnessed audit in regards to the organization’s procedure not identifying an “interval” for internal audits and the CB not documenting it as an NCR. The CB provided evidence to show the organization’s procedure said annually. • Based on the evidence ANAB withdrew the NCR. Appeals in italics were provided previously. Appeals in bold are new.

ANAB Aerospace Appeals • A65 – Received Dec 2009 – Scheduling Hearing • ANAB issued an NCR during an AS9100 witnessed audit in regards to the CB’s certificate to the organization not including all addresses. • Pending Hearing Appeals in italics were provided previously. Appeals in bold are new.

ANAB Office Assessments & Witnessed Audits Office Assessments • 43 required and completed • 35 Annual • 8 Follow-up Witnessed Audits • 39 required and completed • 35 Annual • 4 increased surveillance

ANAB 2009 NCR’s • Office Assessments • 46 NCR’s to aerospace requirements during 37 office assessments • 7 major & 39 minor • 3 minor escalated to major due to timing • 177 NCR’s to ISO 17021 or general requirements during 37 office assessments • 23 majors & 154 minors • 13 additional minors escalated to majors due to CA timing • Witnessed Audits • 91 NCR’s issued during 37 witnessed audits • 19 majors & 72 minors • 6 minor escalated to majors due to CA timing • 6 minors decreased to OFI’s based on evidence provided by CB

Questions / Comments

ANAB AQMS Accreditation Activity 2009