26200 Lahser Rd., Suite 320
Southfield, MI 48033
Telephone: (248) 799-3939
Fax: (248) 799-3943

April, 2023
Subject: Transfer of Red Suppliers from IATF KPI Hub to the IATF Complaint Management
System (IATF CMS) within the IATF Database and associated certification decisions.
Dear IAOB Certification Bodies,
IAOB issued a letter (re: Transfer of Red Suppliers from IATF KPI Hub to the IATF Complaint
Management System (IATF CMS) within the IATF Database dated May 2022) to the IAOB
Certification Bodies explaining the launch of the IATF Complaint Management System (IATFCMS). This letter replaces the May 2022 letter.
The International Automotive Task Force (IATF) advised all stakeholders on 31 March 2022 itlaunched the IATF Performance Complaint Management System (IATF CMS) within the IATF
Database (refer to Stakeholder Communique 2022-004). With the launch of the IATF CMS, any
performance complaint against an IATF 16949 certified organization will be managed using theIATF CMS workflow tool. Complaints can be initiated by either an IATF OEM or the relevantOversight office.
During the past three years, IAOB published monthly customer satisfaction information provided
by the following IATF OEMs, Ford, GM, and Stellantis (ex FCA and ex PSA), in the IATF KPI
Hub. The customer satisfaction data uses a color-coding system (i.e., red or green). A green
color is used to identify suppliers meeting the IATF OEM’s expectations and a red color is used
to identify suppliers not meeting the IATF OEM’s expectations. When a supplier is not meeting
performance expectations (i.e., red supplier), the Certification Bodies were instructed to consider
this as a performance complaint and initiate the decertification process.
How will the red supplier process be implemented with the launch of IATF CMS?
IAOB will continue to publish monthly the customer satisfaction information in the IATF KPI
Hub and notify Certification Bodies when the information is released.
Certification Bodies will continue to have access to the dashboard and history report.
When the customer satisfaction data is published at the beginning of each month, the IAOB (onbehalf of the relevant IATF OEM) will initiate a new performance complaint within the IATF
CMS for each supplier that is not meeting the IATF OEM’s performance expectations (i.e., any
supplier that changed from a green color in the previous month to a red color in the current
month, i.e., “changed to red”).
Note: The only exception is if the Certification Body already has an open suspension for thesame IATF OEM and the same customer performance issue.

International Automotive Task Force (IATF) Oversight OfficeOnce the performance complaint is initiated, the Certification Body is expected to follow thesteps and timing defined in the IATF CMS user manual, which is aligned to the certificate
decertification process described in the Rules, section 8.0.
The Certification Body is required to undertake an immediate analysis of the situation todetermine the severity and risk to the customer(s), taking into account, where applicable, IATF
OEM customer-specific requirements, per Rules 8.2.
As part of the analysis, IAOB expects the Certification Body to contact the supplier to obtaincopies of the relevant OEM scorecard report(s) (refer to the IATF OEM Quick ReferenceGuide), and relevant supporting details, to understand if any special circumstances exist related
to the performance issue (e.g., rescinded, disputed, etc.), and what corrective actions the supplieris taking (or has taken) to resolve the issue(s). The Certification Body must obtain a “plan togreen” (e.g., step down chart) to understand when their performance is expected to achievegreen status.
Based on this analysis, the Certification Body shall determine if certificate suspension is requiredor not, per Rules 8.3. Certificate suspension is not automatic and the proper analysis should beconducted.
If the suspension decision is positive, a major nonconformance shall not be issued. The IATF
CMS tracks the issue and is considered to be like a major nonconformance.
A decision to not suspend the certificate could be based on one of the following reasons:
1. there is verified evidence (e.g., written agreement from the OEM, supplier code issue)that one of the sites of the client is not responsible for the poor performance identified by
the customer, then that site’s certificate should not be suspended;
2. there is verified evidence the performance issue was rescinded by the OEM and the next
month’s status will refresh to “green”;
3. there is verified evidence the performance issue is currently being disputed and thevalidity of the dispute is confirmed by the OEM; or
4. the Certification Body already has an open suspension for the same OEM and the same
customer performance issue.
Note: A decision not to suspend the certificate solely based on the OEM-approved corrective
action plan is not acceptable.
If the certificate is suspended, the Certification Body shall conduct the verification through aspecial audit, per Rules 8.4. IAOB recommends a minimum of one day for the special audit.
If the red supplier status is due to any issue associated with manufacturing quality, at least 1/3 ofthe special audit time shall be in manufacturing.
Certification Bodies should use the Recommended Trails to Follow in Red Supplier Special
Audits table from Rules 5th FAQ 9 to help prioritize the verification activities during the special
audit, the table is available through Appendix 1 of this letter.
IAOB continues to reserve the right to witness any special audit conducted as part of thedecertification process and the IAOB will be witnessing as many of these special audits aspossible.
Following the special audit, the Certification Body is required to reinstate or withdraw thecertificate within 110 calendar days from the start of the decertification process, per Rules 8.5.

International Automotive Task Force (IATF) Oversight Office

The decision shall be based on one of the following recommendations:a) reinstatement of the certificate where the accepted corrective action plan is found to be
fully and effectively implemented and there have been no additional confirmed
performance issues in subsequent months since the complaint was issued.
b) reinstatement of the certificate in exceptional case(s) where:•

the implementation of corrective actions cannot be completed within themaximum of ninety (90) calendar days from the start of the decertification process
due to “long lead” corrective action steps,•

the performance status of the site is either red or green, and•

there have been no additional confirmed performance issues in subsequent months
since the complaint was issued.

An additional special audit is required to verify effective implementation of the “longlead” corrective action steps even though the site’s certificate was reinstated.
c) withdrawal of the certificate where the accepted corrective action plan is found to be noteffectively implemented (even if the plan includes “long lead” corrective action steps).
d) withdrawal of the certificate where the supplier has additional confirmed performanceissues in subsequent months since the complaint was issued.
Note: It is not acceptable to reinstate the certificate solely based on the OEM-approved
corrective action plan.
If a client is red for three (3) consecutive months, the IAOB will request a meeting with theCertification Body’s management to review the situation. IAOB requires the Certification Body
to prepare a formal presentation (please use the IAOB Supplier Performance InitiativeTemplate).
If a client is red for six (6) consecutive months and has a valid certificate, the Certification Body
shall conduct a special audit (onsite or remote) to review the relevant OEM scorecard report(s)and if there have been any additional confirmed performance issues in subsequent months since
the complaint was issued, the certificate shall be withdrawn.
The IAOB also reserves the right to request a review of any red supplier at any time regardlessof the number of months in red status.
If you have any questions, please contact Liz Spudic (lspudic@iaob.org).

James Bruin
Executive Director, IAOB
IATF Strategic Development

Cherie ReicheManaging Director

International Automotive Task Force (IATF) Oversight OfficeAppendix 1
Table of Recommended Trails to Follow in Red Supplier Special Audits

Topic

Investigation
scope

CorrectiveActions

Read AcrossValidation ofimplementation
Interfaces

Sustained
Improvement

Internal audits

Prevention ofrecurrenceStandardProcessTrails

Potential trails to consider determining the root cause of where theQMS failed resulting in the unacceptable performance
Identify areas in the organization where similar failure modes could occur.
Do not focus on just the specific problems identified in the customer scorecards or complaint(s). Look for the systemic issue in the QMS which
permitted the unacceptable performance, do not just focus on the initiallyidentified problems.
Review the problem statements for accuracy in describing the problem.
Look at other complaints and related examples, selected based on risk tothe customer, not suggested by the client, at least 3 samples for corrective
action investigation, look for systemic issues, and full details for the historyof the problem solving and corrective action process. Look for which
process(es) failed in the QMS. An OEM acceptance of a corrective action
is not sufficient to address the root cause of the QMS issues.
Ensure use of read across of the permanent corrective actions to otherlines, to other products, other sites, including corrections into QMS
foundation documents – APQP, program management, control plans,
FMEA etc.
Ensure the supplier used data to validate the permanent corrective actionthat was implemented eliminated the root cause of the problem and thatthe data collected was for a time appropriate for the problem (type,severity, duration, detection methods, etc.)
Focus on interface between remote support processes and production site
(e.g., headquarters, Product / Process Design, Management Review,Supplier Management, etc.) using documents or outputs from the remotesupport locations used by that specific manufacturing plant.
Look for senior management leadership driving a culture which ensuresthat permanent corrective actions are maintained over time, ensuring thelong-term effects of improvement activities. There is always a root cause
which led to the problem which leads back to a process within the controlof the organization.
Validate that the supplier is covering the same topics (interfaces,corrective actions, scope, read across, prevention of recurrence, etc.) in its
internal audits to ensure effective problem solving and permanent
corrective action implementation.
Verify permanent corrective actions are effectively implemented forsustained prevention of recurrence using internal and external
performance data and relevant update of control plans, FMEAs, APQP
reporting, etc.
Look for standardized problem-solving and corrective action processes aswell as how the permanent corrective action is integrated into the QMS
and daily work instructions / processes to ensure long-term prevention ofrecurrence.
Create audit trails from the information and data reviewed during the RiskBased audit time which was added to the beginning of the audit andcontinue to follow the trails in the regular audit days.

International Automotive Task Force (IATF) Oversight Office