Supplier Quality System

A supplier quality system is the organized system of processes and controls a supplier uses to ensure that its products or services conform to contractual and technical requirements. In defence procurement, the same idea is generally called a Quality Management System, or QMS.

Buyers use the term in government quality assurance and defence contracting. It sits alongside ISO 9001, Government Quality Assurance (GQA), quality assurance (QA), quality control (QC) and the NATO Allied Quality Assurance Publications (AQAPs). The UK Ministry of Defence describes an appropriate QMS as evidence that the supplier has processes and controls to manage quality within the scope of the certified system.

What a supplier quality system covers

The system is the supplier's own structure for controlling conformity. It is not a single inspection or a one-time test. Quality assurance, quality control and inspection are the activities a buyer links to it. Public Works and Government Services Canada (PWGSC) guidance defines Government Quality Assurance as including quality assurance, quality control and quality inspection, and it places those requirements in the requisition or technical documentation.

• Quality assurance: planned controls that prevent non-conformance.
• Quality control: checks that confirm the product or service meets requirements.
• Inspection: verification of the delivered item or service.

The PWGSC Supply Manual states that the client department is responsible for identifying these requirements. See the PWGSC Supply Manual edition for the wording.

When Canadian federal buyers specify one

PWGSC guidance treats a supplier quality system as a requirement to consider when non-conformance could significantly affect product safety, reliability or operational consequences. Its examples are arctic clothing, fire extinguishers, and security equipment or services.

The same guidance lists circumstances that support requiring a system:

• Newly designed products built to government-generated specifications.
• Technically complex, highly interchangeable or critical products whose failure could cause failure of a larger system.
• First-time purchases with no established performance history.
• Recurring supplier non-conformance.
• Suppliers with weak quality systems.

Contracting officers may also consider a supplier quality system for a high-value requirement. The 2006 edition of the guidance states that the nature of the requirement is usually more important than its dollar value. The 2008 edition repeats the safety, reliability and value considerations.

How the UK Ministry of Defence uses QMS certification

The UK Ministry of Defence offers a clear example of how a buyer turns a supplier quality system into a tender condition. Its Joint Service Publication 940 identifies ISO 9001 as the preferred baseline QMS standard. It also says QMS certification may be used as a participation condition or as an award criterion in defence tenders. The JSP 940 Part 2 sets out this approach. Canadian suppliers working with allied defence buyers can expect the same logic: the certified scope of the system defines what quality assurance the buyer can rely on.

What it means for a supplier bidding on Canadian public contracts

The obligation depends on the solicitation and the resulting contract. Where a buyer specifies a supplier quality system, the supplier must demonstrate and maintain a system capable of controlling conformity. The supplier must also permit the government's applicable quality-assurance, inspection or verification activities.

The Canadian excerpts cited here come from PWGSC Supply Manual editions from 2005 to 2008. They support the requirement to specify and consider a supplier quality system. They do not impose a universal certification requirement. Bid teams should read the quality clauses and technical documentation in each solicitation, confirm whether a certified system such as ISO 9001 is requested, and match the scope of their system to the goods or services offered. Suppliers with a documented, maintained system, and records that show it works, are better placed for requirements involving safety, complexity or critical performance.