I'm reviewing our current Vendor Approval program. The way the system was set up, purchasing notifed the QA manager of a new vendor, and the QA manager was in theory getting all of the required documentation.
Hooray, I thought I was all set with vendor approval and only had to worry about new vendors...
Then purchasing buys AN INGREDIENT from Amazon.com, and explains to me that amazon is on the approved vendor list, so it should be okay. A quick look at my ""Approved Vendor List" revealed it is actually a list of distributors. The "self-assessments" that are on file, which the other QA Manager approved, are covered with N/A and "No HACCP plan". Which, duh, they're distributors, I expect them to have standards but not to have HACCP plans. I need supplier assessments for the manufacturer.
My purchasing dept is super awesome, but they have no idea who is a distributor and who is a manufacturer, and I think their brains exploded when I told them I need *manufacturer* approval, NOT distributor. They're upset because their bible list of distributors isn't valid anymore and that I will probably be requireing vendors to have different standards. Also it's a pain in the ass to call up 300 different manufacturers and ask for a vendor self-assessment.
So, my question to all y'all is, in the SQF lvl 3, ISO 9001:2008 and AIB standards (We have ISO, are scheduled for AIB, and want to build to SQF or FSSC 22000), -
1. I thought I had to get manufacturer approval by auditing their sites/ accepting their 3rd party GFSI standards / getting self assessments & COAs. When GFSI standards say "Vendor" or "Supplier", they are referring to manufacturer *and* the distributors, right? The whole supply chain?
2. Distributors have their own approval step, but this would be much less rigorous and not require GFSI cert docs or HACCP plans or anything crazy. Mostly a commitment to good GMPs and storage?
3. We do not have a lab but I would like to incorporate raw material testing in supplier approval. Our previous QA Manager belived raw material testing was not necessary because we receive on COA and had letter of guarantee as part of our Vendor Approval program. Thus, our $$ conserving board has given me a budget of $0.00 for raw material testing. That's bullshit, right? The justification is that it is illegal to lie on letters of Guarantee, but ... people do it. And I want to ensure quality standards of the COA. Vendor Approval has nothing to do with it? Or is a good vendor approval program magic that can safely eliminate raw material testing? Because if I can avoid work, I do, and raw material testing = work. I want to belive, but it reeks of faulty logic and quality/food safety red flags to not do any testing.