9 replies to this topic

[mica]

Hi All

 

Can anyone help please. I am looking for a questionnaire that would pass the new V7 audit for supplier approval.

 

We pack whole soft fruit. I f anyone has a copy they would be prepared to share I would be very grateful.

Or an idea of the layout and questions needed to demonstrate compliance.

 

Most of our suppliers are long term so we access via historical evidence, I have been told this is not good enough for the new BRC.

 

Thank you 

 

M

[Kehlan]

AS I understand it, you don't actually need to have a questionnaire.  We didn't use one in my previous company and they have BRC 7.  The important thing is to have a robust DD programme.  I assume you are asking your suppliers for some form of DD... I'd guess Global GAP/Red Tractor, BRC cert (if they have it) Proposed Pesticide list, Recent Residue Test, Sedex, a signed supplier undertaking - at least these are the common requirements.

[Charles.C]

Hi mica,

 

I assume this relates to clause 3.5.1.2 (et al)

Based on previous threads, afaik it is  possible to approve a supplier for BRC7 through one (or more if you wish) of the following:

 

(1) a supplier approval questionnaire (only if they are low risk)

(2) a GFSI-recognised certificate being held by the supplier

(3) carrying out your own audit of the supplier with scope etc as stated in clause 3.5.1.2

(4) or using a non-GFSI approved certificated audit (eg SALSA) [with scope presumably as per option (3)] as long as you follow through the close out of the audit as if you’d carried it out yourself

 

I presume the OP refers to option (1)

I presume Post 2 refers to one or more of options  (2), (3), or (4) ?

 

@Kehlan - What is DD?

[Sheilag]

I have low risk facility and product and use this, it's simple but the auditors have been satisfied it's in the process of approval requirements -  Vendor Qualification Questionaire.doc   27KB   1174 downloads

[Kehlan]

Apologies, I hear DD so often I tend to forget not everyone knows what it means.... its "Due Diligence"  and usually (in the fresh produce industry at least) refers to all the technical documentation a supplier has to provide before they can be approved for supply. It usually comprises of the documentation I mentioned in my post above plus a few customer specific requirements such as Field To Fork, Nurture, LEAF etc

[Charles.C]

I have low risk facility and product and use this, it's simple but the auditors have been satisfied it's in the process of approval requirements -Vendor Qualification Questionaire.doc

 

Hi Sheilag,

 

thanks for the attachment. Interesting document.

 

One wonders as to BRC's interpretation of what constitutes a "Low/High Risk" Supplier (as compared, say,  to a "High Risk" Product)  ? The Glossary offers no help for the former.

 

IYO, are there any particular positive/negative responses which might individually render the Questionnaire "Unsatisfactory" from BRC's POV ? eg as for items 8, 9, 11-13 ?

[Charles.C]

Apologies, I hear DD so often I tend to forget not everyone knows what it means.... its "Due Diligence"  and usually (in the fresh produce industry at least) refers to all the technical documentation a supplier has to provide before they can be approved for supply. It usually comprises of the documentation I mentioned in my post above plus a few customer specific requirements such as Field To Fork, Nurture, LEAF etc

 

Hi Kehlan,

 

Thanks. it's an interesting example of the practical impact of Due Diligence in UK.  I wonder if the rigorousness described  is specific to the Fresh Produce Industry.

[Anika]

Hi Sheilag,

 

thanks for the attachment. Interesting document.

 

One wonders as to BRC's interpretation of what constitutes a "Low/High Risk" Supplier (as compared, say,  to a "High Risk" Product)  ? The Glossary offers no help for the former.

 

IYO, are there any particular positive/negative responses which might individually render the Questionnaire "Unsatisfactory" from BRC's POV ? eg as for items 8, 9, 11-13 ?

Hi Charles, Is it BRC interpretation or company interpretation to what is high/low risk based on risk assessment and HACCP? I assumed the latter.

[Anika]

Hi mica,

 

I assume this relates to clause 3.5.1.2 (et al)

Based on previous threads, afaik it is  possible to approve a supplier for BRC7 through one (or more if you wish) of the following:

 

(1) a supplier approval questionnaire (only if they are low risk)

(2) a GFSI-recognised certificate being held by the supplier

(3) carrying out your own audit of the supplier with scope etc as stated in clause 3.5.1.2

(4) or using a non-GFSI approved certificated audit (eg SALSA) [with scope presumably as per option (3)] as long as you follow through the close out of the audit as if you’d carried it out yourself

 

I presume the OP refers to option (1)

I presume Post 2 refers to one or more of options  (2), (3), or (4) ?

 

@Kehlan - What is DD?

 

 

Btw they changed the orientation in I7 so as to make GFSI recognized scheme above questionnaires.

 

The company shall have a documented supplier approval and ongoing monitoring procedure to ensure that all suppliers of raw materials, including packaging, (removal of hygienic conditions) effectively manage risks to raw material quality and safety and are operating effective traceability processes. The approval and monitoring procedure shall be based on risk and include one or a combination of:

• certification (e.g. to BRC Global Standards or other GFSI-recognised scheme) (moved up)

• supplier audits, with a scope to include product safety, traceability, HACCP review and good manufacturing practices, undertaken by an experienced and

demonstrably competent product safety auditor or, for suppliers assessed as low risk only, supplier questionnaires.

Where approval is based on questionnaires, these shall be reissued at least every 3 years and suppliers will be required to notify the site of any significant

changes in the interim.

Packaging has been specifically referenced in this clause and suppliers of food contact and consumer packaging need to be included.

Further detail has been provided about the auditor and scope of an acceptable audit where this process is used for approval. This is to ensure the validity of such audits.

The need for a list of approved suppliers has been specifically noted. In practice to comply fully with Issue 6 most sites would already have such a list.

The site shall have an up-to-date list of approved suppliers.

Edited by Charles.C, 31 March 2016 - 05:51 PM.
re-formatted

[Charles.C]

hi Anika,
 

Btw they changed the orientation in I7 so as to make GFSI recognized scheme above questionnaires

 

Interesting, "questionnaire" is the last option in my copies of  both BRC6 and 7. Canadian version maybe.

 

Hi Charles, Is it BRC interpretation or company interpretation to what is high/low risk based on risk assessment and HACCP? I assumed the latter.

 

I presume you are referring to the raw material.

 

I'm not sure how you are differentiating between risk assessment and HACCP ?

 

BRC presumably intend the raw material to be risk assessed as per menu in clause 3.5.1.1.

 

The result of the RA then becomes a (one) input to the overall procedure for determining Supplier Approval as ultimately quantifiable via the 3 options listed in 3.5.1.2.

 

It seems to me that a Supplier could conceivably be approved for Low Risk raw materials but not for High. It also seems to me that the Suppplier  audit frequency should theoretically be related to a Low/High Risk status of raw material rather than a casual "Annual for all " but perhaps then adjusted as per subsequent ongoing monitoring feedback. Or perhaps BRC are happy with a blanket "Annual" frequency ( similar to the Raw material minimum RA) since there is no specific mention of frequency in 3.5.1.1, 3.5.1.2 other than for Questionnaires.

 

It is perhaps preferable to interpret a "Low Risk supplier" as simply an (approved) Supplier of Low-Risk raw material.

 

i find the concept of  compositing a  FS-based score with a Quality based score to achieve one Risk Rating rather illogical. And similarly the VA "status/score". Ideally, if one uses such methodologies, a weighting factor is included. Then it can really get subjective.

 

Practically it seems that the style of layouts as discussed in thread linked below are "BRC-acceptable" from a Supplier Approval POV. And probably many other layouts also. The aspect of ongoing monitoring frequency is presumably then separable out (despite it's implied direct linkage in 3.5.1.2.)

http://www.ifsqn.com...val/#entry98818

 

The BRC Guidance may have the intended BRC interpretation of high/low risk (Raw Material, Supplier respectively). And the Rest. Maybe......?

 

(The Glossary has a definition of "High Risk Product but the text implies [to me] that this is aimed at Finished Product. There is also a definition of "High Care Product", the distinction between the two defs. seemed feeble to me)

 

PS - with respect to the OP and based on above comments the BRC overall risk is a (subjective) cumulative result based on the various "risk assessments" mentioned in 3.5.1.1 so i would predict the former rather than the latter.

The Company viewpoint might focus solely on HACCP of course as is done in many textbooks.

One might claim that UK's Due Diligence has successfully, Globally, expanded the BRC auditee's requirements.

Edited by Charles.C, 01 April 2016 - 04:55 AM.
expanded