Jump to content

  • Quick Navigation
Photo
- - - - -

Does anyone have a (SQF compatible) supplier score card?

SQF

  • You cannot start a new topic
  • Please log in to reply
7 replies to this topic

#1 ksullivan

ksullivan

    Grade - MIFSQN

  • IFSQN Member
  • 80 posts
  • 26 thanks
8
Neutral

  • United States
    United States

Posted 10 November 2017 - 07:37 PM

Does anyone have a (SQF compatible) supplier score card they could share?  The idea is to use it as part of annual review of suppliers and might include information about certifications, quality issues, food safety issues, FDA recalls....

 

Thank you!

 


  • 0

#2 Mulan1010

Mulan1010

    Grade - MIFSQN

  • IFSQN Member
  • 109 posts
  • 51 thanks
16
Good

  • United States
    United States

Posted 15 November 2017 - 09:35 PM

The attached file with examples are by no means perfect but have gotten us through our SQF Audits and will hopefully give you an option of what you can do.

Attached Files


  • 0

Thanked by 1 Member:

#3 Charles.C

Charles.C

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Moderator
  • 12,600 posts
  • 3288 thanks
350
Excellent

  • Earth
    Earth
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:SF
    TV
    Movies

Posted 16 November 2017 - 06:36 AM

The attached file with examples are by no means perfect but have gotten us through our SQF Audits and will hopefully give you an option of what you can do.

 

Hi Mulan,

 

It's a nice score card, thanks, but unfortunately it has no specific  "Safety" or "Safety-related" columns. Or indication as to how numbers generated. I assume this part confidential.

 

PS. - Maybe you use 2 score-cards, one each for SQF non-safety (Quality) / safety aspects ?


  • 0

Kind Regards,

 

Charles.C


#4 Peaches

Peaches

    Grade - MIFSQN

  • IFSQN Member
  • 79 posts
  • 48 thanks
3
Neutral

  • United States
    United States
  • Gender:Female

Posted 16 November 2017 - 02:53 PM

We use a supplier incident log to keep track of all supplier incidents throughout the year.  When we perform our supplier assessment, it takes into account all incidents that have occur.  The supplier assessment is rated 1-4, where 1 is the best of the best and 4 is worst of the worst.  The assessment also takes into account the quality systems in place, the country of manufacture/orgin, the amount of information available from the supplier, and their allergen program.  We can then rate our suppliers and determine if we need to start sourcing an alternate supply of an item.  

Attached Files


  • 0

#5 Mulan1010

Mulan1010

    Grade - MIFSQN

  • IFSQN Member
  • 109 posts
  • 51 thanks
16
Good

  • United States
    United States

Posted 16 November 2017 - 04:14 PM

Thank you Charles - I should have included the SOP that goes with the evaluations, my apologies.  We do consider the safety in as a part of the quality score. The score is a formula that weights each column by a factor to add up to a possible 100 overall. - Best Regards!

Attached Files


  • 0

Thanked by 1 Member:

#6 Charles.C

Charles.C

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Moderator
  • 12,600 posts
  • 3288 thanks
350
Excellent

  • Earth
    Earth
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:SF
    TV
    Movies

Posted 17 November 2017 - 05:29 AM

Thank you Charles - I should have included the SOP that goes with the evaluations, my apologies.  We do consider the safety in as a part of the quality score. The score is a formula that weights each column by a factor to add up to a possible 100 overall. - Best Regards!

 

Hi Mulan,

 

Thks for SOP.

 

I assume this OP was/is related to SQF(7.2) -  2.4.5.4 (vii)], ie –

 

vii.    Methods and frequency of reviewing approved supplier performance and status.

 

I am interested/impressed that you were able to directly, quantitatively,  combine safety/non-safety data (presumably via weighting) so as to generate  a single number for a score card.

 

I encountered this conceptual problem for raw material risk evaluation in another BRC thread here and had considerable misgivings over combining (with/without weighting) quality elements which are effectively “apples and oranges”. I compromised by incorporating some caveats defining the scope of proposed averaging formula.

 

Although not directly mentioned in SOP, I assume the supplier "score" has an input regarding the level of risk for  the specific ingredient .


  • 0

Kind Regards,

 

Charles.C


#7 Mulan1010

Mulan1010

    Grade - MIFSQN

  • IFSQN Member
  • 109 posts
  • 51 thanks
16
Good

  • United States
    United States

Posted 18 November 2017 - 12:08 AM

Yes this SOP was related to SQF 7.2.; we have not yet updated to Edition 8.

 

We actually do not rate the score of the supplier against the risk of the ingredient itself.  We have a separate report for the risk of each ingredient and base our requirements, inspections and testing needed on the risk of each item.  We rate part of the vendor score on any rejects or complaints we have had against that vendor and food safety related issues do carry more weight than non-food safety issues.  We also have a list of requirements a vendor must meet to be approved and review if they comply with them all. 

 

Right or wrong, we do this as a team with production and procurement personnel and that is why we have other items listed besides just quality and food safety as they are also looking at price and on time delivery and such when purchasing goods. SQF is pushing for a team approach and the auditors seem to like that.  It is definitely not perfect and I appreciate the feedback; it definitely helps to see the options out there. 


  • 0

#8 Charles.C

Charles.C

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Moderator
  • 12,600 posts
  • 3288 thanks
350
Excellent

  • Earth
    Earth
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:SF
    TV
    Movies

Posted 18 November 2017 - 06:50 AM

Yes this SOP was related to SQF 7.2.; we have not yet updated to Edition 8.

 

We actually do not rate the score of the supplier against the risk of the ingredient itself.  We have a separate report for the risk of each ingredient and base our requirements, inspections and testing needed on the risk of each item.  We rate part of the vendor score on any rejects or complaints we have had against that vendor and food safety related issues do carry more weight than non-food safety issues.  We also have a list of requirements a vendor must meet to be approved and review if they comply with them all. 

 

Right or wrong, we do this as a team with production and procurement personnel and that is why we have other items listed besides just quality and food safety as they are also looking at price and on time delivery and such when purchasing goods. SQF is pushing for a team approach and the auditors seem to like that.  It is definitely not perfect and I appreciate the feedback; it definitely helps to see the options out there. 

 

Hi Mulan,

 

Thks for above. Indeed yr logic chain is similar to BRC logic. I anticipate that yr weighting factor must be highly empirical but i agree one has to start somewhere. I hv implemented an analogous "weighting" but in a slightly different way, ie i use a uniform "score" criterion but adjust the penalty for non-compliance depending on  safety/non-safety elements.

 

A similar issue gets dragged in for BRC in the case of designating a supplier as High / Low Risk.

Their glossary naturally gives no assistance as to the intended meanings of such terminologies but their non-free Interpretation Guidelines (IG) imply the classification should include (somehow) a fusion of risk elements relating to (a) the manufacturing establishment itself plus (b) the specific raw "materials" also. Apples and Oranges IMO.

Unaware of the [non-auditable] IG document, I used the food raw material risk assessment as a sole criterion. Sometimes Ignorance is Bliss. :whistle:


  • 0

Kind Regards,

 

Charles.C


Thanked by 1 Member:




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users