Jump to content

  • Quick Navigation
Photo
- - - - -

BRC Food - Supplier evaluation 3.5

BRC Supplier evaluation Risk assessment primary packaging

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

#1 tharinduth

tharinduth

    Grade - Active

  • IFSQN Active
  • 22 posts
  • 1 thanks
0
Neutral

  • Sri Lanka
    Sri Lanka

Posted 20 February 2018 - 07:00 AM

Hi all,

 

Currently I am having a doubt how to evaluate our primary packing material supplier as per BRC - Food clause no 3.5. The risk level is medium. We have audited them last year due to lack of GFSI recognized certificate. 

 

This year how we evaluate them? Is simple questionnaire enough or do we have to conduct another audit within this year?

 

Please aid.

 

Thank you in advance. 



#2 Charles.C

Charles.C

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Moderator
  • 13,606 posts
  • 3732 thanks
410
Excellent

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

Posted 20 February 2018 - 10:06 AM

Hi all,

 

Currently I am having a doubt how to evaluate our primary packing material supplier as per BRC - Food clause no 3.5. The risk level is medium. We have audited them last year due to lack of GFSI recognized certificate. 

 

This year how we evaluate them? Is simple questionnaire enough or do we have to conduct another audit within this year?

 

Please aid.

 

Thank you in advance. 

 

Hi tharinduth,

 

Strictly speaking, afaik, BRC requires a risk assessment of raw materials, packaging etc. As per the criteria in clause 3.5.1.1

 

The methodology for a Grading of Supplier Risk Level  is technically, seemingly, up-to-you although I believe BRC do make some suggestions in the Interpretation Guidelines (albeit non-auditable ones).

 

Use of a Questionnaire seemingly (clause 3.5.1.2) demands a, so-called, "Low Risk" supplier, even though this terminology is BRC7-undefined.

 

IIRC BRC are also on record of not recognising a designated "medium" risk supplier.

 

So perhaps you might profitably re-evaluate the "medium" ?? :smile:


Kind Regards,

 

Charles.C


Thanked by 2 Members:

#3 GMO

GMO

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Fellow
  • 2,383 posts
  • 554 thanks
73
Excellent

  • United Kingdom
    United Kingdom

Posted 20 February 2018 - 05:58 PM

Personally as they're non GFSI I'd be tempted to audit them yearly and I think you may struggle to justify not doing so?  Perhaps turn it on its head, if I was a BRC auditor what is your risk assessment to say they don't need auditing yearly?  Is their product very low risk?  Can you do a remote trace to check their processes?



#4 redfox

redfox

    Grade - SIFSQN

  • IFSQN Senior
  • 426 posts
  • 121 thanks
12
Good

  • Philippines
    Philippines

Posted 21 February 2018 - 12:36 AM

Hello tharinduth,

 

We usually conduct annual audit to our rawmat, packaging and additive suppliers annually. And send questionnaire to our suppliers from other countries.

 

I have some risk assessment attached, it may help you.

 

regards,

redfox

 

 

Attached File  3.5.1.1 RM Risk Analysis_revised_v7 _070717.xlsx   35.19KB   151 downloads

 

 



Thanked by 3 Members:

#5 João

João

    Grade - Active

  • IFSQN Active
  • 3 posts
  • 0 thanks
0
Neutral

  • Portugal
    Portugal

Posted 22 February 2018 - 03:26 PM

Hi Redfox,

 

Nice template! how did you make your VA? What is your matrix basis? 

 

I really like of your template because it´s very objective.

 

My main difficult is always to "justify" my VA matrix... What´s is the "acceptable" meaning of values 1,2,3, 4 and 5 for likelihood of occurence and detection.

 

Your template is validated by BRC auditors? I make this question because i don´t see many points of BRC like: fraud history, economic factors, etc.... I think your template it´s more like FSSC.

 

Thank you! 



#6 redfox

redfox

    Grade - SIFSQN

  • IFSQN Senior
  • 426 posts
  • 121 thanks
12
Good

  • Philippines
    Philippines

Posted 24 February 2018 - 03:07 AM

Hello tharinduth,

 

Please attachment. My supply chain vulnerability assessment, RM VA, VA matrix and reviews.

 

 

regards,

redfox

 

Attached File  Vulnerability Assessment and review.xlsx   37.75KB   105 downloads

 

 

 

 



Thanked by 3 Members:

#7 Charles.C

Charles.C

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Moderator
  • 13,606 posts
  • 3732 thanks
410
Excellent

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

Posted 24 February 2018 - 05:26 PM

Hi redfox,

 

Thanks for posting yr risk assessments.

I wondered if the, IMO, rather generic layout was also intended to be suitable for other standards in addition to BRC.

 

A few comments -

 

(1) There seems a little confusion here and there in the excels regarding the terms hazard and risk. Not unusual.

(2) The use of the word "significant" as a matrix severity level (tabs 1/2) is IMEX unusual.

(3) The  BRC risk matrix (tab1) does not seem to directly correlate to any of the matrix examples (tab2) but all selections are anyway basically a matter of opinion (risk aversiveness) although the minimal criterion of "quite likely to occur" is, I think, nowadays fairly standard in haccp texts.

(4) It's partly a matter of opinion but more than 3 risk "segments" in a matrix tends to be regarded as statistically questionable.

(5) IMEX it is unusual to present a risk assessment without a column for hazards. I would have thought it simpler (less columns-less verbiage) in tab3/4 to use a routine hazard analysis format / BCPA etc.

(6) Personally i would hv replaced "Purchasing" by "Receiving" in tab 3 etc but only my opinion.

(7) I note that there is no raw material specific  "hazard analysis" since all the terminologies are generic, eg "microbial contamination". This is not sufficient IMO but was obviously OK for yr auditor.

(8) The "Ingredients" (tabs 4/5) are anonymous.

(9) The possibility of microbial contamination in raw material/ingredients appears to textually  exclude pathogens. This seems illogical ?

(10) There seems to be a need for some x-links in yr Post 4 "risk analysis" excels to where the actual validatory material is sourced, eg the VA analysis in Post 6.

(11) As noted in Post 2 afaik BRC only consider 2 classes of supplier grading, ie Low / not Low. Maybe BRC-relevant to tab6

(12) I note that the Supplier Rating (tab6) has no direct input regarding the specific risk level of the raw material/inputs (eg the haccp-evaluated risk). IMO this is highly questionable.

(13) I noted that the VA result circled in tab5 is not fully in agreement with the text in tab4 ? Good to know that visual detection is so efficient.

.

I like the idea of the matrix-type format for displaying the Supplier Rating but I'm a little dubious as to the numbers/interpretation.

I guess it's worth repeating that BRC does not explicitly require Supplier Ratings but there is some implied demand from the text. Typical BRC.

 

Thks again for posting. Much appreciated.


Kind Regards,

 

Charles.C


#8 Cravin' Cajun?

Cravin' Cajun?

    Grade - MIFSQN

  • IFSQN Member
  • 51 posts
  • 27 thanks
0
Neutral

  • United States
    United States
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Louisiana
  • Interests:Food Safety, HACCP, BRC, Spices

Posted 12 March 2018 - 09:49 PM

Personally as they're non GFSI I'd be tempted to audit them yearly and I think you may struggle to justify not doing so?  Perhaps turn it on its head, if I was a BRC auditor what is your risk assessment to say they don't need auditing yearly?  Is their product very low risk?  Can you do a remote trace to check their processes?

 

I agree 100% with GMO...need to audit supplier every year until they complete GFSI certification.







0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users