11 replies to this topic

[NZgal]

Good morning!

BRC 3.6.4 states 'Where specifications are not formally agreed then the company shall be able to demonstrate that it has taken steps to ensure formal agreement has taken place'


We approve and agree specs that we receive from suppliers for raw materials, but how can we demonstrate the above for Finished Product specs that we send out to our customers. Could ask them to sign and send back a copy but then it's another thing to keep chasing if they don't. What steps are appropriate?


Any thoughts would be appreciated

[Dr Ajay Shah]

Hi NZgal,

You should keep all corespondence that you have sent out to them as evidence and whatever you received from them as evidence. You can request them to sign as you stated.

Cheers

[GMO]

Absolutely agree with the PP. BRC recognise that you are dependent on other parties on this so make sure you put everything in writing be it meeting minutes, emails etc so that if they don't send them back you can prove you've chased them. That should be enough to avoid non conformity.

[Cranberry]

It will depend on the customer. Here is what we passed (BRC v6) with, when we just couldn't get a formal agreement:

Large multinational using an online specifications management system and a technologist who wouldn't commit to anything: Copy of the supplier approved spec from the system, an email from said technologist saying after our amendments he was happy and would authorise once his workload allowed. Crossed fingers.

Small customers: We asked them in an email to send a reply confirming they accept the spec. If not (and it is taking every ounce of restraint I possess not to name and shame a particular wholesaler) we used an email including the specification with the line ..."this specification is taken as accepted by XXXX. Any amendments can be requested by contacting XXX @ XXX.

Edited by Cranberry, 23 May 2012 - 12:49 PM.

[shea quay]

We use the line "If signed specification is not recieved within 10 working days, it will be assumed the specification has been approved". This, and a copy of the email requesting a signed copy to be returned has sufficed in the past.
I cannot comment about those who stoutly refuse to sign specifications as, I'm afraid, those living in glass houses are discouraged from throwing stones.....

[NZgal]

Thanks very much for your replies!!!!

[HACCP Mentor]

Some other forms of evidence can include contract for supply or signed delivery consignment notes. Just make sure this evidence includes a blub on "you agree to accept our products on the basis of our product specification".....

[Charles.C]

Dear All,

In their (unusual?) flexibility BRC may well be promoting a dubious zigzag.

Sadly, IM(bitten)EX, in the event of a quality/weight problem most side-steps are useless from a producer’s viewpoint. The “if no further response” trick forgets that a small fortune will hv been expended in the production / export of goods and any eventual rejection/claim > probable major loss. The manouevere has more power when employed by the receiver because other than a subsequent rejection causing temporary lack of product, they hv nothing to financially lose by rejection, except storage and/or disposal charges.

Most companies I hv worked for will only produce against an agreed specification, precisely for above reasons. And often extended to agreed samples also. Equally, most “organised” buyers IMEX will also not formalise a purchase order unless a mutually agreed specification is agreed on. Especially if it’s branded retail goods, after all, any problem after distribution is then ultimately their backs also.

Rgds / Charles.C

[GMO]

Dear All,

In their (unusual?) flexibility BRC may well be promoting a dubious zigzag.

Sadly, IM(bitten)EX, in the event of a quality/weight problem most side-steps are useless from a producer’s viewpoint. The “if no further response” trick forgets that a small fortune will hv been expended in the production / export of goods and any eventual rejection/claim > probable major loss. The manouevere has more power when employed by the receiver because other than a subsequent rejection causing temporary lack of product, they hv nothing to financially lose by rejection, except storage and/or disposal charges.

Most companies I hv worked for will only produce against an agreed specification, precisely for above reasons. And often extended to agreed samples also. Equally, most “organised” buyers IMEX will also not formalise a purchase order unless a mutually agreed specification is agreed on. Especially if it’s branded retail goods, after all, any problem after distribution is then ultimately their backs also.

Rgds / Charles.C

It's a fair point, we recently got into hot water because of this despite our best efforts. Unfortunately some customers don't seem to want to work this way whatever you do. The ultimate threat has to be "we will not supply you until you agree this specification" but it's difficult for an SME to really follow through with that threat.


Ultimately, if you can afford it, it might be worth getting legal guidance on the wording of the specification but IMO it should be the customer who drives specification completion not the supplier! I wonder if there is any wording which would be effective? Along the lines of "specification to be agreed and signed off by the customer seven days prior to launch. In the event that product is requested without specification sign off, the customer bears full responsibility for the quality. No rejections nor complaints will be accepted for this product until after the specification is agreed."

[isabelle campbell]

I represent a smaller, food manufacturing company and in response to BRC issue 6 we generate customer approval forms (CAF) on all our product. The customer must sign off on this form upon the first shipment and every three years thereafter or as changes take place. It is a simple, but formal agreement of product specification that ensures both parties understand what they are getting. The CAF outlines all major fields of the product specification and quite frankly, I don't know why we didn't do it before. It's introduced a new level of accountability on both sides of the product and cleared up some miscommunications!

[Charles.C]

Dear isabelle campbell,

The customer must sign off on this form upon the first shipment and every three years thereafter or as changes take place. It is a simple, but formal agreement of product specification that ensures both parties understand what they are getting.

Sounds like a reasonable approach however -

I hope that "upon" = before and "shipment" = production.

"It is a simple" - It may depend on the product and the (Canadian?) meaning but this sounds a rather doomed document if significant protection is anticipated. IMEX (particularly with tough customers / retail foods), non-simple details are almost obligatory although simple 1-page specs do the job for many general purposes.

As per GMO's post, it is MEX that customer specs often initiate the discussion rather than producer. More precisely the "bias" in customer specs.

(Raw material specs are often more restricted depending on their variability, origin, etc, eg the sea).

Rgds / Charles.C

[D-D]

All well and good if you have a small number of products and customers but we have a warehouse full of items that are manufactured and traded for use in ingredients all over the world that need to be dispatched quickly in response to daily enquiries. A spec and MSDS are always sent by email (which is then saved to record the communication) but if we were to wait for "agreement" the business would grind to a halt.
In the footer of our spec it says "Please acknowledge acceptance of this specification as agreement to supply. If we do not receive this within 14 days we will assume the specification meets your requirements."
Seems to work at least in our situation. The auditor did not note this in the report but did state that products are further processed so maybe that has an influence too.

Edited by D-D, 30 May 2012 - 07:25 AM.