Formal Agreement of Specifications BRC v6 3.6.4
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
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
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.
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.....
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
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."
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
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.