SQF 2011 Full Report: Skipped Clauses

Is there any reasoning on why SQF's Quickfire (Muddy Boots Software Ltd 2011) allows an auditor to skip clauses?

I am with a company (new adopters of the SQF standard) and looking at how their last auditor noted compliance in their last audit. In particular, I was looking for clause 4.2.1.1 & 4.2.2.1 but could not find it on their last report... so I looked at one of our supplier's audit reports, it was also missing...

These reports go from 4.1.6.5 (skipping 4.2.1.1) then 4.2.1.2 (skipping 4.2.2.1) to 4.2.2.2...

Why would these reports skip the " methods and responsibility" clauses?

4.2.1.1 The methods and responsibility for
ensuring personnel have access to current
documents and maintaining document control shall
be documented and implemented.

4.2.2.1 The methods and responsibility for
undertaking monitoring activities, verifying,
maintaining and retaining records shall be
documented and implemented.

I thank you for any observations you may have.
Cheers

And why would an auditor skip (and be allowed to skip) the 1st three of the five Business Continuity Planning clauses?
Skipping these 1st three clause with only a cursory mention of them certainly provides no continuity of guidance from ones own audit.

4.1.6.1 A business continuity plan based on the
understanding of known food safety threats to a
business shall be prepared by Senior Management
outlining the methods and responsibility the
organization will implement to cope with a business
crisis that may impact on the ability of the supplier
to deliver safe food.

4.1.6.2 The business continuity plan shall include
as a minimum:
i. A Senior Management responsibility for
decision making, oversight and initiating
actions arising from a crisis management
incident;
ii. The nomination and training of a crisis
management team;
iii. The controls implemented to ensure a
response does not compromise product
safety;
iv. The measures to isolate and identify
product affected by a response to a crisis;
v. The measures taken to verify the
acceptability of food prior to release
vi. The preparation and maintenance of a
current crisis alert contact list;
vii. Sources of legal and expert advice; and
viii. The responsibility for internal
communications and communicating with
authorities, external organizations and
media.

4.1.6.3 The business continuity plan shall be
reviewed, tested and verified at least annually.

4.1.6.4 Records of reviews and verification of the
business continuity plan shall be maintained.

4.1.6.5 Incidents involving product withdrawal
and recall shall be handled as outlined in 4.6.3.

This is not to say that an SQF auditor can be very thorough, but SQF's reporting system does not seem to assure thoroughness from ones auditor.
Is anybody else coming across this in their own audit review?

Anybody?...
anybody?....
Bueller?

Hi Baron, I just posted this:

The Accreditation Bodies are the ones who audit Certification Bodies, but also the standards owners themselves have the power to suspend to kick out rogue certification bodies from their scheme.

All BRC audit results now have to be uploaded to the BRC database which allows the BRC to monitor the quality and depth of individual audits and conduct statistical analysis of results etc. They have been known to kick out a Certification Body for not operating to the rules.

All those involved with Certification Standards (for the right reasons) want their integrity maintained and improved. I see it as a multi-faceted approach between Accreditation Bodies, Standards owners, Certification Bodies, Auditors and Users.

Download: The BRC Global Standards Complaint Investigation Process

I am sure the other standards owners have similar complaints protocols.

It’s up to us as users to give them the ‘word on the street’ if we have a concern.

Here: http://www.ifsqn.com...o-change-things

I'm not sure if the Muddy Boots system works the same way. Anyway unless we complain (or at least ask some serious questions why?) about the poor performance of auditors, either to the Certification Body or SQF directly then we can expect auditing standards will not improve and perhaps will get worse. i know it's not always the fault of the auditor, there is a lot to get through during an audit as every requirement of the standard must be checked at every audit and so it follows that the depth of audits must be limited.

Regards,
Simon

Hi Baron, I just posted this:
[/size][/font]
Here: http://www.ifsqn.com...o-change-things

I'm not sure if the Muddy Boots system works the same way. Anyway unless we complain (or at least ask some serious questions why?) about the poor performance of auditors, either to the Certification Body or SQF directly then we can expect auditing standards will not improve and perhaps will get worse. i know it's not always the fault of the auditor, there is a lot to get through during an audit as every requirement of the standard must be checked at every audit and so it follows that the depth of audits must be limited.

Thank you Simon for the feedback.

I have managed food safety and quality programed under BRC audits as well as deployed the BRC Directory's on-line TraceOne ICP Portal use on the retail end (allows cert/report visibility granted by the supplier for the retailer). I have been thoroughly impress with the BRC Global Standard, their audits, their reports and their drive for transparency. And from what I hear, as you mention Simon, the CB's are under the gun to do a good job.

I have reviewed dozens of BRC audit reports from overseas suppliers and have colleagues who have visited the audit facilities: the BRC audit reports truly seem to reflect their current standing. These BRC reports (mostly issue 5) have been completed by various world wide CB's on at least 4 different continents: the ones I reviewed were consistently well reported and thorough in what evidence the audited facility had provided.

I have only been recently involved with the SQF Code (issue 7) but have not seen SQF scrutiny on the CBs as I have with BRC... so far.

SQF's on-line reporting system is also called Reliance (I guess run by the Muddy Boots Software).

http://www.sqfi.com/...-User-Guide.pdf
Per the instructions on page 16: "NOTE: Any item marked as not applicable in advance within the checklists in Reliance (online) has the ability to be edited within the Offline Audit Tool by the acting Auditor."

This seems to allow a CB auditor to skip, without any note as to why, entire SQF Code clauses.... but I find this ironic as the auditor then justified why some clauses were exempt on the report. I have also seen this on other SQF reports from other suppliers.

I have sent my complaint to SQFI, but unfortunately the only contact I have found is the general one info@sqfi.com at the US branch.

If anybody knows any other way to direct this concern, it would be appreciated.

Cheers

to be honest I don't know a lot about the SQF standard and auditing protocols etc., so thank's for aiding my learning. Are there any other members involved and experienced with SQF who can shed some light on this for Baron?

By the way let us know how you get on with your complaint/query to the SQF Baron.


Regards,
Simon

Simon & Baron,

Our audit report was missing some of the same info as yours Baron. Maybe a Muddy Boots (Quickfire) issue, bur whatever the case Quickfire is no longer the data portal for SQFI. The were "fired" due to the huge number of complaints and problems. SQFI now employs the Reliance assessment database from EtQ. I haven't used it yet, but after watching a couple of webinars it looks a lot like iCiX (if you're famiar with that company).

Regards,
esquef