BRC Admin Fees Increasing Again

From 01st November 2014, the BRC are increasing their annual database administration fee from £150.00 to £180.00.  That’s a whopping 20% uplift.  Anyone else getting this type of wage or price rise in their business?  It really is a liberty, the kind of liberty that can only be taken when a suppliers has a customer’s doo-dah’s in a vice.   I don’t know how an £150 database admin fee can be justified let alone £180...what a racket.  The database admin work is probably five minutes work a year for somebody on the minimum wage.

Rant over. :angry2:  

I think you've said it all there Simon

Cazx

ditto

Couldn't agree more.

Hi Tom!

Well said. I am looking forward to downloading updates of the Standards FREE of charge then.

Regards.

:spoton:

Hi Tom, Your post makes a significant difference.  If as you say the admin charge includes access to new “added value” products and services such as free standards, guidelines and publications then it is a positive move. 

I think you should perhaps have communicated theses changes / benefits via the certification bodies who are notifying their clients of the price increase.

Thanks for the clarification.

Hi Simon,

No problem and our apologies if it wasn't as clear as it could have been,  We had asked the Certification Bodies not to communicate anything too soon so this is probably why they didn't inform their sites when they were notified of the fee increase.  Like I said any other questions, let us know.

Thanks,

Tom

Hi Tom

Maybe a bit Off Topic, but I recently emailed the BRC regarding the 5* certificate that the certification bodies strive for, so that I can demonstrate that the CB is competent to audit. How come you have a certification scheme for the CB's, but you don't issue a certificate? Would help us TM's a hell of a lot if we had something tangible to show.

Cheers

Caz x

Hi Caz,

We wouldn't classify it quite as a certification scheme for CBs, we have a set of KPIs that we asess them against every 6 months and then give them a score based on the outcome of those results.  We publish these on www.brcdirectory.com which we hope gives the required visibility.  If you want to send me the email again to enquiries@brcglobalstandards.com I can give you more of a detailed response.

Thanks,

Tom

 

That’s a whopping 20% uplift.  Anyone else getting this type of wage or price rise in their business? 

:roflmao: I think we all know the answer to that one...

I have had some communication with our certification body (LRQA) on this topic. Be aware that there has been an administration error and that the new fee is £185! So make that a 23.3% increase. We would be laughed at by most of our customers if we proposed the 0.3% increase, never mind 23.3.

My interpretation of the communication is that we will be paying for an on-line subscription service that will then allow FREE access!!

The wording of an email from BRC via LRQA included the following:

"This increase will allow the BRC Global Standards to continue to develop the business and grow the global market benefitting both the BRC and all certification bodies"

Yes, benefitting everyone but those that are paying for it. You couldn't make this stuff up. Ooops, they just did....

Hi Alister,

Just to clarify that you will be able to register on the system at no charge and download the Standard for free, there will then be an option if you want to upgrade your subscription then you can pay a fee which will give access to a number of other guidance documents.

Thanks,

Tom

Still doesn't get away from Simon's original point.

Let's assume a four year cycle on revision to the Standard. At current 'BRC inflation' rates, we will pay around £1100 in fees over four years.

For that, we get a Standard that will cost much less than £10 to print and 20 minutes admin time.

No real justification no matter what marketing lingo this is flowered up by.

Rant definitely over...

Just don't get me started on certification fees :lol2:

Hi Tom

Sorry for being a bit sceptical here, and excuse my ignorance,  but I do have a few points i'd like to make / have clarified.

• Regarding my post about certification and the lack of a certificate; can you explain how the 6 monthly approval scheme works? am I right in thinking that the CB supplies their KPI's, and based on this you agree if they are continued to be approved? or do you shadow them in an audit(s)
• As the Technical Manager, who is the lead in a BRC audit, the last thing I want to do when discussing Supplier Approval, is to go looking on a website for someone's approval status! I want tangible proof that my CB is approved. Why is it so difficult to issue a certificate? Even UKAS does that!
• So, I currently pay for my BRC and with this payment I can log onto the directory and download the standard for free? and I can also download other guidelines for free too? So for Version 7, we can have a "free" downloaded copy and not have to pay the "extra" £80 odd quid for the standard. Am I able to download the other relevant standards (BRC /IP or Storage) for free as well?

Thanks

Caz

Added Later: Another question, how does the BRC select their members of their working group? Apart from a few consultants, I don't see very many Small or Medium sized businesses involved. We're the ones who don't have multidiscipline technical teams, more often or not, we're the sole technical body on site!

Hi again,

Alister - your points are certainly noted and I will feed this into the team.

Caz - In response to your points:

• We treat our KPIs slightly differently to how you would with a supplier in so much as we do all of the assessment of them rather than them supplying the information to us.  This is based upon the vast amounts of data we have on the database, survey results, head office audits and witness audits of auditors.  From a data perspective we look at 5 general areas (which are broken down into more detail)

1. Quality of written audit reports based on a sample of audit reports.
2. Compliance to audit protocols (how audits are undertaken and reported)
3. Auditor registration and compliance relating to training, experience and competence requirements
4. Speed of upload of audit data to the BRC Directory
5. Certification Body communication with the BRC

          We then give them a star rating based upon the results.  Should the outcome be poor then we can suspend Certification Bodies and this is something we have done in the past.

• In terms of issuing a certificate, this is certainly something we could consider and I will speak to the Compliance team about it.  Our approach at the moment has been to have a centralised area for all CB approval ratings as it acts as a one-stop shop and allows us to update the database whenever we need to.  So for example if we find an issue with a CB we can immediately make a statement on the webiste whereas the certificate could still be in circulation.
• The registration won't be via the Directory but will be with another platform - but yes once you've registered you can download any of the 5 Standards for free.
• In terms of working group selection, it was mainly a mix of retailers, manufacturers (generally in the form of trade associations to allow for widest possible coverage), consultants, and CBs.  I do understand that there might not have been the best representation from smaller , medium suppliers directly but we hoped that by having trade association memebrship and by having a consultation period that we would have covered these aspects.

Any other questions let me know, but I am conscious of trying not to overtake this particluar thread.

Thanks,

Tom

Tom, 

I for one am impressed that you jumped in to answer our questions and participate in this discussion.  That is not easily said as I have not been a huge fan of the BRC.   First and foremost is having to pay for a standard.  Then when I pay the rather large sum for the book and materials I would have to photocopy to share with my team, or if I pay for the download am told it can only be printed once (heaven forbid the printer jams) and then it is off to the photocopier again.  While I understand protecting the material it makes it very frustrating and difficult to share with a team so right from the get-go it is made difficult.  Some of the standards to me are a bit too specific and overkill.  That being said, it also has places where it is more reasonable and thought out.  However, despite our complaints in other systems, SQF or FSSC have never jumped into the discussion to explain, clarify or acknowledge our concerns. 

As I started this, I am impressed and my opinion of BRC just rose considerably.   :thumbup:

That is not easily said as I have not been a huge fan of the BRC.   First and foremost is having to pay for a standard.  Then when I pay the rather large sum for the book...

And this is the exact reason I don't much like BRC and FSSC.  You pay to be audited and you pay for the standard (the regulations).  If you are an affected company of BRC/FSSC (such as a supplier or customer of a certified company) then you still have to pay for a copy of the standard.  I like SQF where you pay for the audit but the standard is free.

Why?

Because if I am picking up a supplier and they say "We are BRC certified." what does that mean to me?  All it means is that some certifying body said that they comply with a set of regulations that I can't read because I'm not paying for the standard.  If someone says "We are SQF certified" I can hop right on sqfi.com and download the standard and read it.

So if BRC is moving toward that model then I think it's a step forward for BRC.  What are these "other guidance" that you have to pay for then? Is it like all of the other documents that SQF give for free in their download section?  Transparency should be the most important thing in food safety auditing.  All of this "pay us to see what we have someone do" is counterintuitive in my opinion.

And this is the exact reason I don't much like BRC and FSSC.  You pay to be audited and you pay for the standard (the regulations).  If you are an affected company of BRC/FSSC (such as a supplier or customer of a certified company) then you still have to pay for a copy of the standard.  I like SQF where you pay for the audit but the standard is free.

 

Why?

 

Because if I am picking up a supplier and they say "We are BRC certified." what does that mean to me?  All it means is that some certifying body said that they comply with a set of regulations that I can't read because I'm not paying for the standard.  If someone says "We are SQF certified" I can hop right on sqfi.com and download the standard and read it.

 

So if BRC is moving toward that model then I think it's a step forward for BRC.  What are these "other guidance" that you have to pay for then? Is it like all of the other documents that SQF give for free in their download section?  Transparency should be the most important thing in food safety auditing.  All of this "pay us to see what we have someone do" is counterintuitive in my opinion.

Absolutely!!

Hi,

Snookie - thanks for your comments and I'm glad I've been able to improve the perception, I hope we're able to do this with as many members as possible!  We're happy to answer any questions you may have and do try to follow the discussions in these forums but obviously the sheer amount (which is great by the way) means we can't answer everything.  We also have an email inbox enquiries@brcglobalstandards.com which we monitor daily so if anybody has any specific questions feel free to come through to there.

Mr Incognito - thanks as well for your feedback.  I  agree that you shouldn't be paying for something that you have to do and so anything that is essential in sites meeting the requirements will be free e.g Standard, position statements, but we have developed a number of other guidance documents such as certain best practise guidance etc. that would be included as part of a subscription to the new BRCParticipate platform. 

We will be giving out more information on the platform over the coming weeks and there is in fact a webinar which can be regsitered for here

http://view6.workcas...il&utm_content=

Thanks,

Tom

Thanks Tom.

But now that you've posted I have to wonder how many people are going to be concerned about posting things on here with the knowledge that their standard is watching.

Let's say, for example, that I am under BRC certification and I'm having trouble with people properly documenting CCP's correctly.  You might be able to determine who I am and where I am by my overall amount of posts.  At some point I may say where I am and what industry I'm in... it wouldn't take much to cross reference everything and figure out what plant I'm in.  You could consider that a CCP deviation and when an auditor is coming they may ask for an extra amount of CCP sheets looking for what you know is present somewhere.

This could be troubling for IFSQN and it's members.

I'm not saying I don't think you should be here... but people might start to rethink posting questions.

Hi Mr Incognito,

That's a very good point and one I wanted to make in my previous post that we certainly don't want to be seen as a 'Big Brother' and stifle any conversation, after all everyone is entitled to an opinion.  In fact the only time we have ever commented on the forum is to clarify a point we feel may have been misunderstood or misinterpreted.  We won't be, and to be honest we don't have the time, to cross reference issues and investigate matters as you've suggested.  That's another reason why I would strongly recommend questions come to our email inbox that I outlined in the previous post and why I'm conscious of overtaking this thread and any others.

Hope that reassures you and any others that may have had the same view.

Thanks,

Tom

I think this could be quite a valid point.

In fact yesterday, I took a phone call from a associate of mine. I had sent him a document regarding a topic that I had posted on here about, so that I could gauge his feedback. Because he didn't quite understand the question  I was asking, he googled it, an came up with my post! He put 2 & 2 together then rang me to confirm! He had never head of the forum before, but I'm sure he will be signing up.

It goes to show that (the majority of us) are not truly anonymous, and that if you wanted to, we could be found.

To be honest, if the BRC can work out who I am etc, then so be it. If I think an auditor is being unfair in his scrutiny, then I will have no hesitation in contacting the CB & the BRC to discuss. And if it was something I had posted about on here, I would also direct them to this site

Caz x

IIt goes to show that (the majority of us) are not truly anonymous, and that if you wanted to, we could be found.

 

To be honest, if the BRC can work out who I am etc, then so be it. If I think an auditor is being unfair in his scrutiny, then I will have no hesitation in contacting the CB & the BRC to discuss. And if it was something I had posted about on here, I would also direct them to this site

 

Caz x

You mean we are not really anonymous....wasn't that the point of Mr. I being Incognito.... :roflmao:  :rofl2:. 

Seriously though I completely agree with taking auditor's to task when necessary. 

Mr Incognito I wouldn’t worry about anyone from the BRC or other standards tracking members, they really wouldn’t have the time or inclination.  The entire global food safety community lurk around the IFSQN forums including the standards holders; it’s how they get to hear the ‘word on the street’ about their standards.  They also get a lot of their ideas for improvements to current standards here and even ideas for new standards they hadn’t thought of. 

This topic started about BRC admin fees going up and has meandered to all sorts of BRC queries.  Not a problem, but it may be better to ask a separate question or as Tom says you can email them, although that could be a lot of duplication and not transparent.

An idea would be for each of the standards owners to host a public forum on here to connect with the IFSQN members; now that would be transparency.  Really the BRC forum here is for discussing the technical semantics of the various BRC standards and not really the admin side of the standards….but I did start this topic didn’t I. :smile: