Jump to content

  • Quick Navigation
Photo
- - - - -

SQF Code 2.4.5 (as well as 2.3.2) - is it applicable for 3PL warehouse


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

#1 agasr

agasr

    Grade - AIFSQN

  • IFSQN Associate
  • 37 posts
  • 9 thanks
2
Neutral

  • United States
    United States

Posted 30 January 2016 - 12:24 AM

The way I read the code, it is more for a Manufacturing facility or Co-man/Co-pack faciltiy than a 3PL warehouse that does not carry out any such operation. 

 

If the 3PL just receives closed, packaged products, simply store and ship them, this would not be applicable.

 

Is the interpretation correct? 

 

Please advise, if you have another point of view. 

 

Regards, 

agasr

 

PS: 3PL stands for third party Logistics warehouse. 



#2 SQFconsultant

SQFconsultant

    SQFconsultant

  • IFSQN Fellow
  • 3,089 posts
  • 788 thanks
652
Excellent

  • United States
    United States
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Truth is like a delicious slice of watermelon... you just want more and more!

Posted 31 January 2016 - 02:28 AM

Both 2.4.5 and 2.3.2 apply to 3PL operations. Take a close look at both as they cover services, etc as well. If not using a consultant, review your SQF guidance docs.

Glenn Oster


Kind regards,

 

Glenn Oster
 
GOC GROUP / +1.772.646.4115 / Food - Food Packaging - Food Storage/DC

SQF, BRC & IFS System Development, Implementation & Certification Consultants

Serving Small-to-Mid-Size Businesses | Now accepting: BTC, XRP, ETH, DAI, USDCoin & LTC

Internal Auditor Training | eConsultant | FSVP | United States - Panama - Costa Rica

http://www.GlennOsterConsulting.com  -- 

 

 

Please consider making a donation to Oster Missions. We are collecting monies to 

assist a recently widowed American citizen residing in Panama who just lost her husband.

Please see the GOC NEWS SECTION of our main page for Card and Crypto-Donations

Oster Missions is a 501c3 US Registered Charity Organization.

http://www.glennosterconsulting.com

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Thanked by 1 Member:

#3 agasr

agasr

    Grade - AIFSQN

  • IFSQN Associate
  • 37 posts
  • 9 thanks
2
Neutral

  • United States
    United States

Posted 01 February 2016 - 06:33 PM

Thanks for your comments, while i see your point. We have addressed the services part under Contract Service Providers clause 2.3.3 which is quite valid for 

But as far as the 2.3.2 goes that doesn't translate as its mainly for RMPM and 2.4.5 seems like Supplier Approval program for RMPM and other material that could impact Final Product if its not managed well. 

 

Going by those, it does not quite apply to a 3PL operation in my personal opinion and even if we need to document something, it will not quite add any value to us or our customer. Hence wondering. 

 

Appreciate your thoughts. 

 

 

Both 2.4.5 and 2.3.2 apply to 3PL operations. Take a close look at both as they cover services, etc as well. If not using a consultant, review your SQF guidance docs.

Glenn Oster



#4 CMHeywood

CMHeywood

    Grade - SIFSQN

  • IFSQN Senior
  • 452 posts
  • 114 thanks
37
Excellent

  • United States
    United States
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Neenah, Wisconsin

Posted 03 February 2016 - 05:31 PM

My opinion:  if the warehouse does not add any packing material or other product processing, then it is a service provide which falls under 2.4.5



#5 Sweet_Lew

Sweet_Lew

    Grade - Active

  • IFSQN Associate
  • 17 posts
  • 8 thanks
3
Neutral

  • United States
    United States
  • Gender:Male

Posted 18 February 2016 - 05:21 PM

In my opinion there are elements of 2.3.2 and 2.4.5 which can be used to improve your processes. Depending on the auditor you may receive a CA for not addressing these or you may only receive an OP. Never the let addressing these elements will do two things 1. Give the auditor a warm and fuzzy feeling that you as a 3PL whom maybe a very low risk facility from a food safety standpoint have taken the time to developed system which address every element of code. 2. Give your customer's that same warm and fuzzy feeling, either way I don't see any issue with addressing these elements. At the very least do a risk assessment which will explain your feeling of these elements not applying. Heck by doing that you have address these elements, again this is my opinion and how I would approach this. 



Thanked by 1 Member:

#6 agasr

agasr

    Grade - AIFSQN

  • IFSQN Associate
  • 37 posts
  • 9 thanks
2
Neutral

  • United States
    United States

Posted 23 February 2016 - 09:05 PM

Thanks to all your responses. Much appreciated!!

 

Regards, 






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

EV SSL Certificate