Need Input and Examples (templates would be great) for SQF 2.5...
We are having a bit of grappling problem here. We've had 15 successful audits in a row for SQF and not one of the Auditors has not passed the documentation created for section 2.5 of SQF Code Level II specifically:
· 2.5.1 Responsibility, Frequency and Methods
· 2.5.2 Validation & Effectiveness
· 2.5.3 Verification Schedule
· 2.5.4 Verification of Monitoring Activities
· 2.5.5 Corrective and Preventative Action
· 2.5.6 Product Sampling, Inspection and Analysis
Now we just had an auditor say that all of the 2.5 documentation is unacceptable but will not share as to why.
Folks, I'm looking for examples of these programs, etc for section 2.5 - if you have some examples, attachements, etc please let me know as we need to ascertain what may need to be changed in order to satisfy one auditor, wherein the problem may actually be in that the company did not challenge the auditor but has decided to make the auditor happy... gee never heard that before.
Thank you.
Hi SQFC,
Surely an auditor is obliged to inform the reason(s) for any nonconformances ? (I don't understand how you can make corrections without knowing the (perceived) defect).
It might be more efficient to post the (apparently) offending material here for comments ?
Hi Charles, Thanks for your response.
I was able to pick here and there thru previous postings for what was needed, there really is a wealth of stuff here.
We have been seeing more and more Auditors doing things (and not just SQF Auditors) that defy logic in many ways and it puts the facility personnel in the position of having to challenge a finding (and in several cases now multiple findings) and most will not do so and accept the outcome of the audit. I'm of the school that if the auditor is wrong, miss-calls something or flat out attempts a god-like attitude that one must challenge them and before they leave the facility.
The issue here was that it was during a pre-audit and the Auditor stated that if the documents remained the same it would e major finding on the audit -- however, he didn't mention why and apparently would not come up with a reason which like you I agree that the auditor is obligated to clarify, having been an SQF Auditor that is what I did. It is just wrong to call something and then go silent expecting a corrective action because now the facility is afraid of the auditor coming in and doing a major finding.
Hopefully the new workup with schedules will satisfy the auditor on the desk audit, if not there is that spread of time to work on it again between then and the certification audit and this time he might actually come up with a reason or pass on it, which should be the later.
Thank you again - always quite helpful Charles.
Hi SQFC,
Glad you sorted it out.
I deduce the issue was probably not 100% black or white. Those are always the tricky ones.
It is obvious that in many older threads here, regardless of their own opinion, auditees simply followed/made corrective actions based on their inference of the auditor's own viewpoint (where extractable).
It's an understandable Path of Least Resistance but may initiate a cycle of activities depending on the particular auditor.
IMO, the first line of defence is a stock of Validations. :smile:
Reading through this, how much opinion is included in an audit that shouldn't be there? I realize everything is open for interpretation but if you are able to justify your position to an auditor should they not concede their own opinion for your interpretation? If something is wrong then it is wrong. But if there is a disagreement over opinion and you can back it up then everything should be fine.
Example: My auditor didn't like the format of MY manual. He found it to be disorganized for him. But I am not catering to him, I am working for my company and doing things the way we feel necessary here. Just because he came in for 2 days and looked at it doesn't mean that it doesn't work for us. I took his advice and changed a few of the things, but I questioned him about a set standard for organization. He couldn't give me an answer.
As always, thank you for your inputs. This site is amazing.