8 replies to this topic

[maylao123]

We are having upcoming SQF audit next week and the certificate of validation for our metal detector is going to be due this Friday. Unfortunately the only technician in our area was exposed to Covid-19 and got quarantined, not able to come and perform annual validation for us. So please advise what appropriate actions we can do. There is no other technician can do the validation in our area, unless our company will cover the travel expenses for technician from other province, however, it is not our fault and our Senior Management doesn't want to pay for it. Would a deviation report suffice? Do you think the audit would accept it? Please advise.

[pHruit]

"We don't want to pay for it" seems unfortunately unlikely as acceptable justification in isolation - you might want to not lead with that when discussing with the auditor

You may be able to construct a risk assessment/non-conformance to substantiate the position for a short while, in terms of the history of the machine, performance of the site (e.g. a large number of positive finds would suggest that the MD is very critical for your process, whereas very few would perhaps help demonstrate that other controls are working as intended), continuing successful checks with test pieces etc., particularly if you can get a confirmation of a booking for when the technician's quarantine period ends, so that your internal concession to operate slightly beyond the end of the existing validation period is for a defied amount of time, rather than open-ended.

I'm not overly familiar with SQF's expectations in this area, so hopefully some of the members who are will be along shortly to offer more specific suggestions, but this is roughly how I'd look at tackling it.

You could also use that to try to leverage senior management, along the lines of "we may be able to stretch this for two weeks (or whatever the quarantine period is in Canada) but beyond that we'd have to just pay the extra to get someone else". If they don't like it then they are of course free to see if they can negotiate a discount on the travel expenses from the provider

[adamperry2235]

I would think as long as you have a plan of action in place for the MD, then you should be able to talk to the auditor about it. Is the MD a CCP? That may require you to take a different approach with senior management and ask them how valuable the SQF Cert is. But, auditors are also human and understand the complications of the world right now...so I would go back on having a plan in place to get the detector validated as soon as the tech is available.

[Eric G]

Another option may be to look for other companies that can certify the metal detectors.  Although some auditors require it to be a technician from the company that manufactured the metal detector.  What province are you in and what brand are you using? 

[SQFconsultant]

I'd get a statement (document) from the the company the tech works for explaining why the tech can not come and do this, and get an invoice (document) for the tech work and pay it (show proof - document) - show all this to the Auditor.

 

Outside of that, I'd be setting up travel arrangements for the other technician.

 

Whatever happens, don't say or allow upper management to say anything about not wanting to speed some dollars, that's just bogus.

Edited by SQFconsultant, 08 October 2020 - 02:49 PM.

[maylao123]

Another option may be to look for other companies that can certify the metal detectors.  Although some auditors require it to be a technician from the company that manufactured the metal detector.  What province are you in and what brand are you using? 

We are using Sesotec. Thanks.

[maylao123]

I would think as long as you have a plan of action in place for the MD, then you should be able to talk to the auditor about it. Is the MD a CCP? That may require you to take a different approach with senior management and ask them how valuable the SQF Cert is. But, auditors are also human and understand the complications of the world right now...so I would go back on having a plan in place to get the detector validated as soon as the tech is available.

We take MD as Prerequisite Program. I am thinking issue a deviation record and keep monitoring the MD. Then rearrange with the tech as soon as the result comes back negative. How does it sound like?

[Charles.C]

We take MD as Prerequisite Program. I am thinking issue a deviation record and keep monitoring the MD. Then rearrange with the tech as soon as the result comes back negative. How does it sound like?

Might depend on the specifics but IMO you were fortunate to "get away" with a PRP in the first place. Nonetheless if SQF accepted that premise, it seems likely that a "palliative" approach for yr present difficulty should temporarily well suffice also if adequately documented/pleaded, eg Post 5.

 

Good Luck !

[Planck]

We take MD as Prerequisite Program. I am thinking issue a deviation record and keep monitoring the MD. Then rearrange with the tech as soon as the result comes back negative. How does it sound like?

Hello.

I am an MD technician. I see your "a deviation record and keep monitoring the MD" here, we are also doing something that may be almost exactly the same.

 

1, yes, it is very important to record the signal value of the product and the three metal test pieces.

Any wrong parameter settings, or anomalies in the internal hardware of the device, will almost certainly show up in the final signal value.

 

In other words, if these 4 signal values remain stable, the overall performance and parameter settings of MD are almost impossible to be abnormal.

 

Because there are many brands of MD, and the specific design details of each brand are different, I have no reason to say absolute, but in fact, MD itself works like this from the results.

 

The final result of MD of any brand is this, that is, the signal of the product must be distinguished from the signal of the three metal blocks.

 

 

2, The more important purpose of paying attention to the signal value is to truly keep MD stable in performance.

It must not be simply to see if the three metal test pieces are rejected.

I believe that many users will encounter this situation: sometimes the test piece is not detected, but it is always detected when tested again.

Imagine if that is really a metal contaminants.

 

One of our customers has had more than 260,000 consecutive successful tests for at least 3 years. We have posted records:

https://www.linkedin...506373632-Hh2a/

 

https://www.linkedin...971703808-aFqw/

 

https://www.linkedin...607249920-khqQ/

 

3, If we have this record, we can calculate a more reliable threshold ( It distinguishes between product signals and metal-containing signals. ) through a more scientific calculation method.

 

If you can provide data, I can calculate it for you here.

But we need no less than 200 data for each of the product and three metal test pieces, a total of no less than 800 data, and without changing any parameters!

 

FYI.