This is the Minor NC: "Facility does not have testing program based on ISO/IEC 17025 for their analytical testing, product sampling, and environmental sampling. There is no proficiency testing for staff conducting analysis."
I want to do the proficiency testing on the pH, since it is our food safety parameter. Based on the SQF guidance, would it be accepted if I use an external lab with ISO 17025 certification that has pH in their scope and I send them a duplicate of a sample to test pH and I test the other duplicate for pH as well? I have to submit my corrective actions before November 4th and I'm struggling to find a lab that conducts proficiency testing before that date. (see PPS and also note the Standard's precise text)
In addition to that I have to adapt my sampling program to ISO 17025. We normally pull a sample from each batch produced plus 2 additional ones as retain, no matter what the size of the batch is. Where can I find a table or a procedure for sampling that can be accepted ?
Thank you again for all your help!
IMHO you are probably over-thinking this issue.
If the auditor's comment was in respect to your using an external laboratory, the comment IMO was not in accord with the Standard. Was it ??
Did you read the Guidance's sampling comments ? The Guidance material is not auditable but attempts to interpret/respond to the major intentions of the Standard's text. Unfortunately it, perhaps inevitably, tends to overkill the typical auditorial expectations (Note the caveat terms sprinkled within the text). I anticipate (SQF users are welcome to correct me) that the auditorially required sampling scheme is much simpler than you are now envisaging but nonetheless increased from yr current (insufficient IMO) procedure.
As per my previous comments - The Standard's text regarding "proficiency" is semantically questionable (see the links in post2). Also note the word "applicable". (Also, sadly, note the boo-boo in 1st line of Guidance Pg2).
SQF unfortunately have a track record in reluctance to correct their occasional mis-statements/semantic fallibilities. Their new, split, "Guidance" System seems to be accentuating these deficiencies.
PS - Haven't checked the Standard but I was under the impression that Labs which are ISO17025 accredited MUST have shown evidence of routinely carrying out Proficiency testing ?? (It's a fundamental activity IMO).