22 replies to this topic

[Quality_AF]

Hello everyone!  As someone who just finished out my first audit, I appreciate how helpful this forum has been!  Now I'm interested to know if my experience is typical.  

 

We were rushed to get this completed so I did not have time to select a CB or auditor; we went with the CB that got back to me and could work us in before the end of the year.  I was told beforehand the auditor was 'by the book' so I was as prepared as I could be.

 

The auditor interrupted me numerous times, not allowing me to adequately explain our documents, programs, etc.  There was a specific moment towards the end of day one that they interrupted me not 2 words into me answering the question.  They seemed overly agitated and at this point, I reached my nice limit and my demeanor changed too.  They later asked to see some supplier COAs which I was pulling up (they were all in the same PDF) when they interrupted me AGAIN and said 'that's not what I asked for'.  I snapped back that I was getting to it.  

 

They seemed to be working on other items (other business and personal).  They would ask a question, I would respond (sitting next to them so their screen was obvious) and they would finish whatever they were working on.  It felt like they were not even listening to me half of the time.  More on that later.

 

Day 2 was an improvement after day 1.  They seemed to be in a better mood and complimented us numerous times.  

 

We received a 'Good' rating; I would have thought based on the audit that we would 'Comply'.  They told us of 14 official findings but also told us a 27 that they were not listing as NCs.  Honestly, this does not help at my company.  

 

Their report is full of information that I'm not sure where it came from.  Several document titles and dates that are not correct.  Loads of information that I question its validity.  Is it common for auditor to use general terms for titles and policy/document names?  

 

I am hoping to get from feedback from this group before I send in the survey. 

 

I appreciate everyone's input!

[Brothbro]

No I would not say that the demeanor of that auditor was "typical", I can't say I've been interrupted consistently by an auditor before. If anything, a "good" (perhaps adversarial) auditing tactic is to let people talk because they often reveal more information than what was initially asked. Auditors are people too! It takes a certain type of person to chose that career path, and this comes with a range of personalities. Some are more amicable than others.

 

That said there's usually a lot of ground to cover during an audit. Some auditors may feel the pressure of the time crunch and try their best to just move things along as fast as possible. Brazenly working on personal/unrelated business during an audit isn't very professional though. In my experience auditors have always said something like "Sorry but I really need to answer this" before taking care of something quickly, because they do get lots of time sensitive work.

 

If some of your documented NCs are due to incorrect information on your report I think you're within your lane to bring that issue up with the CB to get it corrected. I think SQF has a specific process for filing these concerns but I'm not experienced in that area with SQF so perhaps someone else will speak into that. It's also kind of typical (perhaps unfortunately so) that auditors "leave off" some NCs from the report and just have you make a note of them unofficially. Sometimes this is helpful and sometime it's not.

 

Would you have had a better auditing experience if you had more time to search out a CB? It's hard to say, but probably not. The issues you've had with this audit sound like they're related to the auditor's style/personality, not to the SQF system itself. It's just luck of the draw with who your auditor will be. Next year you'll likely have a different auditor and it'll be a different experience.

Edited by Brothbro, 26 November 2024 - 08:31 PM.

[AltonBrownFanClub]

Not typical, in my experience. 

 

As Brothbro says, you can report this to SQF, and I certainly would if I was in your shoes.

I've had good luck arguing findings that auditors were incorrect about.

You can scan documents to show that the auditor was not accurate and that the report does not reflect you or your company fairly.

 

At the end of the day, SQF is hired to provide a service to you.

The auditor is not helping you improve by not paying attention and misreporting their findings.

You probably won't see them again, but reporting it may prevent ONE OF US from seeing this auditor in the future.

Edited by AltonBrownFanClub, 26 November 2024 - 08:40 PM.

[Quality_AF]

I should clarify that I do not disagree with any of the NCs.  I disagree with some information in the final certification report.  

 

I am hesitant to call out the CB until I see how this is resolved.

[Scampi]

odds are the auditor will NOT fix anything and you will have to go to the CB and/or SQF directly 

 

Sounds like the auditor is power hungry and you paid the price

 

If the audit report isn't 100% accurate, it throws into question how accurate the auditor themselves is, and performing other work on your companies $$ is unacceptable

 

What you have done though, is highlight what a crap shoot this entire process is and that it is NOT the silver bullet lots of folks believe it to be 

[jfrey123]

My SQF auditors are very specific when referring to our documents, often quoting the name, version and date of a document they reviewed.  If your auditor wasn't, now there's a he-said/she-said scenario where if you complain, the auditor can state their notes are accurate and anything you're presenting after the fact isn't what they were shown.  Sounds like they were a jerk, and while you've passed, perhaps it should've been with a better score.

 

As for the interrupting, I've seen auditors do this to my old clients when the client knew their SOP was weak.  Client tries to talk through the process rather than letting an auditor see the SOP for themselves, and some auditors are wise to the trick.  I've had clients play games, auditors saw through the game and it peed the auditor off.  I'm not saying this was the case for your company, it sounds like you had your ducks in a row, but it's something to be keenly aware of as auditors are human and therefore inherently flawed beings as well.  As you get more audits under your belt, you'll learn to spot when an auditor just wants to be shown the SOP and read it uninterrupted; Then you'll see when an auditor does want you to verbally explain the whole thing and likes to talk more than read.

[jfrey123]

What you have done though, is highlight what a crap shoot this entire process is and that it is NOT the silver bullet lots of folks believe it to be 

 

I'm going to use this to vent here for a moment:  My procurement team is screaming at me to re-authorize a supplier who had their Primus Packinghouse cert get suspended back in August.  Re-audit just happened, they scored a 93% initially and got it raised to a 99% (which to me is SUS as HELL, I hate how Primus lets them change the score based on CA's).  Anyway, 99%, should be good, right?  Not to me when their new NC's after getting a certificate suspended included things like not monitoring their wash water for a vegetable we want to buy.  Their CA's include statements like "we didn't recognize the risk of not monitoring wash water, we have created a new SOP for it."  They got their cert pulled, and before a recert audit didn't think they needed an SOP to monitor wash water?!?!  WTF?!

 

And then, to boot, their QA manager submitted a photo holding the new PAA test strips they're going to use, and she's wearing PAINTED FALSE NAILS IN THE GOD DAMNED PHOTO.  And the auditor changed the score on that NC from a 0/10 to a 10/10.  I'm questioning my sanity after recently moving into my company's supplier approval role.

 

Sorry for the thread jack OP.  Your experience was unfortunate, but congrats on passing your first SQF audit!

[Brothbro]

she's wearing PAINTED FALSE NAILS IN THE GOD DAMNED PHOTO. 

 

I shouldn't laugh but I did, It's the little clues like that that make you wonder about everything else that could be going on there. Definitely understand your concern in this story.

[kingstudruler1]

The 27 other NCs that were not doucmented....   With the 14 that were....... 

 

You were not suppose to pass.   (if anyone believes that the audit is accurate given the other info)

 

Like Scampi eluded to -  the process is a joke.  

[Setanta]

41 findings out of 270 questions? That seems completely skewed. 

[nwilson]

Were the 27 NC's more of general observations?  Similar to the old OIP's they used to issue for improvement back in the SQF Edition 7 and before days.  

 

Personally I would review all missed/incorrect information in the report, summarize and send this off to the CB or even schedule a call with them.  Especially if things reported didn't match up to your documented FSMS.  As already stated this shows a lack of cadence and thoroughness toward the collection of information by the auditor. 

 

Basically you would be helping out anyone else who has to go through an audit with this auditor at minimum by explaining your experience with the CB.  Kill the CB with some kindness so that you are not directly pointing a finger at them, more providing information on someone they hired or contracted.  You paid for the service you should be getting a solid result.  

[SQFconsultant]

"I am hesitant to call out the CB until I see how this is resolved."

 

-----

 

Nope, I'd hit this and hit it hard right now..

 

1. Contact to the CB explaining situation and asking for a resolution..

 

2. same time,, copy to SQFI as it sounds like there may be a compliance issue and SQFI jumps on that kind of stuff.

 

Now, having been an SQF Auditor I can say that having that many issues just might cause a bit of agitation with any Auditor and having to listen to someone explain their doc system can cause an Auditor to start playing tic tac toe on their computer.

 

was this an actual audit or a gap?

 

That was a lot of issues for a 1st audit, leading to belief that your company was not prepared for the audit and that aggravates auditors something fierce.

[Quality_AF]

Were the 27 NC's more of general observations?  Similar to the old OIP's they used to issue for improvement back in the SQF Edition 7 and before days.  

 

Personally I would review all missed/incorrect information in the report, summarize and send this off to the CB or even schedule a call with them.  Especially if things reported didn't match up to your documented FSMS.  As already stated this shows a lack of cadence and thoroughness toward the collection of information by the auditor. 

 

Basically you would be helping out anyone else who has to go through an audit with this auditor at minimum by explaining your experience with the CB.  Kill the CB with some kindness so that you are not directly pointing a finger at them, more providing information on someone they hired or contracted.  You paid for the service you should be getting a solid result.  

 

Now that the process is over, it is apparent the 27 NCs were more of general observations; but that's not how he presented them in our closing meeting.  

[Quality_AF]

"I am hesitant to call out the CB until I see how this is resolved."

 

-----

 

Nope, I'd hit this and hit it hard right now..

 

1. Contact to the CB explaining situation and asking for a resolution..

 

2. same time,, copy to SQFI as it sounds like there may be a compliance issue and SQFI jumps on that kind of stuff.

 

Now, having been an SQF Auditor I can say that having that many issues just might cause a bit of agitation with any Auditor and having to listen to someone explain their doc system can cause an Auditor to start playing tic tac toe on their computer.

 

was this an actual audit or a gap?

 

That was a lot of issues for a 1st audit, leading to belief that your company was not prepared for the audit and that aggravates auditors something fierce.

 

This was an actual audit.  My company was as prepared as they could be with the information available for SQF; it's often confusing and there is no place to get clarification besides these forums.  For instance: Allergen Management is not listed as mandatory in the Code.  However, it is on the checklist which is what my auditor insisted they go by.  Requesting exemptions is not clearly laid out in the Code (it really only discusses exempt products).  

 

The auditor was sure to tell us how many degrees they had, that they are on the technical board for the Code, and that they 'choose' which audits they will do.  He could have declined this initial certification.  

 

I know my company is not perfect, but if the auditor saw as many issues as they claimed, why did we get a 'good' rating and not 'complies'?  (It would have served us better to comply)  The 27 'other' findings were more nitpicking.  For instance: they called out our Food Fraud Mitigation Plan that was built around an assessment from FSNS because they didn't think it looked at suppliers enough.  This was when they rudely interrupted me on day one.  I was showing them the assessment we used and I guess they didn't want to hear what I had to say.  I have to be able to explain it if there are questions and I cannot do that if they don't allow me to.  Ultimately, I think their questions about suppliers stem from one of our ingredients.  Instead of learning our processes to fully understand, they formed an immediate opinion that we were not doing it right.  They obviously formed an opinion early on and nothing I did was going to change that.

[SQFconsultant]

doc audits less the physical plant audit part are not graded.

 

the SQF Practitioner can get a gig.

 

27 for general observations is incredibly over the top, meaning the facility was not prepared for the audit and frankly while the Auditor might have been agitated he/she sounded like they are very very fair.

 

Sounds like the company should have popped for a consultant - there is a lot of support needed here that was not built into the front end.

 

Frankly, I'd cancel the audit and prepare better and then have another audit - companies have done this before, it happens, sometimes things with Auditors and company personnel clash especially in situations like this.

 

Anyway, that's my general observation from being a long time SQF Consultant and Auditor and part time shrink.

Edited by SQFconsultant, 27 November 2024 - 05:18 PM.

[jfrey123]

This was an actual audit.  My company was as prepared as they could be with the information available for SQF; it's often confusing and there is no place to get clarification besides these forums.  For instance: Allergen Management is not listed as mandatory in the Code.  However, it is on the checklist which is what my auditor insisted they go by.  Requesting exemptions is not clearly laid out in the Code (it really only discusses exempt products).  

 

Sounds like a case where you and the auditor truly just didn't get along.  It's unfortunate but does happen, we're all human.  We once had to contest a critical finding (and won), but told the gal "no hard feelings, we simply disagree on the severity."  Luckily she was cool and didn't feel insulted, and she ended up continuing to audit our other facilities months later with no issue.

 

As to where you say SQF is confusing, I try to understand better.  Are you sure you're referring to SQF Code 9?

20227fmin_foodmanufacturing_v3-2-final-w-links.pdf

 

-Allergen Management 2.8.1 has a clear (Mandatory) note next to it.  It's also listed in Part A 4.2 in the Mandatory Clauses table.

 

-On exemptions, I'll give you the Part A 3.1 "exemption" language is a bit confusing, as you're right it discusses products and processes almost exclusively.  What you may have been wanting was Part A 4.1/4.2 for the "Applicable Elements" and "Mandatory Clauses."  I'm usually pretty good about telling an auditor what parts of non-mandatory code are up front in the opening meeting, but auditors have also accepted us stating it mid-audit to let them know the part doesn't apply (such as when I forgot to specifically tell an auditor 'cold storage' codes don't apply in my old ambient facilities, he just marked N/A and moved on). 

 

For parts that are mandatory but don't apply to us, we still had to develop a program that stated as much, but it gave a chance for us to define why it didn't affect our facility and what we would do if needed.  An example was in my first spice facility: we didn't handle allergens.  We still had an allergen program defining the allergens, that we wouldn't accept any into our facility, that we weren't currently handling allergens.  It also stated should the facility change scope and handle allergens, we would develop processes to comply with FDA regulations and SQF code.  Having this "placeholder" document was sufficient to address how the allergen risk affected our business at that time.  While you cannot exempt yourself from mandatory code items, risk analysis and placeholders in your SOP book are the workaround when necessary.

Edited by jfrey123, 27 November 2024 - 05:26 PM.

[Quality_AF]

doc audits less the physical plant audit part are not graded.

 

the SQF Practitioner can get a gig.

 

27 for general observations is incredibly over the top, meaning the facility was not prepared for the audit and frankly while the Auditor might have been agitated he/she sounded like they are very very fair.

 

Sounds like the company should have popped for a consultant - there is a lot of support needed here that was not built into the front end.

 

Frankly, I'd cancel the audit and prepare better and then have another audit - companies have done this before, it happens, sometimes things with Auditors and company personnel clash especially in situations like this.

 

Anyway, that's my general observation from being a long time SQF Consultant and Auditor and part time shrink.

I'm not denying we were not prepared; I did what I could with what I had.  We hired a consultant in early 2020 and it was apparent we only learned so much from that consultant.

 

There is no reason to cancel now - the audit is complete, except for one NC that needed an extension.

 

My main concern with this thread was if the auditor's behavior was typical and what to do about the false document names and dates in the report.  

[kingstudruler1]

Sounds like a case where you and the auditor truly just didn't get along.  It's unfortunate but does happen, we're all human.  We once had to contest a critical finding (and won), but told the gal "no hard feelings, we simply disagree on the severity."  Luckily she was cool and didn't feel insulted, and she ended up continuing to audit our other facilities months later with no issue.

 

As to where you say SQF is confusing, I try to understand better.  Are you sure you're referring to SQF Code 9?

20227fmin_foodmanufacturing_v3-2-final-w-links.pdf

 

-Allergen Management 2.8.1 has a clear (Mandatory) note next to it.  It's also listed in Part A 4.2 in the Mandatory Clauses table.

 

-On exemptions, I'll give you the Part A 3.1 "exemption" language is a bit confusing, as you're right it discusses products and processes almost exclusively.  What you may have been wanting was Part A 4.1/4.2 for the "Applicable Elements" and "Mandatory Clauses."  I'm usually pretty good about telling an auditor what parts of non-mandatory code are up front in the opening meeting, but auditors have also accepted us stating it mid-audit to let them know the part doesn't apply (such as when I forgot to specifically tell an auditor 'cold storage' codes don't apply in my old ambient facilities, he just marked N/A and moved on). 

 

For parts that are mandatory but don't apply to us, we still had to develop a program that stated as much, but it gave a chance for us to define why it didn't affect our facility and what we would do if needed.  An example was in my first spice facility: we didn't handle allergens.  We still had an allergen program defining the allergens, that we wouldn't accept any into our facility, that we weren't currently handling allergens.  It also stated should the facility change scope and handle allergens, we would develop processes to comply with FDA regulations and SQF code.  Having this "placeholder" document was sufficient to address how the allergen risk affected our business at that time.  While you cannot exempt yourself from mandatory code items, risk analysis and placeholders in your SOP book are the workaround when necessary.

I believe from his/her other posts, they are using the pet food standard.   

 

https://www.sqfi.com...fvrsn=cf357a8_5

[Quality_AF]

Sounds like a case where you and the auditor truly just didn't get along.  It's unfortunate but does happen, we're all human.  We once had to contest a critical finding (and won), but told the gal "no hard feelings, we simply disagree on the severity."  Luckily she was cool and didn't feel insulted, and she ended up continuing to audit our other facilities months later with no issue.

 

As to where you say SQF is confusing, I try to understand better.  Are you sure you're referring to SQF Code 9?

20227fmin_foodmanufacturing_v3-2-final-w-links.pdf

 

-Allergen Management 2.8.1 has a clear (Mandatory) note next to it.  It's also listed in Part A 4.2 in the Mandatory Clauses table.

 

-On exemptions, I'll give you the Part A 3.1 "exemption" language is a bit confusing, as you're right it discusses products and processes almost exclusively.  What you may have been wanting was Part A 4.1/4.2 for the "Applicable Elements" and "Mandatory Clauses."  I'm usually pretty good about telling an auditor what parts of non-mandatory code are up front in the opening meeting, but auditors have also accepted us stating it mid-audit to let them know the part doesn't apply (such as when I forgot to specifically tell an auditor 'cold storage' codes don't apply in my old ambient facilities, he just marked N/A and moved on). 

 

For parts that are mandatory but don't apply to us, we still had to develop a program that stated as much, but it gave a chance for us to define why it didn't affect our facility and what we would do if needed.  An example was in my first spice facility: we didn't handle allergens.  We still had an allergen program defining the allergens, that we wouldn't accept any into our facility, that we weren't currently handling allergens.  It also stated should the facility change scope and handle allergens, we would develop processes to comply with FDA regulations and SQF code.  Having this "placeholder" document was sufficient to address how the allergen risk affected our business at that time.  While you cannot exempt yourself from mandatory code items, risk analysis and placeholders in your SOP book are the workaround when necessary.

 

I forgot to mention the FSC code - it's 32 for Pet Food Manufacturing.  The Code and checklist do not match for Allergen Management.  

Edited by Quality_AF, 27 November 2024 - 05:54 PM.

[Lynx42]

Was the auditor's name Eric???  This sounds like just like a nightmare (thankfully not graded) 3rd party customer audit I was subjected to last year.  Constant interruptions and more than once said "That's NOT what I asked for!" when it was literally exactly what he asked for.  Based on his reaction to everything you'd have thought we were total failures, but only had 7 minor non-conformances.  Really??? 

[Quality_AF]

Was the auditor's name Eric???  This sounds like just like a nightmare (thankfully not graded) 3rd party customer audit I was subjected to last year.  Constant interruptions and more than once said "That's NOT what I asked for!" when it was literally exactly what he asked for.  Based on his reaction to everything you'd have thought we were total failures, but only had 7 minor non-conformances.  Really??? 

 

No but it sounds like we had similar experiences!

[Bo16]

Best advice I ever got:  Be quiet, only answer questions when asked. With that said, I have never had that experience.  Usually the only complaint I have is when an auditor is and "expert" on one topic and they pick it to death.  Example Pest Control:  I had an auditor insist that the PCO did not fill a bait box (one of many at our plant as he opened most of them) even though there was evidence of bait on top of the box and it had rained the day before.  We luckily have cameras and were able to prove the bait was filled.......  Sometimes squirrels are small enough to remove the bait   

[G M]

Hello everyone!  As someone who just finished out my first audit, I appreciate how helpful this forum has been!  Now I'm interested to know if my experience is typical.  

...

Their report is full of information that I'm not sure where it came from.  Several document titles and dates that are not correct.  Loads of information that I question its validity.  Is it common for auditor to use general terms for titles and policy/document names?  

 

I am hoping to get from feedback from this group before I send in the survey. 

 

I appreciate everyone's input!

 

 

To the main point, no, auditors are not normally that adversarial or rude.  Some of it is probably just human personality.

 

The report being full of factual inaccuracies is a problem, if they're citing document titles and dates that are wrong.  If it were just a description and not a proper noun it would be less problematic.  Some of the reporting process involves writing a lot of text, and I'm left wondering if this auditor is just copy-pasting someone else's report and changing a few details to count it as your audit.

 

 

When you're saying there were 14 official findings, and 27 more not listed as NCs, how many were actually listed as NCs (minor, major etc.)?