Hi,

Just came accross a situation brought up by a friend of mine, that I would like to share with you guys.
My friend's company in Malaysia was recently audited by a well known local ceritification body. What amused all of us was the report that was written by the auditor (so called competent lead auditor).
I do not know how the IRCA or any other organization monitors or evaluates an auditor's competency.
The auditor's English was really bad and he has made many grammatical errors in the report. I wonder if the accreditation bodies ever read reports generated by auditors.
Furthermore, the nonconformances and observations raised do not actually reflect standard's requirements. Talk about "competent lead auditor"!!!

Worst of all, we can't even understand few of the things written about the nonconformances and observations. The nonconformances were not specific, too generic and few of them looks more like opinions from the auditor. IS this how auditors write their NCs and observations? Sometimes, I feel like giving their manager a call about this thing. pity my friend. getting NCs and observations which are not clear, and still have to reply with the corrective actions.

I do not know how the IRCA or any other organization monitors or evaluates an auditor's competency.
The auditor's English was really bad and he has made many grammatical errors in the report. I wonder if the accreditation bodies ever read reports generated by auditors.
Furthermore, the nonconformances and observations raised do not actually reflect standard's requirements. Talk about "competent lead auditor"!!!It is unlikely that the Accreditation Bodies would read reports, looking for poor grammar or other types of mistakes like the one you describe. But now that "your friend" realized that the audit report and the nonconformities are questionable, s/he should go back to the certification body and point the fact. Actually, if nonconformances are not justified, s/he should appeal and have them dismissed. Failure to do so does not help the registrar in correcting the situation. Without feedback, the registrar might think that your "friend" is happy with their services.

Worst of all, we can't even understand few of the things written about the nonconformances and observations. The nonconformances were not specific, too generic and few of them looks more like opinions from the auditor. IS this how auditors write their NCs and observations? Sometimes, I feel like giving their manager a call about this thing. pity my friend. getting NCs and observations which are not clear, and still have to reply with the corrective actions.
The first corrective action your friend should seek should be with the registrar. If your portrayal of the situation is accurate, your friend's company should not accept the results until they are accurate, legible, comprehensible, and cite objective evidence that the auditee's quality system doesn't meet the requirements.

Sidney, do you have folks working in Singapore? :lol:


Seriously now, this does seem to be one of those situations that should be addressed by the client back to the CB. If the agreed to language of the assessment is English then the assessor has got to be able to use the language in a fluent manner to include writing.

The first corrective action your friend should seek should be with the registrar. If your portrayal of the situation is accurate, your friend's company should not accept the results until they are accurate, legible, comprehensible, and cite objective evidence that the auditee's quality system doesn't meet the requirements.

And.....notify the registrar that they will not pay the invoice until resolved.

While we are clearly past the third party audit, and the registrars auditor has gone to do his damage elswhere, the real problem lies at the door of the audited party. Every audit report, and every non-conformace notification I have ever seen has a provision for being signed by the auditor and by the company's representative at the time of the audit. The auditor signs to say that this is his (her) opinion based on the requirement and the observed facts. The company signs to say they understand and accept the findings as presented. Some pre-audit training for the company's staff and management seems overdue.
Complaining after the event is likely to be a lost cause when you are a party to the problem.