I audited a company's contract review (CR) function to ISO9001 and AS. I could not find records of CR on big contracts with Boeing or USAir. I expected to find a one-page Contract Review form signed by affected Departments Managers.

I was told that they received the bid request and they send the proposal back. If Boeing sends a contract back to the company with no changes and if the president of this company signs the contract, it is evidence of records of contract review. It is because the company President would not sign anything without having his staff check it out.

I asked if there were evidence that the affect departments reviewed the contract. The answer was- there is no requirement in the std to show that.

I asked if this method of satisfying the CR record requirement is documented? The answer was- There is no requirement to document it. They are showing evidence of CR by the signature of the President.

This is how I look at it. 7.2.2 requires records of contract review. If the company decides to use the signature of the President on the final contract as the record, it needs to be documented somewhere. Otherwise, using the signature alone as record of CR does not meet the intent of the standard.

What do you think?

I audited a company's contract review (CR) function to ISO9001 and AS. I could not find records of CR on big contracts with Boeing or USAir. I expected to find a one-page Contract Review form signed by affected Departments Managers.

I was told that they received the bid request and they send the proposal back. If Boeing sends a contract back to the company with no changes and if the president of this company signs the contract, it is evidence of records of contract review. It is because the company President would not sign anything without having his staff check it out.

I asked if there were evidence that the affect departments reviewed the contract. The answer was- there is no requirement in the std to show that.

I asked if this method of satisfying the CR record requirement is documented? The answer was- There is no requirement to document it. They are showing evidence of CR by the signature of the President.

This is how I look at it. 7.2.2 requires records of contract review. If the company decides to use the signature of the President on the final contract as the record, it needs to be documented somewhere. Otherwise, using the signature alone as record of CR does not meet the intent of the standard.

What do you think?
I think that if it was a one-man shop, the question wouldn't arise. I, personally, espouse multi-function contract review boards, but the buck stops at the door of the top manager, who can overrule everyone. If he is satisfied with the sufficiency of the review, so be it!

The intent of the Standard is for the parties to the contract to assure themselves of the sufficiency of the capability and capacity of themselves AND the other party to complete the contract according to the terms and conditions of the contract. Is any company President in his right mind going to take a lot of time to question the capability and capacity of Boeing to fulfill its part? Who is going to question the President's understanding of his own company's capability and capacity?

Wes, as always, you speak wisdom. I do have a question, though.

I have never espouse to a "check the box" approach to quality systems. However, a standard is a standard.

Shouldn't the customer at least provide some methodology to assure a contract has been reviewed. I mean, a spreadsheet or something saying, "yep", on this date, I looked at WVT contract, and signed it.

Too, contracts should be reviewed on the front-end, and back-end to assure the contract was completed, etc.

So this small company doesn't keep any copies of contracts? They just willy-nilly sign/ approve them, without keeping something for their records? I was a one-man shop, but you can bet the bank I reviewed contracts forwards and backwards, and always demonstrated review by me and my customer on it.

So did I miss something in your explanation? Because I do believe this shop, however big or small, should be able to demonstrate that contracts are reviewed.

I'm thinking that the majority of the review is in the proposal phase. Sure, if a customer goes with the proposal, then the multi-disciplinary review has been done, but some record of the fact that the customer's acceptance didn't change anything, is required. So just have them sign off on to indicate that (cursory) look over actually occured.

I audited a company's contract review (CR) function to ISO9001 and AS. I could not find records of CR on big contracts with Boeing or USAir. I expected to find a one-page Contract Review form signed by affected Departments Managers.

I was told that they received the bid request and they send the proposal back. If Boeing sends a contract back to the company with no changes and if the president of this company signs the contract, it is evidence of records of contract review. It is because the company President would not sign anything without having his staff check it out.

I asked if there were evidence that the affect departments reviewed the contract. The answer was- there is no requirement in the std to show that.

I asked if this method of satisfying the CR record requirement is documented? The answer was- There is no requirement to document it. They are showing evidence of CR by the signature of the President.

This is how I look at it. 7.2.2 requires records of contract review. If the company decides to use the signature of the President on the final contract as the record, it needs to be documented somewhere. Otherwise, using the signature alone as record of CR does not meet the intent of the standard.

What do you think?

Wes, as always, you speak wisdom. I do have a question, though.

I have never espouse to a "check the box" approach to quality systems. However, a standard is a standard.

Shouldn't the customer at least provide some methodology to assure a contract has been reviewed. I mean, a spreadsheet or something saying, "yep", on this date, I looked at WVT contract, and signed it.

Too, contracts should be reviewed on the front-end, and back-end to assure the contract was completed, etc.

So this small company doesn't keep any copies of contracts? They just willy-nilly sign/ approve them, without keeping something for their records? I was a one-man shop, but you can bet the bank I reviewed contracts forwards and backwards, and always demonstrated review by me and my customer on it.

So did I miss something in your explanation? Because I do believe this shop, however big or small, should be able to demonstrate that contracts are reviewed.When you ask about keeping contracts (doesn't keep any copies of contracts?) do you suppose they throw them away? The company probably keeps the contract/purchase order for billing purposes as well as for keeping track of production. In any regard, the specifics of Contract Review are different under different circumstances. If I make off-the-shelf goods and I get an order for 10,000 pieces, what more contract review do I need than to see if I have it on the shelf or have to produce more?

The company's reply is:
1) The president won't make the proposal until he has assured himself of the company's capability and capacity to fulfill a contract if Boeing agrees to the proposal. He is content with Boeing's ability to pay if they order.

2) Purchase order or proposal comes back with no changes - no more review is necessary.

3) Our record is the signed and countersigned (by the customer) proposal, evidenced by the purchase order (we are allowed to infer countersignature of the proposal if we get a purchase order exactly according to the terms of our proposal.)

On a personal note: I'm as obsessive as anyone when it comes to dotting i's and crossing t's. Yet, I had some customers who would call up and say, "Make me ten thousand pieces just like part number xyz, except make the length 2.500 inches instead of 2.250 inches. Redline a drawing of xyz with what you need, call it "xyz alternate 2.5" and I'll sign off on it."

Both customer and I had enough history that we could trust each other to perform according to this verbal contract. Note, especially, there was no query of cost - customer expected I would charge the same rate as xyz plus my actual costs and markup for making the change.

Ultimately, we both reduced the contract to paper - redline, inspection criteria, etc., including a projected delivery date once I knew our machine availability (could we suspend a running project long enough to make this short run or would we be delayed a week or so in starting until we had sufficiently surplus built up on another order to squeeze in a short run order?)

In our mind, contract review of an order like this did NOT require a formal meeting and capacity could be resolved by one person looking at the software which showed status of all running projects plus a quick verbal check with an operator to assure the machine was running smoothly and did not need unscheduled maintenance (the glorious value of regular preventive maintenance!) We already knew we were capable of making a nearly identical part. The documentation of review (by one person - equivalent to the President of the subject) and acceptance would be the issuance and countersign of the redline version of the part. I recall one instance where we manufactured 50,000 parts over 2 years based on a redline and never did receive an official release of the revision.

(In fairness, I did ALWAYS include a copy of the redline with every shipment to forestall any incoming inspection drone who pulled the previous version for inspection purposes.)

I guess the only real "final review" is when the customer accepts and pays for the goods and there is no "do over" requested.

When you ask about keeping contracts (doesn't keep any copies of contracts?) do you suppose they throw them away? The company probably keeps the contract/purchase order for billing purposes as well as for keeping track of production. In any regard, the specifics of Contract Review are different under different circumstances. If I make off-the-shelf goods and I get an order for 10,000 pieces, what more contract review do I need than to see if I have it on the shelf or have to produce more?

The company's reply is:
1) The president won't make the proposal until he has assured himself of the company's capability and capacity to fulfill a contract if Boeing agrees to the proposal. He is content with Boeing's ability to pay if they order.

2) Purchase order or proposal comes back with no changes - no more review is necessary.

3) Our record is the signed and countersigned (by the customer) proposal, evidenced by the purchase order (we are allowed to infer countersignature of the proposal if we get a purchase order exactly according to the terms of our proposal.)

On a personal note: I'm as obsessive as anyone when it comes to dotting i's and crossing t's. Yet, I had some customers who would call up and say, "Make me ten thousand pieces just like part number xyz, except make the length 2.500 inches instead of 2.250 inches. Redline a drawing of xyz with what you need, call it "xyz alternate 2.5" and I'll sign off on it."

Both customer and I had enough history that we could trust each other to perform according to this verbal contract. Note, especially, there was no query of cost - customer expected I would charge the same rate as xyz plus my actual costs and markup for making the change.

Ultimately, we both reduced the contract to paper - redline, inspection criteria, etc., including a projected delivery date once I knew our machine availability (could we suspend a running project long enough to make this short run or would we be delayed a week or so in starting until we had sufficiently surplus built up on another order to squeeze in a short run order?)

In our mind, contract review of an order like this did NOT require a formal meeting and capacity could be resolved by one person looking at the software which showed status of all running projects plus a quick verbal check with an operator to assure the machine was running smoothly and did not need unscheduled maintenance (the glorious value of regular preventive maintenance!) We already knew we were capable of making a nearly identical part. The documentation of review (by one person - equivalent to the President of the subject) and acceptance would be the issuance and countersign of the redline version of the part. I recall one instance where we manufactured 50,000 parts over 2 years based on a redline and never did receive an official release of the revision.

(In fairness, I did ALWAYS include a copy of the redline with every shipment to forestall any incoming inspection drone who pulled the previous version for inspection purposes.)

I guess the only real "final review" is when the customer accepts and pays for the goods and there is no "do over" requested.


This is a FAA repair station. The missing contract review records are blanket contracts from airlines sending different parts for overhaul and repair and test and certification. This company needs to review if they have the testing capability, certified technicians, tooling, capacity ... for the different types of parts. The review probably affected all levels department managers. The contract review Operating procedure does not mention about these big contracts. It only covers the jobs that come in everyday for repair. They consider the POs "contracts" and they are processing about 50 to 70 "contract reviews" per their OP. When I questioned why the OP does not cover the big contract review, the answer was - there is no requirement to cover it, but we are doing it. The record is the signature by the president. IMO the signature does not meet the contract review record requirement. If this process is documented in their contract review OP, then it may be acceptable, because now there is a link. Without this link, the singature is not tied to the contract review record. It simply says the the company agrees to the terms and conditions of the contract and that's it.

I tried to write it up as a minor nonconformance, but the Lead Auditor and the Manager of the registrar did not think that there is a nonconformance. That's why I bring this up for clarification. Thanks.

Without reading some of the longer posts above, my thoughts are that in terms of ISO9001 compliance the record of contract review being the presidents signature is OK. Record of review need only be endorsement that the review has been done and the order accepted, it need not detail all the decision making processes, etc, etc in the record.

If the contract were complex however, on the basis of this contract review recording method I would tend to then audit deeper to see that requirements of the contract were being met or translated into working documents, if not I could then suggest that the contract review process were inadequate rather than arguing the toss over the record of contract review - a much more powerful audit finding.

Without reading some of the longer posts above, my thoughts are that in terms of ISO9001 compliance the record of contract review being the presidents signature is OK. Record of review need only be endorsement that the review has been done and the order accepted, it need not detail all the decision making processes, etc, etc in the record.



I have to agree here. If their process states that the president will review, and the evidence of his review is his sign-off, they have met the requirement of the standard.

Now - if there are requirements above and beyond the ISO9K2K, that may be a different story - but as far as I can tell - your question was related to this standard.

I have to agree here. If their process states that the president will review, and the evidence of his review is his sign-off, they have met the requirement of the standard.

Now - if there are requirements above and beyond the ISO9K2K, that may be a different story - but as far as I can tell - your question was related to this standard.

There are no processes in their Contract Review operating procedures stating that the President's signature on the final contract certify that a complete contract review was done. In fact the OP does not even cover these big contracts. It only cover the parts coming in everyday. They consider reviewing the POs from the airlines "Contract Review".

My question is- can the President'ssignature on the final contract enough to show that there is record of contract review on these mult million long term contracts

Wes, excellent as always. Good stuff in there..

I concur with Carol and M Greenway, and their posts.

Does that answer your query?

My question is- can the President'ssignature on the final contract enough to show that there is record of contract review on these mult million long term contracts

Yes - but as I stated earlier - my response only covers 9K2K - I do not know about AS standard.

Look at it from legal standpoint a signature on a contract is evidence of acceptance. The intent of ISO9001 is that someone has reviewed the contract for feasibility, but there is no clarification on what that method needs to be, hence, it meets ISO requirements. If you find that the contract review process is not effective, i.e., contracts are not met as a fault of contract review then you have a finding. If they cannot product the actual records of a contract with the presidents signature you may have mulitple findings.

Look at it from legal standpoint a signature on a contract is evidence of acceptance. The intent of ISO9001 is that someone has reviewed the contract for feasibility, but there is no clarification on what that method needs to be, hence, it meets ISO requirements. If you find that the contract review process is not effective, i.e., contracts are not met as a fault of contract review then you have a finding. If they cannot product the actual records of a contract with the presidents signature you may have mulitple findings.

Yes, the signature of the final contract is the evidence of acceptance of the contract, but can it be used to show evidence of contract review?

Correct, there is no requirement on the method used to show records of contract review. I accept the following- email meeting notice, email from the president asking for input before signing ..... There were nothing except a signature on the final contract, which the company claimed was adequate. If their Operating Procedure says that's the way we conduct contract review, that would have been OK.

How do you find evidence that the contract review process is not effective in the limited time during the audit of this function? One way could be looking at the reject rates of parts coming back from USAIR back to this FAA repair station. The rate could be the result of a lot of things- training, test equipment, test spec, material... I only have limited time to look at the contract review function and one of the records most auditors look for is contract review record. The signature on the final contract with USAIR does not offer adequate objective evidence that the company had the contract reviewed by all departments affected and that's the intent of this ISO/AS requirement, IMO.

You have all the facts and detail. If you were the auditor, would you issue a nonconformance? I did, but the Lead auditor, the regional manager of the registrar and the owner of the President of this Registrar disagreed and took it off.

I have to agree here. If their process states that the president will review, and the evidence of his review is his sign-off, they have met the requirement of the standard.

Now - if there are requirements above and beyond the ISO9K2K, that may be a different story - but as far as I can tell - your question was related to this standard.

What process? there is no process in their Cntract Rview Operating Procedure that covers these multi-million $ blanket contracts. It only cover the repair orders coming in everyday. They consider the reviewing the POs contract review.

Yes, my question is related to ISO and AS, and in this case it is about the same.

I audited a company's contract review (CR) function to ISO9001 and AS. I could not find records of CR on big contracts with Boeing or USAir. I expected to find a one-page Contract Review form signed by affected Departments Managers.

I was told that they received the bid request and they send the proposal back. If Boeing sends a contract back to the company with no changes and if the president of this company signs the contract, it is evidence of records of contract review. It is because the company President would not sign anything without having his staff check it out.

I asked if there were evidence that the affect departments reviewed the contract. The answer was- there is no requirement in the std to show that.

I asked if this method of satisfying the CR record requirement is documented? The answer was- There is no requirement to document it. They are showing evidence of CR by the signature of the President.

This is how I look at it. 7.2.2 requires records of contract review. If the company decides to use the signature of the President on the final contract as the record, it needs to be documented somewhere. Otherwise, using the signature alone as record of CR does not meet the intent of the standard.

What do you think?

It's an interesting question. For the sake of clarity and for those who might not have immediate access to the standard, here is 7.2.2, in part:
The organization shall review the requirements related to the product. This review shall be conducted prior to the organizations' commitment to supply a product to the customer (e.g. submission of tenders, acceptance of contracts or orders, acceptance of changes to contracts or orders) and shall ensure that
(a) product requirements are defined,
(b) contract or order requirements differing from those previously expressed are resolved and
(c) the organization has the ability to meet the defined requirements.

Records of the review and actions arising from the review shall be maintained (see 4.2.4). The question at hand is, "Can a management person's signature on a contract satisfy the "shall" with regard to maintaining records of contract review?"

Maybe. If there is system documentation that states explicitly that the signature is applied only after the requirements in 7.2.2 have been met, and there have been no changes to the contract as originally tendered for which records were kept, then the signature might suffice. I'm not sure at all though, whether implied consent is a valid answer to a "shall." If it were, all kinds of doors would be open to allow weaseling out of requirements. I would be particularly suspicious if I could find no records at all of any sort of contract amendments or questioning of "the organization's" ability to meet the requirements.

If this strategy meets the letter of the standard, I don't think it meets the intent, by any stretch, especially given that top managers are, in my experience, likely to accept work first and then try to figure out how to get it done. As far as an audit NC is concerned, I would want to review the records (if there are any) more closely before determining whether 7.2.2 has been met or not.

Yes - but as I stated earlier - my response only covers 9K2K - I do not know about AS standard.

First of all, their Contract Review Operating Procedure does not even cover the review of these big contracts. It does not say that the signature of the final contract will serve as records of contract review.

ISO and AS is about the same as far as the requirements on records on contract review.

If you think that it is acceptable, we shouldn't even have to bother asking for record of contract review, because there is always a signature on most of the final contracts.

What you are saying is :
Signature on final contract = record of contract review (or serve as, even if it is not called out anywhere)

What you are saying is :
Signature on final contract = record of contract review (or serve as, even if it is not called out anywhere)

Where is the "shall" for having it "called out" somewhere? The standard does not require a written procedure for this operation, only records.

FWIW - our contract review consists of inside sales entering the order, verification of the current rev, pricing, delivery, special requirements. Evidence of the review (i.e. record), is the printed sales order. No signature required.

OK - so lets get back to the begining - you are performing an audit - you have a requirement in the standard - are they failing to meet the standard?

You said
I asked if there were evidence that the affect departments reviewed the contract. The answer was- there is no requirement in the std to show that.
and they are right - there is no requirement- hence no audit finding.

Where is the "shall" for having it "called out" somewhere? The standard does not require a written procedure for this operation, only records.

But the standard does call for records of specific actions or events, and I don't see how a signature addresses this, especially if it's not explicitly stated in the system documentation that implied consent is evidence of contract review. Absent a specific declaration to the contrary, a signature is only evidence that the contract has been agreed to, regardless of what anyone says. If verbal assurances that contract review had taken place were considered sufficient, the standard wouldn't be demanding evidence (records) of it.

FWIW - our contract review consists of inside sales entering the order, verification of the current rev, pricing, delivery, special requirements. Evidence of the review (i.e. record), is the printed sales order. No signature required.

You refer to "special requirements," but are the drawing and related specifications reviewed to determine whether there are errors or ambiguities? Is a review for the presence of necessary tools and gages done?

OK - so lets get back to the begining - you are performing an audit - you have a requirement in the standard - are they failing to meet the standard?

You said

and they are right - there is no requirement- hence no audit finding.

There are requirements for records of specific activities to be maintained. If those activities have taken place, but there is no record of them other than implied consent, then my opinion is that there are no records, and a finding is in order.

But the standard does call for records of specific actions or events, and I don't see how a signature addresses this, especially if it's not explicitly stated in the system documentation that implied consent is evidence of contract review. Absent a specific declaration to the contrary, a signature is only evidence that the contract has been agreed to, regardless of what anyone says. If verbal assurances that contract review had taken place were considered sufficient, the standard wouldn't be demanding evidence (records) of it.



You refer to "special requirements," but are the drawing and related specifications reviewed to determine whether there are errors or ambiguities? Is a review for the presence of necessary tools and gages done?



There are requirements for records of specific activities to be maintained. If those activities have taken place, but there is no record of them other than implied consent, then my opinion is that there are no records, and a finding is in order.

I wrote it up as a minor nonconformance. The Manager of the registrar I worked for disagreed and the owner of the registrar disagreed. It was removed from the list of findings.

I wrote it up as a minor nonconformance. The Manager of the registrar I worked for disagreed and the owner of the registrar disagreed. It was removed from the list of findings.

I think worthy legitimate discussion can, and has, ensued as to whether this may be labeled as an observation or a minor. However, I'm not sure how I feel about people riding in and just removing your findings. If they did, I think they should provide some feedback/information to you regarding this action. Understand, I'm not there. There may be things that none of us can see, and facts that maybe even escape you at the moment. Yet, these facts should be displayed to you, where you can learn and improve as an auditor.

Yes, I know, welcome to life. But there is scarcely anything more demotivating than someone asking you to do a job, then second-guessing/redoing virtually everything you come up with.

It's an interesting question. For the sake of clarity and for those who might not have immediate access to the standard, here is 7.2.2, in part:
The question at hand is, "Can a management person's signature on a contract satisfy the "shall" with regard to maintaining records of contract review?"

Maybe. If there is system documentation that states explicitly that the signature is applied only after the requirements in 7.2.2 have been met, and there have been no changes to the contract as originally tendered for which records were kept, then the signature might suffice. I'm not sure at all though, whether implied consent is a valid answer to a "shall." If it were, all kinds of doors would be open to allow weaseling out of requirements. I would be particularly suspicious if I could find no records at all of any sort of contract amendments or questioning of "the organization's" ability to meet the requirements.

If this strategy meets the letter of the standard, I don't think it meets the intent, by any stretch, especially given that top managers are, in my experience, likely to accept work first and then try to figure out how to get it done. As far as an audit NC is concerned, I would want to review the records (if there are any) more closely before determining whether 7.2.2 has been met or not.

I have performed second party audits of repair stations when I was QM of an aerospace firm. My own experience of the TOP executives at these facilities is they are intimately familiar with capability and capacity and don't make commitments they can't keep. When dealing with commercial aircraft, the cardinal sin is to have a POG (plane on ground) one minute longer than absolutely necessary. Repair stations which make time completion commitments which are broken soon find the customers few and far between. (failure to meet a time commitment can be due to many factors, but most are controllable (spare parts, adequate supplies and tools, adequate staffing with competent, efficient personnel, sufficient hangar space, etc.))

I have performed second party audits of repair stations when I was QM of an aerospace firm. My own experience of the TOP executives at these facilities is they are intimately familiar with capability and capacity and don't make commitments they can't keep.

I wasn't aware until now that you were a quality manager. All I can say is that my experience is different, but then again I have no experience in business dedicated strictly to aerospace work. I still find it difficult to believe that there are aerospace jobshop owners who don't accept work before doing contract review.

When dealing with commercial aircraft, the cardinal sin is to have a POG (plane on ground) one minute longer than absolutely necessary. Repair stations which make time completion commitments which are broken soon find the customers few and far between. (failure to meet a time commitment can be due to many factors, but most are controllable (spare parts, adequate supplies and tools, adequate staffing with competent, efficient personnel, sufficient hangar space, etc.))

I understand, but even given the idea that time (and commitment to schedules) is of the essence, it's still possible for bad things to happen if conscientious contract review isn't done. I seriously doubt, for example, that top executives who are intimately familiar with capacity and timing issues take the time to review each drawing and set of specifications in detail, or check with material suppliers to get firm availability commitments, etc. Even if they do, the standard clearly states that there must be records kept of those activities, and as I stated earlier, implied consent runs counter to the intent of the standard, imo.

I'll also add that the reason that there are contract review requirements in the standard is that historically there is a tendency for companies to accept contracts and review them later, with the exception of the fiscal details, of course. In my youthful days as a mechanical inspector, I can't tell you how many times I was faced with drawings or other specifications that made no sense, which should have been dealt with much further upstream.

Here's the deal - an FAA-certified repair station MUST adhere first to the FAA regulations BEFORE the AS Standard.FAA says they shall not accept work they are not rated for.(b) A certificated repair station may not maintain or alter any article for which it is not rated, and may not maintain or alter any article for which it is rated if it requires special technical data, equipment, or facilities that are not available to it.

Here's the deal - an FAA-certified repair station MUST adhere first to the FAA regulations BEFORE the AS Standard.FAA says they shall not accept work they are not rated for.

So you agree then? It appears that contract review is even more important in such a case, and hence records of contract review comprised of something other than someone's signature would be indicated.

So you agree then? It appears that contract review is even more important in such a case, and hence records of contract review comprised of something other than someone's signature would be indicated.Nope - I don't agree. What I say is, especially in the case of FAA-certified repair stations, I challenge you to find an instance where ANY such station, AS registered or not, accepts work for which it is neither qualified nor capable nor for which it has no capacity to perform.

The point is: the top officer of such an organization DOES know his organization's capability and capacity and does not shoot from the hip in proposing or accepting a contract.

Nope - I don't agree. What I say is, especially in the case of FAA-certified repair stations, I challenge you to find an instance where ANY such station, AS registered or not, accepts work for which it is neither qualified nor capable nor for which it has no capacity to perform.

The point is: the top officer of such an organization DOES know his organization's capability and capacity and does not shoot from the hip in proposing or accepting a contract.

These are big blanket contracts and may increase the volume of business 10 to 25%. There are penalty clauses for late delivery because airlines do not want to keep their jets on the ground waiting for a part for the landing gear. Capacity planning is important and it affects most departments for a small FAA repair station. It is so easy to meet this record requirement and they choose to ignore it, thinking that it is OK.

Many ‘Technoprenuers’ (technical people turned entrepreneurs) over here know their work at their finger tips and don’t really need a formal contract review as pointed out by Wes.

When I ask some of these friends whether they look forward for somebody to take over this responsibility one day and when that day arrives, whether he would like to have some formal review process or to carry on as what he does now, the answer is always – ‘I prefer to have a documented process’. Here, I concur with Jim and would prefer a formal review process (something more than meeting the basic requirement of the standard). Through experience, I see it as a ‘good’ business practice.

Many ‘Technoprenuers’ (technical people turned entrepreneurs) over here know their work at their finger tips and don’t really need a formal contract review as pointed out by Wes.

When I ask some of these friends whether they look forward for somebody to take over this responsibility one day and when that day arrives, whether he would like to have some formal review process or to carry on as what he does now, the answer is always – ‘I prefer to have a documented process’. Here, I concur with Jim and would prefer a formal review process (something more than meeting the basic requirement of the standard). Through experience, I see it as a ‘good’ business practice.Excellent point, Harry! The question is simply - "Is it necessary, or just 'nice to have'?"

Excellent point, Harry! The question is simply - "Is it necessary, or just 'nice to have'?"

I have no problem with the idea of informality in very small businesses. Of course, some level of formality becomes necessary when registration to a standard is considered, but it's still not the same as in a large company. My whole point was (in light of the OP) that the standard calls for records of contract review for very good reasons, and not only from the point of view of the customer. In situations where product liability is concerned, it's of the utmost importance to be able to demonstrate due diligence in documentary form. A plaintiff's lawyer would like nothing more than to see no tangible evidence of contract review when something has blown up. In such a situation, trying to convince a jury that someone's signature is an acceptable surrogate for a conscientious, documented process is absurd.

To me its simple, the argument about only a signature, or lack of signature, or what the record of contract review is, all obviously alludes to the suggestion that the contract review process is either effective or ineffective.

I would say that if the only way you determine this at audit is by looking at the size of the recorded contract review in comparison to the contract, e.g. 20 pages of meeting minutes for a multi-million pound contract, then you are taking as huge an assumption as the conclusion that the signature only by the president was not good enough.

I say dont get hung up on the record, audit the actual transformation of contract requirements throughout the organisations processes - that is the true audit of contract review, yes it does take time and can often be beyond the technical competence of the auditor, however there is no other way of effectively auditing contract review in my opinion.

Hi buddies!!!!

It had been a nice experience to go through the friendly debate all along the thread. I want to share my expirence with you all.

While auditing the contract review process of this automobile company, I encountered an objective evidence where the contract review process was not signed by their customer. The order was for a part with minute change in dimension and high value. Upon questioning , the marketing manager had intimated me that as the customer representative looking after contract review process was out of country with his team...and the responsibility was not delegated to any of his subordinates. So a telephonic contract review had been carried out and a minutes of contract review was prepared and documented.

I could smell rats in his claim..but could not raise a NC as there is no mention of the signature of customer in the standard . Moreover, he supported his claim with a valley of repeat order P.O's.

Please give your opinion in this regard as the repeat orders might be due to no competionon this part from others

cheers:cool:

Arindam

Being in a business where contracts are our bread and butter (i.e. we pay the bills with the long term contracts and make profit on the rest), CR is very simple to address (we deal with large government agencies or quasi government agencies). Our President and Operations Manager sign a "approval" page to all contracts (after the lawyers say it is ok after all).

In most cases, the contract review "meat and potatoes" took place by the customer during the RFP process (i.e. pricing, demos, prototypes, drawing approvals, storage requirements, delivery requirements, etc.). The contract is merely a formalization of everything discussed during the RFP process.

We actually created a 2 procedures: one for RFP outlining the minimum signatory requirements noted above, a second for subsequent orders that come from the contract (doesnt require president or operations manager signature). It works great and ensures we have proper review at each stage (contract or sales order level).

After 10 years (and 3 systems), I have learned many things; but, one thing for sure is that I cannot let my "preferences" get in the way of better ways of doing something better.