Yesterday during a follow up audit on five NC's written on our contract review process, we found the action to prevent was ineffective in all five NC's. We have struggled with our contract review process since becoming ISO 9001:2000 certified in 1998.
I fear we have over complicated our contract review process as we have 5 pages of work instructions including a decision tree and still we can not pass an audit without a non conformance.
Does anyone have any ideas on how to simplify this process and still conform to the standard?

Welcome to The Cove! :bigwave:

It's difficult to advise how to simplify something when I do not know waht about it is made complicated.

Too many people asked to review and approve the same thing on too may levels?

People being asked to review and approve tape?

Happening over and over on the same products?

It might also help to learn what you are making, and if you do design.

In addition, if you told us what the writeups said it would give better background to use for deciding how to respond.

Jennifer is right - without knowing the "complications" how can the diagnosis be done ?

Btw, we have several posts on Contract Review and would be worthwhile for you to have a look HERE (http://elsmar.com/Forums/fileslist.php?mode=allfiles&sortby=filename&pageamt=2&criteria=contract+review)

Hi gcauditor,

I have moved your question to the ISO 9001 section to draw focussed responses.

I just finished reading all the forum posts on contract review.
The NC's we are dealing with presently are:
A customer PO included the statement " order receipt must be confirmed within two days" It was not so therefore we did not meet our customers requirments according to our contract review procedure.
We have written our procedure to include an initial review comparing the PO with the ERP customer card. Then another review with the PO against the Sales order acknowledgement. Two our the CAR's (not sure why the administrator let two go consecutively) were written because the ship to addresses on both order acknowledgements did not EXACTLY match the ship to address on the customers purchase order. The address was sufficient enough for the product to make it to the customer.
A customer PO referenced a rev number and when asked our design engineer had no clue what the rev number meant. He explained he thought it was the customers rev number and did not mean anything to our design. Finding because we should have questioned the meaning of the rev number.

These are just examples of some of the areas of concern.

We manufacture a complete line of laboratory shaker, rotators, heating mantles and design and manufacture custom (modifications make them custom) of the above.

Why not just sit down with all parties involved in the process and do a process map. Understanding how the current process operates will allow you to compare it to what is required by the standard and your external customers.

Make sure you involve the internal customers, the ones that receive the output from the review process. The review process must also address their needs and once you understand the process rewrite your procedure.

Remember that the contract review process contains four elements (think contract law here if that helps) which must be part of the process.

1) The customer states what they want from you.
2) You determine what you can supply to them (does not have to meet all the customers wants)
3) Meeting of the minds (negotiation of their wants Vs what you can supply) must occur between the two of you.
4) Your acceptance or rejection of their order is then based on the negotiations.

Customers, God bless their little hearts, will ask for the sun, the moon and the stars as part of the purchase order but your company must also make a profit and has it own needs. It is your organizations job to use negotiation to strike the best deal possible with the customer.

We do plan to speak with all parties and once again compare how they are doing contract review with how we "say" they are doing it.
Thanks

We do plan to speak with all parties and once again compare how they are doing contract review with how we "say" they are doing it.
Thanks

Perhaps you may consider determining what is the best process that can be effective for your company to use as part of your speaking with all parties. Additionally, you might want to determine that all personnel are competent to participate in Contract Review Process as defined.

Speaking only from my own experience and NOT ex cathedra, we used a multidiscipline approach to Contract Review.



Engineers and operators commented on our capability to perform (did we have technical ability to produce according to requirements?)
Managers and accounting commented on our capacity to perform (did we have the resources and open machine time without impacting current business?)
Purchasing commented on whether we could obtain materials within a specified lead time (a BIG consideration when dealing with exotic alloys.)
Quality people commented on whether we had expertise and instruments to inspect to meet requirements
Managers checked on capacity and capability of prospective customer to pay us (some prospects had bad reputations as PIAs to do business with and we often declined a contract for such a reason.)
We investigated "WHY?" a customer might be switching suppliers.
We offered concurrent engineering to find a more efficient design or method of manufacture to deliver required form, fit, function.
We only agreed to contracts (for custom made goods) where we and the customer approached the transaction as "partners" versus the master/slave relationship many here in the Cove are familiar with.
When we were satisfied we were close to a deal, we charted ALL the requirements on a grid and made arrangements to meet or exceed each one, from delivery date and price to lot size and labeling and everything in between. When the contract was agreed, that "performance grid" became part of the traveler and no goods left our dock unless and until the grid was complete.

The sticky part is getting everyone to work as a team and eliminating the silos which plague so many organizations. I always found Deming's System of Profound Knowledge (SoPK) to be key in creating and maintaining a cohesive team.